[MD] Natural Law

[Steven Peterson]

Hi John,

This is interesting but not really what I was trying to get at. I'm
talking about personal moral deliberation. How do we decide what we
ought to do in particular circumstances?  When are we morally
obligated to do or not do something? Does the MOQ hierarchy of value
patterns help us to make decisions or just help us to make sense of
the choices that others make as in your examples? Is it no better the
Natural Law theory in that it is only good for confirming what you
already believe (just as it confirms Platt's conservatism for him and
Arlo's liberalism for him)?

In general, how do we decide what is morally right and wrong? What
role can the MOQ play if any in that process beyond explaining choices
after the fact?

I think Pirsig almost says that the MOQ levels are useless for
personal moral deliberation in his football field analogy in the intro
to LC. If the MOQ levels do not aid s is discernment, what can be said
about the process of deciding what the world ought to be like and how
we ought to try to achieve it?

Best,
Steve