[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Platt Holden]

Greetings Ham -

> [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?

Pirsig says a convicted murderer shouldn't be executed if he poses no 
threat to the structure of society, saying even a murderer has ideas, and 
ideas take moral precedence over society. I disagree with that view. I 
don't see any evidence that convicted murderers, rapists, pedophiles and 
other assailants can become messiahs. The only case I know of where a 
convicted murder produced anything of value was the Birdman of Alcatraz.  

> [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. ...

[Ham] 
> 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?

The norm is different for everyone, depending on one's physical makeup and 
life experiences. Some people feel physical pain more than others, for 
example.

> [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.

[Ham] 
> It's not what I'M missing, but what YOU'RE missing. 

You mean me or Pirsig?

[Ham]
> The fact that animals
> compete with each other for dominance indicates that this is a relativistic
> universe, not a perfect morality system.

Animals compete under the biological level morality of "might makes 
right," also known as the "Law of the Jungle." What's relativistic about 
that?

> 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.

So your idea of morality is whatever the mob in any particular locale says 
is right is right? Come, come, Ham. We can do better than that can't we? 
Surely a society whose members believe it's right to send some of it's 
citizens to gas chambers is immoral.    

> [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?

[Ham] 
> 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.

Ah, your "value sensibility." Is THAT the standard of morality that I and 
Arlo and everyone else ought to adhere to?

> 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.

And who decides?

> 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.

Which means anything goes because my "sense of value" will be different in 
some respects that yours, or Arlo's or the lady over there behind the 
tree. With such a view, anarchy cannot be far behind. After all, who are 
you to judge?

> 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.

Can't argue with that. But, what about societies that execute dissidents? 
Are they moral? If not, why not?

To be continued I'm sure,

Platt