[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Case, Platt


Case to Platt:
Pirsig is not offering up a license to make static moral judgments. He is
providing a way of analyzing ethical matters. 

Steve:

I agree. Pirsig set out to define moral conflicts in terms of an eveolutionary hierarchy, not to give a formula that can be applied to solve every moral question.


RMP in the intro to LC:

"After reading through these and many other comments I’ve concluded
that the biggest improvement I could make in the MOQ would be to block the
notion that the MOQ claims to be a quick fix for every moral problem in the
universe. I have never seen it that way. The image in my mind as I wrote it
was of a large football field that gave meaning to the game by telling you who
was on the 20-yard line but did not decide which team would win. That was
the point of the two opposing arguments over the death penalty described in
Lila.That was the point of the equilibrium between static and Dynamic
Quality. Both are moral arguments. Both can claim the MOQ for support. Just
as two sides can go before the U.S. Supreme Court and both claim
constitutionality, so two sides can use the MOQ, but that does not mean that
either the Constitution or the MOQ is a meaningless set of ideas. Our whole
judicial system rests on the presumption that more than one set of
conclusions about individual cases can be drawn within a given set of moral
rules. The MOQ makes the same presumption."


Regards,
Steve







 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com