[MD] S/O and Morality

[Platt Holden]

Hi Jorge,

>   From Platt: 
>   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.
> 
>   =======   
>    My comments: 
> 
>       "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a 
>   completely purposeless, valueless place" I addressed the question of
>   purposeless in my last; regarding the question of the world as a valueless
>   place:
> 
>       This is a pretty difficult issue to tackle in just a few sentences;
>       one runs the risk of being superficial. However, to propose that, for
>       Science, the world is a valueless place, without substantiating the
>       assertion may also be considered somewhat superficial, so, I'll give
>       it a try. 
> 
>          In the eyes of Science a description of  the world we live-in
>          should be coherent and consistent or, in short,  'should make
>          sense'. To think that the world ought to be like that, is to think
>          in terms of values.
> 
>           Perhaps some examples to illustrate: processes that happen inside
>           the atomic nucleus or in a remote star or inside a living cell,
>           cannot be described by using a different Physics in each case. You
>           cannot use a different quantum theory or a different
>           thermodynamics for clusters of proteins than for clusters of
>           stars. If a theory in Chemistry contradicts a theory in Biology,
>           it means that something is amiss in one of them and the
>           contradiction should be urgently clarified. Considering the
>           incredible variety of forms and processes in our world, to presume
>           that the world ought to behave in such a way is to ask a lot from
>           it and, to presume that, we humans, will eventually achieve that
>           purpose is to ask a lot from ourselves.
> 
>      I'd venture to say that those are value-loaded worldviews and hence to
>      accuse  Science of considering the world as a valueless place seems to
>      me a bit unfair.

Good point. Science values a lot of its assumptions and activities, but is
reluctant to admit it. Here is Pirsig's analysis:

" 'Science is not concerned with values. Science is concerned only with 
facts.' In a subject-object metaphysics this platitude is unassailable, but 
the Metaphysics of Quality asks: which values is science unconcerned with?
Gravitation is an inorganic pattern of values. Is science unconcerned? 
Truth is an intellectual pattern of values. Is science unconcerned? A 
scientist may argue rationally that the moral question, "Is it all right to 
murder your neighbor?" is not a scientific question. But can he argue that 
the moral question, "Is it all right to fake your scientific data?" is not 
a scientific question? Can he say, as a scientist, "The faking of 
scientific data is no concern of science?" If he gets tricky and tries to 
say that that is a moral question about science which is not a part of 
science, then he has committed schizophrenia. He is admitting the existence 
of a real world that science cannot comprehend. What the Metaphysics of 
Quality makes clear is that it is only social values and morals, 
particularly church values and morals, that science is unconcerned with." 
(Lila, 24) 

So I think your point is well taken. 

>     True, Science has little or nothing to offer regarding values such as
>     Liberty, Equality, Beauty and others that preoccupy us so much as humans
>     in societies. However, because of its way of thinking the world, Science
>     could be of help in contrasting values with actual practices. Something
>     is surely amiss if we happen to believe in Liberty for some and not for
>     others and the notion of universality of human rights is in a way in
>     line with the scientific idea of how the world ought to be. 

I think you are stretching when you say science has an idea of how we
ought to the behave. If anything, science has shown that the human species
acts in ways that are anything but orderly. Nor do I think science 
necessarily values a world in which human beings act in unison with robot-
like predictability. Perhaps I've interpreted your point too literally. 

>     "There is nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally 
>   wrong with lying, with theft,
." Again, I'd be so bold as to rephrase
>   that. Science does not say that there is nothing morally wrong with lying
>   or stealing, neither it says that those actions are morally wrong.
>   Morality, taken in that sense, it's just  out of bounds of its fields of
>   enquiry. The same to be said for Art and even for History. These are
>   questions in the domain of Philosophy and Religion. Perhaps one day all of
>   it may merge into one, I do hope so; in the meantime let's worry about how
>   each one does its self-assigned job and if I may add, as a debatable
>   proposition, Western culture has been doing much  better in Art or Science
>   than in Philosophy or Religion.

Agree. I think Pirsig does, too. He wrote: " . . . and in this culture 
there aren't any fundamental meanings of morality. (A failure of philosophy 
and religion,)  There are only old traditional social and traditional 
meanings and these don't have any intellectual base. They're just 
traditions." (Lila, 7 -parens added)

Pirsig's MOQ is an attempt to merge science, art and philosophy "into one."

>      As to your last sentence: The problem with Western culture is "Nothing
>      is right and nothing is wrong", I tend to disagree with you. The
>      disagreement may arise though from different meanings of "Western
>      culture" . If we think of culture in terms of patterns of thinking of
>      the Western intellectual elites I'd agree with you; postmodernism and
>      all that stuff. But if we think of culture in terms of the masses of
>      people, I'd say that the issues of right and wrong preoccupy as much as
>      in previous periods in our history. Confrontations like the WWII and
>      the Cold War, which involved humanity at large, used a rhetoric of
>      right and wrong in the moral sense. In  our very days from hearing  the
>      most influential leader of the West (GWB) moral issues seem to be most
>      preeminent. Since he and others are addressing public opinion, it could
>      be inferred that those issues still carry a lot of weight among the
>      public. 

Agree. These moral issues are, as Pirsig pointed out in the quote cited 
above, "just traditions" handed down from generation to generation without 
a rational basis. If our goal is to bring science, art, history, religion 
and other categories of human endeavor under one roof, it would seem that 
that a rational approach holds out the best hope. That means giving 
morality a rational, scientific basis and not simply relying on tradition 
to define moral precepts.  

What do you think?

Regards,
Platt
  



---------------------------------
>  Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good
> 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/