[MD] Subjectivity in the MOQ

[MarshaV]

At 11:27 AM 3/14/2009, you wrote:
>All:
>
>A major premise of the MOQ is the existence of a universal moral order, of
>good and evil, right and wrong. Understanding this moral order depends on
>understanding the constant conflicts between the evolutionary moral levels.
>What is right at the biological level (the law of the jungle) is wrong at
>the social level (laws of society), etc. Also required is the assumption of
>an indefinable moral force called Dynamic Quality.
>
>But when it comes to individuals, universal morality appears to revert to
>individual idiosyncrasies. In a word, morality becomes subjective -- a
>concept the MOQ otherwise attempts to deny.
>
>"The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality
>is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are
>different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern
>of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence
>his final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual
>value judgments but not complete uniformity." (Pirsig--SODV)
>
>With one stroke Pirsig overthrows his premise of universal morality by
>admitting to moral relativity. Further, he implies that to overcome moral
>relativity is impossible because "each person has a different static
>pattern of life history."
>
>I think moral relativists (the multiculturist, political correctness,
>tolerance-above-all crowd) that infest academia would eagerly seize on
>Pirsig's acknowledgment of subjective nature of moral judgments to toss the
>MOQ out of serious philosophical consideration if indeed they haven't
>already done so.
>
>Perhaps this is what our friend Ham has been banging about all along. So to
>all true blue MOQites I ask, "Where have I go wrong in this post?"
>
>Regards,
>Platt

Greetings Platt,

I do not know that I think you went wrong.

For me, the MOQ, the hierarchy of levels, the levels and all static 
patterns of value exist because of convention.  Good and evil, right 
and wrong are also static patterns of value that exist because of 
convention, likewise the idea of a universal moral order.  Convention 
is pattern-making which is static morality, or what is sometimes 
labled 'universal moral order'.  DQ (MORALITY) is beyond what is 
indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.  So maybe the stronger, 
wider, deeper a moral convention is held, the more universal it 
appears.  No contradiction, just misunderstanding.   At least, this 
is my opinion at the moment.


Marsha


.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.