From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Oct 09 2002 - 19:17:53 BST
Hi Steve:
> > I'd say a human is at a higher level than a dog because a dog can't
> > argue the point, scientifically or otherwise. (-:
>
> First if all let me say that I don't really doubt man's moral superiority,
> but I want to understand it.
Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, which advances the thesis that the
world is a moral order, is his attempt to explain man's moral superiority
in a rational way. If you accept his premises, understanding follows as
long as you accept reason as a path to understanding. If you doubt your
own rational faculty and depend on some guru or group for
understanding, then you're likely to wander forever in a moral swamp.
> I can't really be skeptical about this on a
> fundamental level probably any more than I could be about my own existence,
> but my concern is that I'm being merely humanocentric, or more specifically
> stevo-centric. Biologically, I can't help but think that I am morally
> superior to everything else in the universe, but I could also be socially
> blinded on this issue in the way that American slave owners would have made
> the exact same arguments about whites being morally superior to blacks.
I readily accept the premise that being anthropocentric and platto-
centric is a fundamental dimension of the human condition.
> >Or put it another way. Would you rather be a dog than human? If not,
> > why not?
> We could make substitutions with a lot of different types of people not
> just animals.
You bet. And justifiably so.
> On the one hand you could make a "do you even have to ask what is good?"
> kind of argument, but being a human myself I don't think I can be
> objective. (I know that was a very un-moq thing to say, but I'm sincerely
> trying to figure out how moq clears this up.) Any standard we set for this
> moral superiority has to be considered along with the fact that it is we
> who are setting the standard. I guess you are arguing that we are superior
> because we can even set standards but wouldn't it be just like a human to
> set standards that favor himself? I guess it's a sort of Cartesian "I set
> moral standards, therefore I am morally superior" thing. Maybe it works.
What works for me is the MOQ, as cited above, but realizing that, being
human, I can never be fully objective and that I could be wrong.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:55 GMT