[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Ron,

>
> Steve quotes Pirsig:
>
> "I’ve concluded that the biggest improvement I could make in the  
> MOQ would be to block the
> notion that the MOQ claims to be a quick fix for every moral  
> problem in the universe. I have never seen it that way. The image  
> in my mind as I wrote it was of a large football field that gave  
> meaning to the game by telling you who was on the 20-yard line but  
> did not decide which team would win. That was the point of the two  
> opposing arguments over the death penalty described in Lila.That  
> was the point of the equilibrium between static and Dynamic  
> Quality. Both are moral arguments. Both can claim the MOQ for  
> support. Just as two sides can go before the U.S. Supreme Court and  
> both claim constitutionality, so two sides can use the MOQ, but  
> that does not mean that either the Constitution or the MOQ is a  
> meaningless set of ideas. Our whole judicial system rests on the  
> presumption that more than one set of conclusions about individual  
> cases can be drawn within a given set of moral rules. The MOQ makes  
> the same presumption."
> Steve:
> The above is only relativism if you believe in essences like The  
> Moral Law or if you have bought into the philosophical promise of  
> discovering an eternal foundation for our moral arguments. If you  
> haven't, then I don't think you'd want to use the word relativism  
> at all unless you encounter someone who takes the self-defeating  
> position that nothing is better or worse than anything else.
>
> Ron:
> The above is relativism if one believs that the supreme court never  
> makes a ruling, but it does,
> given the many truths, it makes a decision based on the value of  
> those truths.
> the idea of many truths does not mean that there is no truth, only  
> differing contexts of which it applies.
> I believe it is relativism if one believes that a value decision  
> may not be arrived at.
> I think there is quite a difference between eternal foundationalism  
> and having the
> ability to make value judgements.
>


Steve:
The Supreme Court makes a ruling, but the Constitution itself does  
not make a ruling. The MOQ doesn't offer us a trans-cultural  
Archimedean point from which to pass final judgement.

There are some extremely easy cases like a doctor preferring his  
patient over a germ that get clear MOQ support. But then we already  
knew how to decide those cases. It doesn't help us decide the ones  
that we actually debate about, but it does give us a way of  
understanding the debate as a conflict of types of values rather than  
between heroes and villians. That understanding will prevent us from  
demonizing our opponents in debate and hopefully help us make better  
decisions favoring dynamic progress where possible while preserving  
any important static latching without which dynamic progress would be  
impossible.

Best,
Steve