Hi Rick and All
On 5 Jul 2000, at 1:08, Richard Budd wrote:
> Hey Horse,
> It's always great to field your comments:
Thankee Kindly. I really don't join in often enough these days.
> > 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.
I disagree that I am using a strawman of the topic as the MoQ has
been attacked on a number of occasions by various people because
it doesn't provide all the answers to all moral questions. The way you
worded this part of the discussion topic:
"This problem often creates a "post-hoc MoQ" in which the levels are
applied only to justify some preordained conclusion."
seems to unfairly criticise the MoQ for taking a perfectly reasonable
approach to moral problem solving. I was just redressing the balance.
> 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.
In the first extract from Lila that you provide (grains & fruits etc.) you make my
case very well for me! Given the context that abundant fruit and veg, are available
it is indeed immoral to eat a higher form of life - an animal - but if the context is
such that no fruit and veg. are available then eating an animal to survive is morally
justifiable. So eating meat in one context is morally justifiable, whilst eating meat
in another context is not. The morality of meat eating is thus contextual and not
absolute.
As for the patient and the germ "...it is absolutely, scientifically moral for the
doctor to prefer the patient [over the germ]" _IF_ it is given that the patient wishes
to live. In the case that the patient wishes to die (voluntary euthanasia) then it is
morally justifiable for the Doctor to withhold treatment, possibly providing analgesics
to reduce any pain associated with the death. Again, the correct moral action is
derived from the context in which it appears.
> 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???
No. Well, not specifically anyway. It was an aside that I thought I'd include as
there does seem to be a tendency on this list and moq_discuss to treat Lila
as the word of God. Lila is the best guide and starting point for further study
and expansion/extension of the MoQ but it is not the entire MoQ - far from it. This also
seems to be the way that Pirsig views it.
> RICK:
> 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.
So what's your suggestion? I'm just answering your initial question(s) as a
preliminary to further discussion.
> > 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.
Thank you. :)
I was intrigued as to why you feel that anyone should need to check with P.
But you make it sound as if the MoQ is morality by numbers, fitting this bit
here and that bit there until the answer pops up like numbers on a till and this
is the answer. This sounds much more like good old fashioned Social Moral
Values - not the MoQ.
> 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....
My opinion of Emotivism and its source, the Logical Positivists (along with
most forms of Communitarianism) are pretty much unprintable. I'd have to
reject my own post if I got started - so I won't.
I think that the essay I supplied (now confirmed as Struans - by Struan) is
very useful as a concise critique and explanation of Emotivism. My thanks to
Struan for the essay and his student John Bradshaw for bringing its origin
to my attention.
Horse
------- 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