Hey Horse,
It's always great to field your comments:
> HORSE:
> Ethical theories come in all shapes and sizes. As far as I'm aware there
is no ethical theory
> that is capable of giving definitive answers to all possible moral
questions and I don't see
> why the MoQ is deemed any less valid because it is less than perfect.
RICK:
This is an overly generalized, strawman of the topic. The MoQ is not being
charged with being less valid because it is less than perfect. The "charge"
(if we must call it that) is that the levels are so open to interpretation
that it makes the framework superfluous to moral reasoning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
HORSE:
Ethics isn't an objective science (if such a thing exists) but a
participative process like many other
> activities. And like many other activities it is also contextual. What may
seem correct given
> one set of circumstances may appear incorrect with a small variation in
context/perspective.
> Moral judgements aren't absolutes - even within the MoQ. This doesn't mean
that firm
> conclusions cannot be reached regarding goodness or morality - just that
the answer
> reached is not set in stone for all time.
RICK:
Maybe in your particular vision of the MoQ.... but not Pirsig's. He tells
us that "where there an abundance of grains, fruits and vegetables" it is
"scientifically immoral (LILA pg. 184)" for anyone to eat animals.... He
also asserts "...it is absolutely, scientifically moral for the doctor to
prefer the patient [over the germ] (LILA pg.183)." --- And that's just
within two pages. It sounds very much like Pirsig thinks of the MoQ as an
"objective science" that offers absolute answers when "correctly" employed.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICK:
> LILA gives us plenty of information on how the levels (and DQ) should
> interact with each other but its descriptions of the contents of each
> respective level are at best vague.
>
> HORSE:
> Which is why MOQ.ORG exists and why we participate in these discussions.
The MoQ
> wasn't a fully formed ethical theory when Lila was published - just the
initial outline. Lila isn't
> the Bible and shouldn't be treated as such!
RICK:
Is this aimed at me??? I thought discussions like this one, where we
explore, test, and probe the MoQ is what this forum was for. How can we
ever help to expand or complete this initial outline if everyone just
defends it? With the exception of 3WDave's comments on Ken Wilbur, not one
person (as of the writing of this post) has actually suggested a remedy to
the problem.... just different ways of sweeping it under the rug.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
>
> RICK:
> Most importantly, the MoQ doesn't even claim to give a method of
"deducing"
> what patterns fit where. But, without this ability the MoQ can never
fulfill
> either of its two primary functions.. After all, the MoQ can have no value
> in moral or metaphysical thought if the thinker must always check with
> Robert M. Pirsig to know if he's correctly applying the levels.
>
> HORSE:
> !!!!!!!
>
RICK:
That's very insightful of you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
HORSE:
> As there seems to be an amount of confusion over what is meant by
'Emotivism', I've also
> supplied an excellent essay/critique on Emotivism in a seperate post. I
can't for the life of
> me remember where it came from or who wrote it.
RICK:
I'll read the essay but over the years I've heard several different
definitions of Emotivism in different contexts... And basically, I think we
all know what we're talking about here....
It's all Good,
Rick
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST