[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Platt Holden]

Ham -

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

H: 
> 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.

Yes, I think you've made yourself clear about limiting the concept of morality 
to human social behavior. I had hopes that perhaps you might be willing to 
expand that concept to include the rules of behavior of our companions in this 
world including atoms, animals and thoughts in order that we might better 
explain why evolution has brought us from a state of nothing to the music of 
Mozart and the paintings of Vermeer. But given your stance, there's not much 
point in belaboring the idea that we are here because of a principle of 
betterness that has constantly sought to improve the world since it's beginning 
billions of years ago. (By "improve" I mean expand consciousness for the 
purpose of allowing the universe to better see, understand and enjoy itself.)   
 

PH:
> > 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?

H: 
> 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 see a "fixed cosmic morality" in a principle of betterness. There is no 
fixed end point at which betterness is achieved. It is infinite.

P: 
> > 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.

H: 
> 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."

Which IMO leads to a morality of "anything goes." Then civilization, with no 
rational universal principles to uphold it, slowly disintegrates -- as have 
hundreds of civilizations before ours. On what basis will you defend your 
culture against attack if the other culture's morals are as authentic as yours? 
"Better Red than dead" was the cry of 60's Hippies. Had that idea prevailed, I 
doubt if you and I would be having this conversation today.

P:
> > 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.

H: 
> 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.

Yes, I understand we have different ideas about consciousness and its existence 
beyond nervous systems. For me, consciousness is something the brain. that big 
bundle of nerve tissue,  taps into rather than creates. 

P:
> > 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?

H: 
> 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.

You speak of self-awareness as if that was the only legitimate type of 
awareness, at least as it relates to values and purpose. You see, I disagree 
with that premise. I observe my cat having lots of values and lots of purposes, 
mainly to nap at every possible moment. :-). 

H:
> 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.

P: 
> > 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.

Well, the question of "proof" is an interesting one as you know only too well. 
In my book you look at a theory like you look at paintings and choose the one 
you think best. Scientists like paintings filled with mathematical formulas and 
measurements. I like paintings that hint of something beyond objective 
verification -- paintings that suggest levels beyond what we fully understand. 
Or as Edgar Allan Poe put it: " . . . to make one see or hear with shivering 
delight a sight or sound which cannot have been unfamiliar to angels."

I would guess you experienced something like when your theory of Essence fell 
into place for you. I felt like that after reading "Lila." 

We really can't ask for much more. :-)       

Morally yours,
Platt