Hey Horse,
You know, you're right... you don't post often enough....
HORSE:
> 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.
RICK:
Fair enough, but I just want it known that I would be very happy with an
imperfect but functional MoQ... perfection is not and never was what this is
about. My fear is that the MoQ has no bridge to actual moral reasoning...
just moral rationalizing.
>
>
> HORSE:
> 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.
RICK:
Yes, but that's not exactly the point... the point is that where this
abundance exists the prohibition against meat IS absolute.... scientifically
and absolutely (according to RMP). This may sound weird, but in the MoQ,
even the exceptions should be absolute... You NEVER eat meat, it is
ABSOLUTELY/SCIENTIFICALLY immoral to do so UNLESS there are no fruits or
grains around, then you MUST eat the meat (just like those Hindus). Not to
do so would be ABSOLUTELY/SCIENTIFICALLY immoral.
HORSE:
> 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 isderived from the context in which it appears.
RICK:
Is this really in LILA??? I don't remember anything about "voluntary
euthanasia"....
>
HORSE:>
> 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.
RICK:
I'm not sure.... it sounds silly when you say "the answer pops up like
numbers on a till" but I stand by the notion that the MoQ draws its moral
strength from its form. Pirsig uses the MoQ much in the sense you describe
(i.e. patient = sociological, germ = biological.... so in a struggle between
the two, it is more moral for the doctor to assist the patient). I hate
thinking of the MoQ as a "formula" for morality, but to a great extent, that
is what Pirsig claims for it.
>
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