[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Ham Priday]

Greetings Platt -- 


[Platt]:
> 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.

In Pirsig's absolutely moral universe, is execution of such people a
violation of the MOQ, or simply a low-quality value decision made by the
society accountable for it?

[Ham, previously]:
> 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?

[Platt]:
> 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. ...

What does "than the norm" mean if not "relative to the society in question"?
How is one to know what the "norm" may be for Quality?

[Platt continued]:
> 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.

It's not what I'M missing, but what YOU'RE missing.  The fact that animals
compete with each other for dominance indicates that this is a relativistic
universe, not a perfect morality system.  The same is true for the moral
conventions and practices of a particular culture.  What is "right" or
"wrong" for the culture is determined and codified by its members.  It is a
value decision relative to their religious/philosophical precepts or moral
conscience.  If it were determined by an absolute universal principle like
Quality, there would be no need for this discussion.

[Platt]:
> 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?

We've seen that the natural order does not conform to a moral standard;
therefore I reject the notion that morality is absolute.  My value
sensibility prohibits me from killing babies for any reason, or from killing
adults who do not threaten my existence.  I am "liberal" in the sense that
some (pre-conscious fetus) abortions may be justified to prevent a life of
suffering or death of the mother.  I am opposed to capital punishment on the
ground that an incarcerated criminal is not a threat to my existence.  These
are moral decisions based on my individual sense of Value; they are not
mandated by an absolute source.  Which means that you and I are free to
choose and act on the values with which we identify.  It also means that our
behavior will be influenced to some extent by the moral, ethical and legal
conventions of the society to which we belong.

A very Merry Christmas to you, too, Platt.
Ham