From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Sun Dec 05 2004 - 21:49:53 GMT
On 4 December 2004 Steve responds to Platt, Joe, Erin and all,
[Steve]> Contextualism: In ethics, the school of thought which holds that
> relevant
> ethical decisions can be made only with the context of a particular
> ethical problem where the unique factors of the situation can be taken
> into account.
>
[Steve] Attempts at finding general rules that are consistent with what most
people consider ethical behavior have not been fruitful. Even Kant's
maxim suggests that we should not lie to the Nazis looking for the Jews
we have hidden in our basements. Such general rules don't seem to work.
The more specific the rule, the more people can come to agreement about
it, which lends support for contextualism.
[Steve] Social level morality varies greatly from culture to culture, in
fact
in the MOQ, to distinguish two different cultures is to assert that
they represent two different collections of social patterns. The
question remains as to whether there is an ideal set of social
patterns. Absolutists would say, yes. Relativists would say, no.
[Steve] What would contextualists say? I take the MOQ to be contextualistic,
since it takes an evolutionary view of morality with DQ in place of an
absolute, improving static patterns but without a static ultimate goal
of bestness. DQ is a principle of ongoing improvement. Betterness, not
bestness. In other words, the MOQ denies that there is an ideal set of
social patterns, while it supports the idea that any set of social
patterns can be improved.
Hi Steve, Platt, Erin and all,
I do not take the MOQ to be contextualistic. My conscience for behavior does
not see the place for research at the time of an action.
The discussion by Horse of 'emotivism' in Lila proposed by Struan, in Lila's
Child pp 430 and ff. is still pertinent. What I want to emphasize is Horse's
question: "What is neutral morality?" and the answer: "Ethical systems are
value systems and as the MOQ is founded on value, it would make sense to
utilize this. MOQ is not value free; it is the opposite, but in the same way
that Darwinian evolution is 'neutral' within Nature at a biological level,
so MOQ is neutral within a metaphysical sense." p. 436 Lila's Child.
When heads of state meet diplomatic immunity is assured. Within an
individual, DQ inorganic, organic, social, intellectual level is 'neutral'.
The further evolution in each level is 'neutral morality' within the level.
For example growth of awareness, or conscience.
The origin of an action from a level of evolution is not through emotivism
as Struan held, but from a mystical experience of the level which is common
to all. In this way moral codes are absolute. Awareness is created and
relative and can be changed.
The tension between DQ and SQ which can result in creation, destruction, or
preservation is not subject to a code of morality, but is morally neutral.
For example. When the people of Iraq were freed from the static patterns
imposed by Saddam Hussein, the anarchy that has resulted seems natural.
Religious absolutism does not seem to be the only destructive force.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Peterson" <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: MD Is Morality Relative?
> Hi Platt, erin, Joe, all
>
> Thanks for responding to my queries.
>
> I asked:
>>> What is Moral Absolutism?
>>>
>>> Are there other types of morality?
>>
>
> Platt referred to his Philosophy 101 textbook:
>>
>> Relativism: In ethics, the belief, based on empirical observation, that
>> what is considered to be right and wrong differs from one society to
>> another and one person to another, implying that there are no universal
>> codes of right and wrong.
>
> I think that the MOQ says that the moral codes of the inorganic levels and
> biological level are universal for all societies.
>
> Intellectual patterns are certainly not agreed upon, though most people
> believe that certain statements must either be absolutely true or false
> and in that way assert absolutes on the intellectual level. With the
> exception of maybe Matt K and his hero Rorty, I think all people at least
> behave as though statements can be either absolutely true or false. I
> think it would be really hard to think otherwise, and if you did, you
> probably wouldn't have much to say.
>
> On the other hand, Pirsig's MOQ says that there can be multiple truths
> that we use in the way that polar and rectangular coordinates can give two
> different correct descriptions of the same sets of points. Does this view
> conflict with absolutism?
>
>>
>> Formalism (Absolutism): In ethics, the position that there are universal
>> ethical standards that apply to all men, often believed to have been
>> revealed by a deity.
>
>
> A big problem with absolutism seems to be that even if we postulate that
> there is an ideal set of social patterns, we don't know what that code of
> ethics is. It would seem that we would also have to postulate that that
> set of values is revealed to us in some way. Clearly lots of religious
> people do just that, but religions all seem to recognize a different set
> of values.
>
> The moral absolutism versus relativity/contextualism issue suffers the
> same problem as the 'is there a God?' question. Asking whether morality is
> absolute or contextual begs the question.
>
> The relativist/contextualist may say that he or she isn't denying absolute
> or ideal social patterns because to do so he would first have to postulate
> that there are ideal patterns to be discovered, which he does not choose
> to do. But the absolutist wouldn't say that he is choosing to postulate
> absolute right and wrong, he is only acknowledging it while the relativist
> is denying it.
>
>>
>> Contextualism: In ethics, the school of thought which holds that relevant
>> ethical decisions can be made only with the context of a particular
>> ethical problem where the unique factors of the situation can be taken
>> into account.
>>
>
> Attempts at finding general rules that are consistent with what most
> people consider ethical behavior have not been fruitful. Even Kant's
> maxim suggests that we should not lie to the Nazis looking for the Jews we
> have hidden in our basements. Such general rules don't seem to work. The
> more specific the rule, the more people can come to agreement about it,
> which lends support for contextualism.
>
> Social level morality varies greatly from culture to culture, in fact in
> the MOQ, to distinguish two different cultures is to assert that they
> represent two different collections of social patterns. The question
> remains as to whether there is an ideal set of social patterns.
> Absolutists would say, yes. Relativists would say, no.
>
> What would contextualists say? I take the MOQ to be contextualistic,
> since it takes an evolutionary view of morality with DQ in place of an
> absolute, improving static patterns but without a static ultimate goal of
> bestness. DQ is a principle of ongoing improvement. Betterness, not
> bestness. In other words, the MOQ denies that there is an ideal set of
> social patterns, while it supports the idea that any set of social
> patterns can be improved.
>
>> Then add Pirsigism:--In ethics, the concept that ethical decisions should
>> be based on an evolutionary hierarchy of values
>>
>
> While absolutism requires a postulating an ideal, the MOQ still requires a
> static postulate. But the MOQ says that the evolutionary hierarchy of
> values is to be taken as provisional, so as to avoid denying DQ.
>
>
>>> Does absolutism suggest that an act is either right or wrong in and of
>>> itself or are the results or intent important?
>>
>> In practice, universal standards of right and wrong don't work very well.
>> "Thou shall not kill," for example, doesn't apply in self-defense. "Love
>> the neighbor" can invite someone to rob you blind.
>
> I brought up this issue, because it concerns the issue of homosexuality.
> People opposed to gay rights often claim to hate the sin and not the
> sinner. In other words, they consider the homosexual act itself to be
> simply wrong. Is this your view?
>
>>> I think we need to agree on what is meant by the terms of discussion
>>> before
>>> deciding whether the MOQ supports one or the other or neither.
>>
>> I think the MOQ generally supports both contextualism and formalism, the
>> evolutionary moral structure being the absolute and context determining
>> its proper applications.
>
> I think there may be an important disagreement between the MOQ and
> formalism, since the "absolute" of the MOQ is not to be taken as absolute
> as the Christian God or the Founding Father's Natural Law but rather as a
> high Quality intellectual pattern of value. What do you think?
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Sun Dec 05 2004 - 22:00:05 GMT