Hi Ken, Jonathan and Group:
Ken stated the key quote from Lila that unequivocally positions the
MOQ as providing a moral compass:
“In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other
things being equal, that choice which is more dynamic, that is, at a
higher level of evolution is more moral.”
Jonathan objects to the notion that the MOQ can be used as a
moral guide. He believes that our moral compass “is the same
moral sense that has been with us since man first appeared on this
planet.” I understand this to mean that man has an innate moral
sense, similar to Rousseau’s belief that civilization corrupts the
basic goodness of man. (Please correct me if I’m wrong about this,
Jonathan.)
Where do others turn for moral guidance?
In the Western World the church, represented by ministers, priests
and rabbis, stands as the highest and most widely accepted moral
authority. Many believe the Ten Commandments and the Golden
rule are the only moral compass one needs.
There are also professional ethicists who, for a fee, will tell you
what you ought to do. Although the basis for their advice is often
unclear, some will admit to being influenced by Immanual Kant’s
“categorical imperative” whereby one should, “Act only on the
maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will it should become
universal law.” Other ethicists have been influenced by Edgar
Brightman, an American philosopher who laid down several
axiomatic moral laws including the Law of Autonomy, the Law of
Consequences, and the Law of Altruism.
Then there are the relativists, particularly popular in academia, who
hold that one can make meaningful moral decisions only in the
social context in which a moral problem occurs. Sharing one’s wife
with an overnight guest may be right in an Eskimo igloo, but not in
Wichita, Kansas. Also popular in academia are the contextualists
who, like the relativists, hold that moral decisions can only be
decided within a specific situation. “Don’t steal” is OK as a general
guideline, but must be abandoned if the unique situation calls for it.
(Also called “situation ethics.”)
So broadly speaking, moral compasses are to be found in
academia, philosophy, religion, or innately in the genes (the
survival imperative).
That the relativists and contextualists have pretty much made a
mess of things is hardly debatable, symbolized (as a recent U.S
News editorial says) “by college students who can’t bring
themselves to criticize the Holocaust.” Among many students
today, to be “judgmental” is a sin, the irony of which escapes
them. Pirsig puts the blame on the 60’s cultural revolution which
distrusted both the new intellectual authority and the old Victorian
virtues without offering anything in their place. Now there are
attempts to remedy this by introducing “character education” in the
secondary schools. Unfortunately, this effort is ultimately doomed
for the answer to question, “Whose values will be taught?” is
answered by polling the relevant communities. Back to relativism
again, or more accurately, never leaving it.
Morality from pure philosophy has pretty much come a cropper due
to the suspicion, confirmed by recent history, that any point of view
can be rationalized. Communism, with its emphasis on equality,
fairness, community, etc., had great moral appeal to some
intellectuals. It sounded so good—Christian principles of love,
caring and brotherhood embodied in a political/economic system.
Little did early supporters imagine the horrors the system would
inflict. Likewise, the Nazis were able to create a complete
philosophic justification for their regime after accepting the initial
premise of their genetic superiority. Anyway, most people
considered philosophy to be an ivory tower irrelevancy, of interest
only to nerdy types.
History has also been unkind to religion as a moral compass. In
the name of religion, millions have suffered and died. Too, the idea
of a judgmental God who will inflict hell and damnation if you don’t
behave has pretty much faded away in the face of a physics-based
cosmology. On the other hand, ancient religious texts, both East
and West, offer authentic instructions about how man must act to
survive and thrive, based on experiences handed down by word of
mouth from earliest times. If you’re looking for the moral lessons of
man’s history before philosophy was born, you’ll find them in the
Bible and the writings of Eastern holy men.
What of man’s innate moral compass? Based on the historical
record, I have little reason to think man is basically good. Without
societal or religious restraints--the fear of punishment--murder, rape
and pillaging quickly becomes the prevailing lifestyle.
So what moral compass do you go by? What moral compass will
you teach your children to follow? And how will you justify it?
Those are the questions we must address if, like Pirsig, we want to
inquire into morals.
Personally, I like Pirsig’s moral compass which is backed by a
logical metaphysics whose assumptions make sense to me. It
says, among other things, that the reason you don’t kill someone
(other than in self-defense) is not because you are innately
concerned with his welfare, or because killing him if universalized
would wipe you out too, or because God says you shouldn’t do it,
but because that individual is a unique source of ideas which are
sacred. Why sacred? Because only ideas can advance mankind to
a higher evolutionary level. Killing is wrong because you might kill a
Bill Gates.
And that’s just for starters of a moral compass based on the MOQ.
Unfortunately, I fear it will suffer the fate of philosophies before it,
not only as Jonathan says because of it’s complexity and invitation
to varying interpretation, but because its fails to produce an
emotional as well as a cerebral response. In the MOQ, a mother’s
sacrifice for her child or a father’s loyalty to the tribe are
categorized as mere biological functions. I’m afraid a morality that
denies a high position to fundamental feelings will never catch on. “I
feel your pain” strikes a deep responsive chord in the human
breast, but apparently not in Pirsig’s. And perhaps that’s the crux
of Jonathan’s objection.
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST