[MD] S/O and Morality

[Jorge Goldfarb]

Platt wrote in Jan. 5:- 
   
  S/O is immoral because it doesn't acknowledge the existence of universal 
  moral values, as Pirsig explains:
   
  "But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to say that 
  science, the intellectual pattern that has been appointed to take over 
  society, has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object science has 
  no provision for morals. Subject-object science is only concerned with 
  facts. Morals have no objective reality. You can look through a microscope 
  or telescope or oscilloscope for the rest of your life and you will never 
  find a single moral. There aren't any there. They are all in your head. 
  They exist only in your imagination.
   
  "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a 
  completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in anything. 
  Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything just functions, like 
  machinery. There is nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally 
  wrong with lying, with theft, with suicide, with murder, with genocide. 
  There is nothing morally wrong because there are no morals, just functions.
   
  "Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time in 
  history, was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run society 
  with?" (Lila, 22)
   
  The problem with Western culture is "Nothing is right and nothing is 
  wrong." You see it most prominently in the philosophy dominating the 
  academic elite -- relativism and its sister, multiculturism.
   
  ======== 
   
    Platt:   quite a challenge to discuss yours and Pirsig's views above. Challenging because they raise a large number of subjects that merit discussion and it would be difficult to tackle them all in depth. Challenging especially for me because I consider myself an acute case of what Brennan calls Moral Perplexity (See his "The Open Texture of Moral Concepts") and I find Morality a very slippery matter. Nevertheless, I'll give it a try for, all its worth:
    
   
       You start by saying: "S/O is immoral because it doesn't acknowledge the existence of universal moral values." and substantiate your opinion on some of Pirsig's, which I'll try to discuss in the order they appear.
   
   " But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to say that 
  science, the intellectual pattern that has been appointed to take over 
  society, has a defect in it."
   
       I find this a bit of an exaggeration. If any group of persons or institutions ever appointed Science to take over society, their proposal seems to have been largely unheeded. It may be right to say that, in contemporary Western societies, Science is more prestigious than ever before in our history; it could be expected then that the opinion of scientists and the "scientific points of view" play an important role in how those societies are run. This expectation, if any ever entertained it, has not been fulfilled at all. The opinions of scientists about interpersonal relations and societies at large, are as wise as the ones of the "common man in the street". Most scientists are aware of this and refrain from using their 'prestige' to back up their opinions in day-to-day matters. 
   
     Besides, although Science is widely respected and admired nowadays, scientists are nowhere near the Top of the League. Even in the USA, a country that can be justly proud of its achievements in Science, the political opinions of scientists seem to carry little weight. A case in point:  in the present presidential race, the various candidates try to adorn themselves with the support of famous footballers, cinema stars and TV entertainers; scientists don't seem to be much of an asset for them. Surely this must be because, in the eyes of the electorate (society?), the opinion of entertainers about how a country should be run, carries far more weight than those of, say, a Nobel Prize laureate in Physics or Biology. 
   
       If any intellectual pattern has 'taken over society' nowadays it must be that of politicians and of  executives of multinationals, which seem to work together in remarkable harmony in most Western (and many Eastern) countries. I have no idea how to describe their intellectual pattern, but it is certainly not at all closer to that of Science. 
   
      The defect of Science: "The defect is that subject-object science has 
  no provision for morals. Subject-object science is only concerned with 
  facts. Morals have no objective reality."
   
          If Science had taken over societies that could be considered a defect because you'd expect, from whoever or whatever runs a society, to make provision for morals.
  Since that is not the case I hardly think that this could be called a defect. True, Science makes no provision for morals, nor for art, nor for religion and many others; I wouldn't call it a defect, not anymore than saying that not making provisions for morals is a defect of Art, nor that it is a defect of Religion not making provisions for Science.
   
          Science is not primarily concerned with facts; its main concern is with theories; new  facts are  a concern insofar as, when confronted with existing theories, better ones may be formulated. In other language, scientists main concern is 'weaving'  various intellectual patterns; patterns that are essentially dynamic and that (hopefully) will some day merge into one. It might be said that a theory is primarily a form of insight, i.e. a way of looking at the world, and not a form of knowledge of how the world is (David Bohm).
   
     "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a 
  completely purposeless, valueless place."
   
         The first part of the sentence, that of the world being purposeless in the eyes of Science, should be, perhaps, rephrased. Science has no tools to answer questions such as – What is the purpose of the World?--  Why was the world created?—(or even whether it was created or not). IMHO neither can Philosophy for that matter. Only Religion addresses itself to such questions and provides clear cut answers.
   
    The second part though, that is that, in the eyes of Science, this world is "a valueless place", is questionable. But this I'd better leave for a following Post since the question of Values and Science is an intricate one. I am also leaving for later the central question "Is Science Immoral?". Not that I am evading the question, only that I thought of commenting first on the arguments on which  your proposition is based. 
   

       
---------------------------------
 Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.