[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> You mean that a natural phenomena like a tornado that destroyed a 
> tree is immoral? What moral choice does the tree have?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Within the inorganic level, the inorganic patterns of the tornado are 
> behaving morally. It is only from the vantage of the MOQ that we pass 
> judgement and say that its immoral for inorganic patterns to dominate 
> biological patterns. But this immorality is placed, according the 
> MOQ, at the conflict between the inorganic and biological levels. And 
> so we can say that for the tree, although it is incapable of 
> expressing this in abstract thought, it is "immoral" for the tornado 
> to destroy it. But for the tornado, from its vantage point on the 
> inorganic level, it is behaving perfectly in a perfect moral fashion.

Apparently from the vantage point of the inorganic and biological levels 
their patterns can do no wrong. Is that true for the higher levels as well? 

> To get more detailed, we can say that it is not immoral for the tree 
> not to move away, since it is physically incapable of doing such. 
> However, it would be immoral for a wolf to allow itself to be 
> destroyed by the tornado. In the same way it is immoral for social 
> patterns to be destroyed by biological patterns, or intellectual 
> patterns to be destroyed by social patterns.
> 
> Immorality occurs at the border between levels, as a result of 
> conflict between the levels, and it is a reflection of the values as 
> articulated by a MOQ vantage point. There is no "immorality" within 
> the levels, as the very definition of patterns within a level are 
> patterns of morals.

Doesn't Pirsig suggest there's also a scale of morality within a level? For 
example, consider his view of humans eating steak:

"An evolutionary morality, on the other hand, would say it's scientifically 
immoral for everyone because animals are at a higher level of evolution, 
that is, more Dynamic, than are grains and fruits and vegetables." (Lila 
13)

I presume Pirsig considers grains, fruits, vegetables and animals all 
within the biological level.  I would also guess that he would consider a 
chimp more Dynamic than clam.