[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Platt Holden]

Greetings Ham, 

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

[Ham] 
> In ancient Sparta, the practice of leaving a child to die of exposure on a
> hillside was not considered murder if the child was judged to be unsuitable
> for some reason.  In his Republic, Plato laid it down as a matter of
> eugenic policy that parents should bear children for the state for a
> defined period of years.  After that period sexual intercourse would be
> permitted, but the couple involved would dispose of the newborn child if
> the former course proved impossible.  The Middle Assyrian Laws read: "If a
> woman has had a miscarriage by her own act, when they have presented her
> (and) convicted her, they shall impale her on stakes without burying her.
> If she died in having the miscarriage, they shall impale her on stakes
> without burying her. [Meek, The Middle Assyrian Laws; as cited by Rogerson
> 1985].
 
> Would you regard these practices as moral on the ground that they eliminate
> "a threat to society"?
 
No. A threat to society is someone who has a history of murder, rape, 
pedophilia, armed robbery or other physical assaults on innocent citizens, 
i.e., biological values threatening social values. 

>  [Platt]:
> > 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.
> 
> Doesn't the application of reason in this context suggest deciding on an
> "intellectually reasonable" compromise viz a viz relational factors? 
> Pirsig seems to feel that Quality or Value is not discerned intellectually,
> but is directly experienced.   Why should reason be necessary if morality
> is absolute?

Quality (morality) is directly experienced in that one knows instantly 
that a particular, personal experience happening now at this moment is 
better or worse than the norm. (See Pirsig's description of reacting to a 
wonderful song on first hearing in Lila, Chp. 9.) By contrast, one does 
not directly experience the social morality of ancient Sparta. Judging 
Sparta's social morality is a matter of 1) gut feelings, 2) tradition 3) 
the law or 4) or reason. Most people go with 1, 2 or 3 resulting in a mish-
mash of moral relatively where the mindless challenge to moral questions 
becomes, "Who are you to judge?"

Maybe what your missing, Ham, is Pirsig's thesis that there are four, not 
just one, moral levels that compete with one another for dominance. 
Morality in his view is not limited just to human behavior. It applies 
across the board to the behavior of atoms, animals, people and thoughts.
(Aristotle brought discipline to thought by introducing logic.)

I know you don't accept Pirsig's idea of "It's a moral world." But that's 
his whole schtick. Once you accept it, then you can begin to logically 
analyze moral questions coincident with the natural order rather than your 
man-made alternatives that inevitably result in "anything goes" because 
you have no rational basis for condemning the moral practices of Sparta or 
anywhere else. I mean, on what basis do you consider it immoral to kill 
"unsuitable" babies by leaving them on a hillside to dies of exposure?    

Merry Christmas to you and yours,
Platt