[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Ham Priday]

Platt --

I'm really not obsessed with matters of relativity, whether it's differences
between various animals, plants or chemicals, or comparative sociology.  The
main reason I'm battling this out with you is that I recognize Philosophy is
essentially Morality to you.  So if we can't come to some agreement on what
morality is, I'll never reach you with my metaphysics.

In the spirit of the season, let's see if there's something we can agree on.

[Platt]:
> 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.

I agree with your rejection of Pirsig's assertion, but not because murderers
and terrorists do not become messiahs.  (Actually, they occasionally do.
Mohammed's history was not exactly that of Little Orphan Annie, but he was
viewed as a prophet despite the blood on his hands.)  Pirsig's statement
would exonerate the likes of Adolph Hitler (although he committed suicide),
because he "had ideas".  Surely Saddam Hussain has ideas; would a death
sentence by the Iraqui Court therefore be immoral?

[Ham, previously]:
> What does "the norm" mean if not "relative to the society in
> question"?  How is one to know what the "norm" may be for Quality?

[Platt]:
> 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.

You seem to be making my point here, Platt.  The norm is different (i.e.,
relative), that is, "depending on one's physical makeup and life
experiences".   Some people are also more sensitive to the pain of others
because they are more "attuned" to the value of life.  We call it human
compassion.  This feeling or sensibility is a psycho-somatic value response,
and it's related to individual self-consciousness from which one develops a
"moral conscience".

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

Are you trying to sell me on the "Law of the Jungle" as an absolute morality
system?  Wouldn't that justify the maxim "Might makes Right"?   (Maybe
that's why we're having so much trouble  putting down the terrorists.  They
believe this; we apparently don't.)

[Platt]:
> 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.

Morality isn't MY idea, Platt.  Actually, I think we'd do better without it.
What I've been trying to say is that any group of people who ban together
and form a society can be described anthropologically in terms of the
behavioral patterns and conventions they adopt.  This is their morality.  It
isn't handed down on tablets of stone; it doesn't come out of thin air; it's
not an absolute standard.  It's a reflection of the individual values shared
collectively in a society.

Now, to the extent that collective behavior is unduly influenced by what you
like to call "the mob" or external authority, it can be allowed to
contradict individual values.  When people are content to mirror the opinion
polls or defer to authority when making decisions, they are surrendering
their individual freedom to the collective mentality.  Metaphysically, if
not morally, this is irresponsible human behavior.  I think you would agree
to that.

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

You're putting the cart before the horse.  Trying to establish a moral
position without some kind of belief system as its foundation is foolish.
If you have no values, you can't tell right from wrong.  If you don't value
life, you have no morality.  Understanding comes from studying how existence
works, participating in it with fellow human beings, and opening your
awareness to its values.  But until we can satisfactorily answer the "why"
of existence, at least for ourselves, we are playing with uncertainty.

This is why I put so much emphasis on metaphysics, which is the single
non-authoritative approach to fulfilling man's spiritual and valuistic
needs.  The MOQ apparently suffices for you.  I happen to think Essentialism
leaves less room for doubt by addressing the questions that are fundamental
to a belief system.  We can't know all the answers, but until we've arrived
at a philosophy of life that merits personal conviction, we're not equipped
to prioritize our values into a personal morality.  It's probably the last
step in the process.

[Ham, previously]:
> Moral decisions [are] based on [one's] 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.

[Platt]:
> 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 isn't my place to judge the morality of others; only they can be
accountable for their actions.  I can only judge my own actions in
accordance with my belief system.  (Incidentally, I'd get rid of that guy
and his lady friend who are constantly lurking behind your tree.  Paranoia
is not conducive to philosophical understanding.)

There's an old adage: 'We reap what we sow'.  I believe that the essence of
man is the value he nurtures in this relational world.  Value is our finite
sense of Absolute Essence, experienced "from the outside", as it were.  But
because Essence transcends the relations of finitude, its value is never
lost.  Like Eckhart, I also believe that the ultimate union of the "lover"
and the "love object" (which is what Value really represents) is infallible
because the essence of every individual is that of his Creator.

Have a pleasant Christmas Eve and a Christmas Day filled with beauty.

Ham