[MD] Sin Part 1

[Laird Bedore]

>> [Laird]
>> Hi Platt,
>>
>> (Seriously) Thanks for writing this. It has really helped me understand 
>> the love/hate relationship I have with your comments at times... You're 
>> a clear Darwinian, "survival of the fittest" at heart. I used to be (at 
>> least in ideas and words), but in time (and trauma) I found I didn't 
>> practice what I preached. So I've been trying to match my preaching with 
>> my practice and have found my practiced opinions to be quite different, 
>> though a part of me still has an attachment to the Darwinist approach. 
>> It certainly can be a quick way to get results! ;)
>>
>>     
> [Platt]
> Hi Laird,
>
> What makes you think I'm a "clear Darwinian?" As you know, his theory (and
> let's not forget it is a theory) concerns the biological level. I would 
> characterize myself as a "Pirsigian" who believes the highest moral levels 
> are those involving the individual -- the creator of intellect and art. Darwin
> had precious little to say about either intellect or art.
>
>   
[Laird]
The phrase "survival of the fittest" is closely tied to Darwin, but the 
concept is not bound exclusively to biological issues. It's the 
underlying belief that people must rise to meet the situation 
(biological, social, or intellectual), and those who fail to do so must 
suffer the consequences - biologically (death), socially (outcast), or 
intellectually (fool). The relationship to Darwin's theory of evolution 
is so close it's considered synonymous. It's quite unabashedly 
individualistic (risks and outcomes are completely in the hands of the 
individual), which is partly explains why I make the connection.

Advocates see success or failure itself determining morality and 
justifying the consequences. Those who hunt and gather deserve life, 
those who don't gather food deserve death. Law-abiders deserve 
community, lawbreakers deserve imprisonment and isolation. This 
fundamental premise is the key building block to much of evolutionary 
morality, including the "everyone is basically selfish" idea recently 
discussed here.

So what I was saying is that I see quite a lot of this "survival of the 
fittest" background in your statements. I think it's very compatible 
with Pirsig's moral ontology, no worries there. Just making the 
observation, putting a stick in the sand and measuring the distance.

-Laird