[MD] Subjectivity in the MOQ

[MarshaV]

At 04:01 AM 3/15/2009, you wrote:
>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.

Greetings,

And it wouldn't it be good to make love the strongest of conventions...


Marsha






.
_____________

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