Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:07:55 +0100
Bo,
on the question:
>> The question I have, simply put, is, "Is eugenics moral?" Now it is
>> easily arguable that eugenics for racial
>> reasons is not, because useful ideas are lost. But what of the
>> mentally handicapped and retarded? Those who most likely will not
>> contribute to the intellectual quality in the least. It is
>> impossible for me to believe that these people must be lost. That
>> these people don't have a quality of their own. I hope you can help
>> me, because as of now I can't find an answer in Pirsig's works.
There has been some resemblance of the arguments of the four levels of
reality to the old 'natural ladder' idea, conveyed by the idea that the
highest level was 'the most moral'. I myself has not been entirely
satisfied with what I see as a maybe faulty confusion between value in an
absolute and in an contextual sense, and with the further merging of value
with moral. Pirsig speak of quality in an absolute sense, as in being the
source of reality, or just being reality, and he identifies value and
quality in some places. So the question is entirely appropriate, and has to
do with an important part of Pirsigs metaphysics.
It seems to me that the question in this respect (the nature of Pirsigs
'moral') is related to the distinction between absolute moral (as for
instance the moral given in religion) and relative or contextual moral. An
often posed kind of question is: Some terrorist make you pick one of ten of
your companions for execution, or they will execute them all. (Less drastic
questions can do.)
In Pirsigs world, the question could be: Given that intellectual freedom is
the most moral, should new ideas always be brought to life? Or, analoguous
to the question the student posed, is the existence of humans (rational
humans) morally superior to the existence of animals (irrational humans).
I have no ready answer, but it is evident that we are faced with such moral
dilemmas in society. Often the outcome of such dilemmas is based on some
balancing between opposing interests. The life of the mother opposed to the
life of the fetus. The life of humans opposed to wildlife.
The question of Eugenics varies across some established line of balance.
The life of the irreversibly dying person is not sustained in vain.
Premature babied below some lower limit of weight are not provided with
life support if they show no sign of a will to live.
I think the 'will to live' has an important say in this question, we should
not without cause limit the livelihood of other living beings, but this is
of course hopelessly vague.
Hugo.
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST