Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Wed Dec 01 2004 - 17:50:53 GMT

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

    Ian, you seem to be obfuscating the issues here . . .

    > "If the MOQ champions individual autonomy, it appears the MOQ supports the
    > basic thrust of Ayn Rand's virtue of selfishness." Yeah, right !?! Clearly
    > it does not suport "absolute" autonomy, just individual autonomy within the
    > constraints of its own MoQ framework. Ayn Rand wouldn't recognise the MoQ
    > if she tripped over it.

    Is it not in one's absolute self-interest to adhere to the constraints of
    the MOQ framework? Is it not an absolute that the MOQ supports individual
    autonomy within the constraints of the MOQ framework, as you say? Or are
    these ideas fungible to the situation (contextualism) or to the mores of
    society (relativism) or to what others find congenial (political
    correctness), or to whatever suits your mood of the moment (anarchy)?
    Let's address the underlying issues here.

    As for Rand, she would certainly recognize Pirsig's attempt to build a
    "rational morality" because that's what she attempted to do, too.
    > "I see a host of moral absolutes in the Unitarian minister's sermon, such
    > as -- moral decisions should serve the good of humanity.... etc etc ..."
    > How in anybody's language is that "absolute". You've just shifted the
    > definition of "moral" (absolute or relative) to the definition of "good"
    > (absolute or relative).

    I don't know about you, but what is moral is what is good in my book.

    > The minister is simply begging (or leading up to)
    > the question of "So, what is the good of humanity"

    Right. And his answer is, "It's relative," sanctioning what such
    luminaries as Stalin, Hitler and a host of secular tyrants decided was
    "good for humanity." The minister recognizes (but doesn't admit) that a
    relativist saws off the limb on which he sits, and so he grasps for such
    absolutes as "morality must be based on respect, care and love."

    > Surely we MoQ'ers have a working basis for evaluating relative good,
    > morality, quality.

    Surely we do. Problem is, how many MOQ'ers are there?

    > I do wonder at the motives in your arguments.

    My motive is to bring to light and examine basic assumptions, and to
    figure out what's the best morality for a nation to follow until the MOQ
    is widely known and accepted.

    What's yours?


    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 - 17:59:07 GMT