Hey all,
I realize we're just supposed to be listing the problems, but I was hoping I
might be granted a little latitude to suggest yet another problem and to
discuss what I see as a possible common thread emerging in some of the
problems suggested so far.
Recently I recalled a problem with the MoQ suggested by Struan. He
suggested that the MoQ reduces all good to the good of utility. That is, in
the MoQ the Quality of an act is judged by its effects. Nothing in the MoQ
(that I can think of) is good (or Quality) for purely intrinsic reasons.
Thinking about this critisicm for a while lead me to think of two that have
already been suggested this month, one by Roger and one by me:
1. The rational morality doesn't consider matters of degree. For example,
we
agree that a nation has more quality than a cow, but does the most inept,
corrupt, and insignificant little dictatorship have moral precedence over
all
herbivores? A forestry corporation may be more moral than a log, but is it
more moral than the entire rainforest? Again, I think this is solvable
within
the MOQ, but Pirsig missed it.
2. The MoQ states (essentially) that a higher level "trumps" a lower level,
> but has a duty to preserve the lower level. Thus, both sides of any moral
> conflict can always be argued with equal support from the MoQ.
It occured to me that both of these problems seem to derive from the
charge of utilitarianism. Take Rog's hypothetical "A forestry corporation
may be more moral than a log, but is it more moral than the entire
rainforest?" It seems clear to me that Pirsig would respond to this by
appealing to the notion that the social patterns that create the corporation
rely on the rainforests for oxygen; therefore cutting down the whole forest
would be Biologically devastating and would cut society off at the knees (so
to speak).
That is, Pirsig would likely invoke the principle that I have sighted
above as problem #2--- the higher level is not more moral than lower level
if it destroys the lower level--- the Quality of the logging corporations
acts depend on the effects of those acts--- a purely utilitarian analysis.
This is where we hit the real problem... In order to decide what's moral and
what isn't we first have to assess all of the likely (maybe even all the
possible) consequences of any act by any level on all of the others. Now it
seems clear that we are faced with most of the traditional problems of
general utilitarianism, plus some new ones... For example, based on the
above principle, the loggers (society) would be morally justified in cutting
down trees only until their efforts have effect of disturbing the ecosystem
(biology) to a dangerous degree. But what degree is that? How could we
ever know when we've reached that point? When it can't produce oxygen? When
it can't support the species indiginous to it? When it no longer can
produce edible vegetaition? And do we except that a rainforest has no
intrinsic value in and of itself...? Is it really the case that a rainforest
is only valuable because it provides oxygen to society??? I can't even begin
to imagine the infinite quanitity of consequences and contingincies raised
by this one single example.
It's all Good,
Rick
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST