Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

Date: Wed Dec 01 2004 - 00:56:08 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: MD New Level of Thinking"

    Ham to Ian
    Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:55 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

    > Ham,
    > "MOQ holds to the view that morality is relative" ?
    > Agreed.
    > "It is ... contrary to the MOQ to foster moral behavior" ?
    > Hardly.
    > It offers an evolving basis for judging relative morality / quality. We're
    > encouraged to use it. MoQ certainly does not foster immorality, it fosters
    > way of deciding moral choices. (Clearly, though, MoQ doesn't foster any
    > absolute morality.)

    All morality is relative. Since your Quality is what I call Value and some
    call Goodness, it is relative to man's conscious awareness which is the
    raison d'etre of existence. Indeed, the platonic "highest good" may be the
    absolute goal of morality -- if only we knew what that was! So, if by using
    MOQ we can encourage "goodness", certainly no one can say it's a bad thing.

    > "Man is autonomous in his ability to choose" ?
    > Subject only to physical possibility, an individual human is autonomous,
    > true. How good (moral) his choice is can be judged by the rest of us using
    > the MoQ. Freedom (DQ) is good, within the framework of MoQ, but not in an
    > absolutey unbounded anything-goes, anarchic way.

    Good. I take it from your remarks, then, that "relatively speaking"
    morality is relative -- at least for MOQers.

    You really should read Edington's sermon, Ian. I guarantee you will find
    nothing in it that offends your anti-theist sensitivities.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 01 2004 - 01:28:07 GMT