Keith A. Gillette (gillette@tahc.state.tx.us)
Thu, 19 Mar 1998 03:42:33 +0100
At 2:52 AM -0800 3/13/98, Kevin Sanchez wrote:
> The organization of inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual
>static
>values seemss comprehendsive and compatible with contemporary social ethics
>but, I have a problem. I cannot see that the next level automatically
>trumps the one before it.
> For instance, in Lila, Pirsig states that an idea warrants the
>death of a
>society. Yet, doesn't the quality of that idea effect that warrant? Is it
>moral for us to all die for a low-quality idea? Was Hitler correct in
>killing for his extremely low-quality ideas? This troubles me because the
>humanistic ethics to which I subscribe seem slightly undermined by MoQ.
Here's a paragraph I wrote in a philosophy paper in college that somewhat
addresses your question.
"One might object that the Metaphysics of Quality would allow even a bad
idea to overthrow a society, and that this objection would defeat
evolutionary ethics. It is unmistakably true that on Pirsig's account the
ideas, 'peanut butter is the foundation of morality', and 'whites are
superior to blacks', each have the same force in justifying the overthrow
of a society which represses them as the notion of 'human equality' had in
the Civil War. However, the salient point which must be understood is this:
It is the job of the intellect, not of society, to determine which ideas
are good and which are bad. Any society which represses ideas is
fundamentally immoral."
Wishing I had time to write something new,
Keith
______________________________________________________________________
gillette@tahc.state.tx.us -- <URL:http://www.detling.ml.org/gillette/>
-- 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 - 16:42:56 CEST