[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

How could man discover good and bad in an amoral universe?

Good question Laramie,

If humanity were not moral, we would not be having this conversation. 

If being moral is higher than being amoral, an amoral universe could 
not have created a moral being.    

Chin


----- Original Message -----
From: LARAMIE LOEWEN <jeffersonrank1 at msn.com>
Date: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:30 am
Subject: Re: [MD] Essentialism and the MOQ
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> Hi Ham --
> 
> >Whitehead wants to justify the "goodness" of God for the same 
> reason that
> >Pirsig wants to justify the "universality of goodness".  The 
> statement "His
> >necessary goodness expresses the determination of his consequent 
> nature">seems to prove my point.  What "necessary goodness"?  What 
> is the
> >metaphysical basis for Whitehead's premise that goodness is a 
> necessary>attribute of the creation, or Pirsig's premise that 
> morality is innate in
> >the universe?  God [Essence] knows no distinctions.  Goodness is 
> for MAN to
> >discover, along with Badness.  I submit that such evaluations are 
> only>possible in an amoral universe in which man is the autonomous 
> subject.
> >Think on that, Laramie, and tell me why it doesn't make sense.  
> 
> How could man discover good and bad in an amoral universe?
> 
> Cheers,
> Laramie
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>