Hi All
I've been following various bits of this thread with great interest and thought I'd chip in a few
comments.
On 15 Dec 99, at 14:53, jc wrote:
JC
> Now I need values. I'm confronted with an infinitude of great-sounding but
> conflicting systems that each preach themselves and their gods as the
> ultimate source of values. How do I choose? What do I do? How do I
> choose between values?
>
> Help! Gee I sure wish somebody would develop some sort of metaphysics that
> would at least let me discuss values, and at the same time understand
> cultural relativity and keep the rabid dogma in its kennel.
>
The MoQ contains most, if not all, of the answers if you know where to find them.They aren't
necessarily in Lila but it's a good place to start. Cultural relativity, along with moral relativity
can be discarded as worthless garbage. To say that one culture is as good as any or all
cultures or that one moral system is as good as any other is nonsense. If there is no
difference then they're all the same and as they aren't the same then one will be better than
another - DEPENDENT UPON CONTEXT.
(Note to Platt:
Moral relativism states that one moral system is as good as any other and that all systems
should be given equal respect and status. So a moral system that accepts abortion and one
that doesn't are of equal status and should be respected equally - from this we are meant to
derive some form of action. Complete Crap!
Moral action relative to circumstances (i.e. contextual) is a completely different kettle of fish.)
> You can't start a map without stating exactly where you are.
> I live in the midst of an immoral social system. Therefore I'm immoral and
> unsatisfied with my condition.
Usually the best way to start a map is to learn to draw, then gather together the correct
materials, then decide what sort of map you want. Do you want a large scale map, a small
scale map, one of the world, one of your country, one of your town? Choose your scale,
decide upon what should be included and why. What is the purpose of you map? In other
words - DEFINE YOUR PROBLEM AND STATE ITS CONTEXT.
> Many involved in the process are not
> satisfied that any progress is being made. Some involved in the proess
> have a hard time believing any sort of progress is even possible given
> inherent structural flaws within the MoQ itself. Could these please be
> explicated more clearly and stated simply so that we may understand what
> the conflict is truly about?
I think your current problem (and Jon's) is one of Altruism versus Selfishness. Few people
are happy to wear the label 'SELFISH' and many are afraid that to be labelled 'ALTRUIST' is
the same as 'SUCKER'. Again, context is important. You seem to want more people to be
altruistic in their outlook and others will fight against it as it appears to go against Libertarian
principles. But Libertarian principles, given a particular context, can be either selfish or
altruistic or somewhere in between. To be an Altruist in a predominantly selfish environment
is dangerous and makes for a short and unhappy life. Similarly, to be selfish in a
predominantly altruistic environment, even though you may thrive for a time, will get you
labelled as a sponging git and removed from the environment.
The solution you need may be extracted once you have defined the problem properly.
General Stuff:
The two main problems that seem obvious looking over the recent posts are:
The problems being discussed are ill-defined and/or too broad.
Solution - Narrow down the problem and define it in an appropriate context.
Basic moral principles are similarly ill-defined.
Solution - Define and clarify basic MoQ principles relating to moral action.
None of the problems I've seen discussed recently are going anywhere.They vary between
Emotivism (I believe X, do so too) and pasting the MoQ onto already held beliefs. Neither
approach will get anyone anywhere in arguing moral action. In fact, the most basic
questionsof moral action has been continually ignored:
Is it possible to behave morally?
Are we determined or do we have free will. Only if we have free will can we CHOOSE to act
morally (and I'm going to get really pissed off if someone gives me the standard Pirsig fudge
that our actions are free when we follow DQ, 'cause if we don't CHOOSE our course then we
are not FREE. Are we being continually being blown about by the wind of DQ or can we
make a choice of the most Dynamic action. Choice still comes into the equation and the
question of whether we have it or not still needs to be answered)
Can we deduce the correct action (what we SHOULD do) from the facts that confront us.
Both of these questions have been asked before and there has been very little attempt to
answer them. But if we can't (or are unwilling to even try to) answer very basic questions
such as these then more difficult questions will be impossible - as we have already seen
from recent exchanges.
It's easy to be selfish, just follow your biological nature. But altruism is a lot more difficult
and requires some thought.
To use a moral compass you need to know more than where you are and where you want to
go. A good first step is to work out if the damn thing works!
Horse
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 - 16:03:16 BST