[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Platt Holden]

Arlo writes:

> Ham, Platt, Rebecca, All,
> 
> As per "moral relativity", I'd interject that part of Pirsig's formulation
> of the MOQ emphasizes that "moral codes" can be "relative", so long as they
> don't violate the MOQ hierarchy. For example, the Samoan sexual mores, he
> argues, are fine for Samoan culture because these patterns of behavior
> (biological) do not threaten fabric of social patterns. Those same sexual
> mores imported to American culture become dangerous (he argues) because our
> cultural-social fabric IS threatened by these behavior patterns. In this
> sense, the sexual morality in question is indeed "relative", but that does
> not mean it not subject to "right and wrong" within the larger MOQ context.
> 
> On a more general level, we can say that the morality of biological
> behavior (since "vice" is normally what you guys mean you use the word
> "morals") is indeed "relative" so long as it does not threaten the
> existence of social patterns. Social morality, too, is relative, up to the
> point where it dominates or threatens intellectual level patterns.

I don't know where you got those ideas from. Not from Lila. The whole 
point of the Samoa story was that intellect had taken over from society 
with ensuing disaster -- not because the sexual mores of Samoa threatened 
American social patterns but because intellect, in taking over from 
society, had no provision for morals at all. Thus, according to SOM 
intellect, anything goes, completely ignoring the role of social patterns 
in keeping biological forces under control. I don't know where you got 
this "moral relativity is OK" business from. 

> Platt, or Ham, mentioned cannabalism, and I think the MOQ does provide an
> absolute moral standard to object to this by, namely that it is by
> individuals responding to DQ that a society evolves. When Pirsig condemns
> capital punishment, it is by absolute moral condemnation. That is, capital
> punishment can never be "relatively moral", as the sexual mores of Samoa,
> it is always and everywhere "immoral".

Capital punishment is never condemned absolutely in the MOQ. If the 
accused represents a threat to society, it is OK to execute her.

 > I point this out because the MOQ provides a framework whereby we can avoid
> the "relative-absolute" dichotomy, and talk about some morals being
> relative, some being absolute, and why. 

The MOQ provides a framework whereby moral questions can be resolved on 
the basis of reason. That's its claim to fame. "Relative" social morals 
don't enter the picture.

> For those of us interested in "freedom", this is a critical distinction
> because it allows us to escape from both static morality of convention that
> doesn't violate the MOQ, and gives us a framework for challenging the
> "absolutist" who tells us a moral is "absolute" because his/her God says so
> (for example). It also points us towards the other arm of society that
> suppresses intellectual patterns in the name of adhering to a conventional
> moral code or a dictum of God.

It challenges SOM intellect's attempt to do away with social moral codes 
that prevent biological forces from gaining the upper hand. As Pirsig 
pointed out, the trouble with intellectuals is that in too many instances 
they took biology's side in the conflict between biological and social 
patterns. Result: the disaster of the 60's and the ensuing decay of social 
(family) values, e.g., liberal's softness on crime and terrorism.. 

Platt