Greetings and apologies if this arrives twice,
Not necessarily Platt. At times it may well be moral to lie. For example, if a lynch mob knock at
your door and ask if the black man they are chasing has come your way. 'No,' you answer, as he
cowers under your kitchen table. Thus I reject your claim that it is better to tell the truth than
lie. It may be and often is better to tell the truth, but one cannot claim this to be a categorical
imperative.
PLATT:
"To deny there’s a “human behavior” moral element in
an exchange of philosophical ideas is to deny the obvious. From that you
cannot logically escape any more than you can escape from making moral
choices (value judgments) in order to stay alive."
Whoever denied that? Of course there is a moral element in the exchange of philosophical ideas. This
has no bearing on my refutation of your claim that, "The assumption that they cannot deny is the
moral value of truth." There is no logical contingent relationship between human behaviour and
truth. That the sea is composed mainly of H2O is true regardless of human behaviour, therefore truth
does not necessarily have moral value, even if, in some cases, it does have moral value.
William Inge? Interesting that I cut a paragraph in my previous answer to you which requested that
you simply be honest and admit you believe in God, for Quality is God by another name. From my
perspective, I have no objection to the consistency of Inge's position only its inference. This is
the standard Christian Platonist position which is very popular on my side of the pond; it
emphasises an all powerful creator God. As I have said before; if one starts from the assumption of
God then, logically, one can forward this type of argument without fear of rational contradiction.
(empirical contradiction perhaps) What you were trying to do is show that the moral value of truth
is a logical position from which it is impossible to escape. All I was doing was showing this to be
nonsense. So, no, I don't think Inge's position is foolish. He reiterates what many philosophers
said before him and since. Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Aquinas, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel (arguably),
Bradley, Murdoch, etc, etc, all postulated a transcendent world of values as the greatest good. I
have no problem with that at all.
You are right, my Copenhagen comment was flippant. I do find it infuriating that anyone should have
such an empty and simplistic caricature of science (and even art), which doesn't see it as a search
for beauty and truth. Almost every (possibly without exception) scientist and artist has been driven
precisely by the pursuit of beauty and truth, has realised it and has been open about it. As an
educator in ethics and philosophy, I find it difficult to believe that these are not precisely the
values that every single educator ever has tried to instil in his or her students. To claim that
this is a cutting edge, enlightened metaphysical position with Pirsig striding out in the fore-front
is simply ludicrous. Both our respective cultures are based upon 2000 years of Christianity and that
is what a Christian life is all about. Inge would agree, I am sure. But it isn't just Christians.
Read almost any book by a prominent scientist or science writer (not academic text books because
that isn't their function) and you will see that mystery, awe, wonder and the pursuit of beauty and
truth are their motivations for what they do. To deny this is to profoundly insult humanity and that
is far more immoral than anything I have said.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:44 BST