[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --



> In my opinion, the concept of morality in humans is an expression
> (or extension) of a more profound Morality.  We certainly express
> it as humans do, but this does not mean it does not exist as a "force"
> elsewhere.  This is why I subscribe to Quality from the ground up.
> Trees have a morality of their own, which we could never
> understand intellectually except to say that if it occurs in humans,
> it occurs in everything.  We are not special in that sense.
>
> This takes a bit away from the definition of morality as we have as
> humans, but that is to be expected, and doesn't diminish it.  We call
> it morality, a planet may call it orbiting.  Don't take this example
> too literally of course.  Planets do "choose" a certain orbit however,
> and we make other "choices".  Where these choices come from in
> humans is somewhat of a metaphysical or paradoxical mystery.
> Thus we subscribe to higher orders.

I appreciate this clarification of your morality concept, Mark, as I am sure 
Horse will also.

The concept of universal morality is of course a theme of Pirsig's MoQ:
"Morality is not a simple set of rules.  It's a very complex struggle of 
conflicting patterns of values. This conflict is the residue of evolution. 
As new patterns evolve they come into conflict with old ones.  Each stage of 
evolution creates in its wake a wash of problems."  --[LILA]

The MoQ makes Quality not only the Creator of the experiential universe but 
the 'summum bonum' of Aristotle's Ethics.  Actually, Pirsig's 
multi-equivalent equation should read: Experience = Quality = Reality = 
Morality.  He has even thrown the archaic term 'Arête' (excellence) into the 
mix as a final appeal for this concept.

I don't happen to subscribe to this view of morality, nor do I believe in a 
moral universe.  Whatever ends or goals are immanent in nature are known 
only to the Designer and are usually referenced in the context of 
'teleology'.  Teleology may be what you have described as your "more 
profound Morality," Mark.  It has to do with the symmetry and order of the 
universal design rather than with behavior-related moral principles whose 
virtues and vices are relative to the observer.

If you don't consider yourself a moral relativist, I invite you to read an 
essay archived on my website titled "Confessions of a Moral Relativist".  It 
may surprise you to know that it's a sermon by a Unitarian minister who gave 
me written permission to run it on my Values page.  "Are there, in the end," 
he asks, "actually such things as 'moral absolutes' of either a religious or 
secular nature?"  His answer is no.  This paragraph explains his 
justification:

"Morality, values, and ethics are not just important, they are essential to 
human survival and well being.  This is why we have them and why they have 
evolved, albeit in a rather halting fashion, over the course of human 
history.  Moral relativism is the recognition of this simple truth: That 
morality is of human origin and has evolved along with humanity itself for 
the sake of human survival and human well being; and therefore-as I view 
it-has a certain sacred quality about it for that reason alone.  A moral 
relativist is one who recognizes the broad moral and ethical values and 
precepts that have served the cause of humanity over the course of human 
history, and who seeks to apply those values and principles in whatever 
personal, or social, or socio-political situation it is that calls for moral 
decision making."  --[Steve Edington, Confessions: 
www.essentialism.net/confessions.htm]

As for "planets choosing orbits", if the universal design embodies cosmic 
"excellence", the orbit will not be a free (moral) choice of the planet but 
an existential representation of its "intelligent" Designer.

Thanks for explaining your view of Morality, Mark.

Essentially yours,
Ham