[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham,

I'm getting way behind in responding to you, Arlo, Bo and Ian because I've been
tied up with our move to a town near Hilton Head, South Carolina.  In the
process I had to  set up my computer all over again, change my e-mail address,
find a new Internet provider, re-register with Horse and a hundred and one other
details associated with changing residence.  

In the intermin I've lost where we were and what we were arguing about in our
debates prior to the move. But I will try to pick up were we left off as best I
can. Thank goodness for the archives! Or rather, thank Horse!  Can anyone
imagine a better coordinator and host for the MOQ? I certainly can't. 

With that self-absorbed introduction, I will try to respond to your post of 
December 23. You wrote:

[Ham]
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.

[Ham]
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?

Yes. We agree even though Arlo makes a cogent argument based on Pirsig's
reasoning, his main point being no one can tell in advance whether a murderer
will suddenly come up with an idea that will move evolution along for the
better.  My answer to that is, "Show me the evidence."  In fact, the mob who
inflicted capital punishment on Jesus may have done evolution a big favor if you
consider Christianity to have been, on balance, a force for good. 

[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.

[Ham]
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".

Hmmm. I'll duck the relative question for the moment to focus on "psycho-somatic
value response."  I agree with you about that. One's experience occurs
concurrently with valuation. We think of these two as separate--first the raw
experience, then the valuation of whether it's good or bad. But, as Pirsig says,
they are truly one and the same. Value is part and parcel of experience, built
right into the nervous system, whether it be the nervous system of a clam, a cat
or a human. Even a lowly bacterium knows when "It's better here."  

[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?

[Ham]
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.)

Exactly. "Might makes right" is the moral system of the biological level which
fights the thin veneer of civilization all the time in its effort to become the
dominant morality. Society fights back in self-defense because a society cannot
survive under a "might makes right" morality where the only law is kill or be
killed.  We have so much trouble putting down terrorists because either we don't
understand the threat to our society, or because we don't have the moral
ruthlessness necessary to fight them on their own terms. It is sickening to
witness our leaders worry about extending civil rights to terrorists while a
country like Iran is rushing pell mell to attain nuclear weapons to hold Western
civilization hostage.    

[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.

[Ham]
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.

[Ham]
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.

With all due respect, I don't think you answered my question. Are some societies
more moral, i.e. better, than others?

 [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?

[Ham]
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.)

If it isn't your place to judge the morality of others, whose is it? Surely you
can judge that a murderer -- or a Hussein -- is immoral.  And I'll bet there are
a lot of other behaviors that you judge to be immoral like lying, cheating and
stealing.  Yes, Ham. It is your place and mine to judge others. Otherwise,
anthing goes. The great contribution of Pirsig is giving us a metaphysics where
our moral judgements can be made on the basis or reason, not just what
everybody, or some authority figure, says.

[Ham]
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.

Sorry Ham, you lost me. Too abstract for me to comprehend. 

Best wishes for a wonderful New Year,

Platt








-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/