[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

Platt --

> But you see, to me "individual freedom" is a high moral ideal.
> In fact, just about the highest. Do you agree?

Okay, this assertion and your question underscores the disparity in our two
perspectives.  It would be easy for me to overlook where you are coming
from, and reply "yes".  But that would accomplish nothing in our
communication, because I do not understand "individual freedom" as a "moral
ideal".

Idealistic freedom alludes to a desired goal toward which society is
supposedly moving.  It is not what I would call "individual" freedom.  I see
Individual Freedom as the "value" of human individuality (autonomy) which is
intrinsic to man.  That is, it's a 'given' attribute of human existence.
And, while I agree that it is very high on the scale of perceived values, to
accept your definition of it as "moral" would be misleading.  Morality is
something given to us; it is a code of societal ethics or justice which we
mortals create in order to preserve our civilization.

> Cannot a "fixed cosmic morality" include man's autonomy
> being a moral evolutionary step forward?  In other words,
> cannot a fixed morality include a fixed openness to the new
> and better, just as the fixed scientific method remains open
> to new and better theories?

You've put your finger on the major difference in our philosophies, and my
answer has to be no.

If there is a "fixed cosmic morality", there can be no autonomy for man.
This is Presbyterian "predestination" or the non-theistic doctrine of
"karma", by which those who do not follow the cosmic course are considered
predestined to be "immoral", and vice-versa.  In Christianity, this concept
stems from the notion of an "omniscient" God who has foreknowledge of the
fate of his creatures.  Here is how Predestination is defined by Wikipedia:

"Predestination may sometimes be used to refer to other materialistic,
spiritualist, non-theistic or polytheistic ideas of determinism, destiny,
fate, doom, or karma.  Such beliefs or philosophical systems may hold that
any outcome is finally determined by the complex interaction of multiple,
possibly immanent, possibly impersonal, possibly equal forces: rather than
the issue of the Creator's conscious choice."

I can't see how man can "autonomously" evolve toward a "fixed cosmic
morality".  To me, that's an oxymoron.  The immoral individual either must
be excluded from this cosmic reality or, if he is part of it, must
necessarily denigrate it.

I hold that the human individual is a creature of conscious choice.  And I
believe that this theory is inconsistent with a fixed morality system.

> I don't think we "need" four evolutionary moral levels
> like we need food, shelter and clothing. But I do think
> we need a better foundation for moral judgments than
> "whatever man thinks makes sense." That leaves the door
> wide open for as many interpretations of moral values as
> there are men.

Exactly.  That's the whole point of human autonomy.  As my friend Stephen
Edington put it in his sermon, "it is really the only kind of morality there
is.  A related point is that it is the reality of moral relativism that
calls us, as human beings, to moral responsibility and moral decision
making."

> I see the problem as a disagreement concerning basic premises,
> not on the rationale that follows. For example, you believe as a
> basic premise that consciousness (awareness) is restricted to
> entities with nervous systems. I don't. I believe that all entities
> respond to consciousness, each in their own way, i.e., I believe
> in panpsychism.

I don't know what you mean by "respond to consciousness".  Response connotes
behavior.  Many things -- both organic and inorganic -- respond to natural
forces, such as chemical irritants, sunlight, gravity, temperature, and
genetic mechanisms.  These are forms of "behavior" but not "consciousness".
Consciousness is the proprietary mode of awareness; it is not shared in
common with other entities, organic or inorganic.  Proprietary awareness is
an "absolute attribute" in that it cannot be quantified differentially in
living organisms.

> I'm trying to find out what you consider to be "objective evidence"
> since you base your arguments on it. For example, is not the
> observation that an amoeba will move away from a toxic compound
> objective evidence that it possesses purpose and values?

Not at all.  All life forms are designed with survival mechanisms; this is
how biological evolution works.  Organisms that lack adequate survival
capabilities die out; thus, Darwin's law of natural selection.  But the
"purpose" and "values" you would ascribe to these biological mechanisms are
not intrinsic to the organism itself.  There is no objective evidence that
an amoeba is conscious of its behavior, or that it is aware of the value of
survival.  The teleology that accounts for biological evolution is designed
into the universe by the essential Source.  If you are a Naturalist, you
will say that it is the process of natural selection.  If you are an
Essentialist, you will understand it as our finite intellectual perspective
of Essence.

With all due respect to Bo, the 'one-dollar/five-dollar' analogy of value
does not represent the value or Quality postulated by Pirsig.  Nor does a
flower leaning toward the sun to enhance  photosynthesis demonstrate its
moral behavior.  Such anthropological euphemisms have no objective validity.

> Maybe not. But IMO the explanatory power of the MOQ
> gives plenty of evidence for the quality of the MOQ. As for
> proving anything "beyond man's awareness of it" isn't that a
> conundrum that would apply equally to Essentialism?

I don't think so.  First of all, I make no claim for Essentialism being
capable of objective validation.  You may envision my hypothesis as a
conundrum, or as an outright fallacy.  That's your choice.  The truth is
that neither Mr. Pirsig nor I will ever have proof of our theories in this
world.  But, for whatever its significance, I can assert, a la Pirsig, that
Essence "cannot be dismissed as unverifiable" by the positivists.

Essentially,
Ham