GLENN:
The resolution to this conflict requires another moral decision, for
which the MOQ gives no guidance. The most difficult moral issues
of our time, like abortion and gun control, exhibit this very conflict.
And we're right back where we started.
PH:
No guidance? Seems to me that "Lila" is full of moral guidance,
based on Pirsig's theory of an evolutionary moral hierarchy which
explains in rational (rather than emotional) terms why, for
example, it's better to kill a germ than a scientist. Abortion and
gun control issues are more complex to be sure, but the rational
framework is there for those who care to pursue it.
GLENN:
Maybe you missed my point. Whenever there is a moral issue between the
intellectual and social level, the evolutionary moral hierarchy says
to side with intellect. However, if siding with the intellect undermines
the social level to the detriment of the intellectual level, you should
side with the social. Depending on the issue, there may be compelling
arguments for either course. What guidance does MOQ provide for this
predicament? None.
ED:
The guidance, as I see it, is a judgment as to which choice will be more
dynamic, the one that potentiates further or greater evolution. I doubt we
will ever be able to confidently make such decisions in all situations, but
the guidance is assisted from knowing where we are headed. More on this
below.
GLENN:
You don't need MOQ to decide the "germ" example. It's not a
controversial moral problem. He's stacking the MOQ deck with trivial
examples as existence proofs for his moral hierarchy. Try a harder one
and you'll find it's not like "doing math" or "connecting dots" as
folks around here are fond of saying.
ED:
That trivial examples work provides at least some basic credence to the MOQ
framework. The MOQ does need to be tested with more complex issues. Similar
to Goldbach's conjecture that says, "every even integer is the sum of two
numbers that are either primes or 1." It works well for simple examples like
12 = 5 + 7 = 1 + 11. Yet we aren't sure the conjecture works for extremely
large numbers, it hasn't been proved. But for all the numbers checked so far
it has worked.
Rationally, Goldbach's conjecture is either proveable for all integers or
not. If it is not proveable (which is not to say it was proved false), the
conjecture may still hold. In this case it would take a leap of faith to
trust it with extremely large untested numbers.
Curiously, the author of the text I took this example from wrote, "The
numerical data suggesting the truth of Goldbach's conjecture is
overwhelming. ... Although this supports the feeling that Goldbach was
correct in his conjecture, it is far from a mathematical proof, and all
attempts to prove it have been completely unsuccessful." Note the word
"feeling." Here we are in the rational rigor of mathematical patterns and
find that mathematicians, without proof, rely upon their "feelings," or
intuition, or a sense of Quality for direction.
Although the MOQ's moral hierarchy can provide a rational basis for making
moral decisions, it does not reside purely in the rational realm. One can
place a moral decision within the MOQ structure and crank out an answer,
just like "doing math." However, during this process, when the value
decisions are very close there will indeed need to be leaps of faith in
order to proceed. How are these leaps of faith directed? Or, what directs
them? I don't believe it is from rational thought, although the rational
framework appears necessary. I think it comes from our intuition, our sense
of Quality.
For example, Pirsig suggested choosing the activity that is more dynamic, at
a higher level of evolution. In this context we can assess the morality of
abortion in a specific situation. If the mother's life is endangered, does
she have the right to choose? At first what comes for me is that the
mother's life is at a higher level of evolution. I can't prove this, and
various perspectives quickly come to mind. (One being that it is abstract in
my mind until it is a loved one that is in the situation.) I could suggest
why I feel this way and weigh arguments from other perspectives, and I
would. Difficult already, as Glenn suggests. No longer like doing math,
certainly not simple math. But I would maintain it could still be done.
At least here within an MOQ framework we can look at where we are headed
(more dynamic, higher level of evolution) and this may help guide our
intution, our value judgments, our "leaps of faith." Although the decision
making process can be extremely difficult we do have another tool with which
to approach. To note, Pirsig wrote in the 25th anniversary edition of ZMM a
brief story of his personal experiences with this issue.
I appreciate Glenn's challenge.
PH:
So where does that leave us? What can we base moral standards
on besides "culture" with resulting relativism. Are we set adrift
believing morality is anything you like?
GLENN
The laws of morality don't appear to be like the laws of
nature. There are moral laws but they are often broken. Laws of
nature are not, or hardly ever, broken. Nature and morality operate
on different levels. The social level is complex and dynamic and people
must make moral decisions in this environment so it's not surprising that
moral standards are not absolute.
ED:
As there doesn't appear to be one single answer for difficult moral
questions where levels are close and situations vary; at best perhaps all we
can do is give these problems a framework. The MOQ provides a dynamic one in
which we can work these problems out to the best of our ability, albeit
imperfectly. It helps remove us from cultural bias. Our tendency is to want
moral codes for all situations; I'm not sure it works that way except with
easy examples.
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 - 16:00:46 BST