Hi Rick and All
On 6 Jul 2000, at 20:17, Richard Budd wrote:
> Hey Horse,
> You know, you're right... you don't post often enough....
Some might disagree (not me) but I'll try to contribute more.
> 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.
I think an imperfect AND functional MoQ is what we are likely to get. At least
our understanding of it is likely to be imperfect but should suffice to provide
a functional moral framework. But it's still early days yet.
As I see it many moral judgements (often the most difficult) are part reasoning,
part rationalisation. You reason to a judgement and may defend that judgement
through rationalisation.
> > 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.
I'd leave out the references to absolute myself, which my dictionary refers to as
"unconditional, unlimited, universally valid, not admitting exceptions".
Given that there is sufficient grain etc. it is immoral to eat meat - but this is not
an absolute by any definition I know. Absolute moral positions are absolutely
static and leave no room for a dynamic component.
>
> HORSE:
> > As for the patient and the germ "...it is absolutely, scientifically moral
<SNIP>
> > associated with the death. Again, the correct moral action is derived
> > from the context in which it appears.
>
> RICK:
> Is this really in LILA??? I don't remember anything about "voluntary
> euthanasia"....
Nor do I, which may have been an oversight on P.'s part as it is quite a hot
topic in ethics. The right of the individual to choose their time, place and
means of death far exceeds the doctors obligation to adhere to the
Hippocratic oath. This is a clear case of Intellect dominating Society.
> 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.
Yes, in a struggle where the both the patient and the germ 'wish to live' it is
certainly morally correct for the doctor to prefer the patient. To the extent that
a moral judgement is 'obvious' then those moral judgements are fairly easy to
recognise and act upon. It is the more difficult judgements (abortion, involutary
euthanasia, infanticide etc.) where the MoQ needs to be tested and it is here
that the reason/rationalisation method may prevail.
I'm not entirely sure that Pirsig intended the MoQ to be formulaic as a morality
by numbers certainly lacks any dynamic aspect.
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