[MD] What kind of ethical theory is the MOQ?

[david buchanan]

Steve said to Marsha:
(I was trying to talk to the one referred to above in the prepositional phrase "for me..."  Apparently, no such person exists, yet I keep getting responses from this person. Very strange.) ...While Pirsig's point is important, there is a time and place for pointing out that the special ontological status traditionally granted to the self in philosophical discussions is arguably a fiction, there are also lots and lots of other times where saying so is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Have you considered that this might be one of those times? ...I'm just asking what you think the best static patterns available are, but you don't seem interested in that game, and I'm not interested in the one you are playing since I am not permitted to take for granted for purposes of this discussion that you even exist.



dmb says:

Exactly.

It's interesting to watch Marsha play her standard trick on somebody else. It's frustrating when you're right there in the thick of it but from a distance it's almost amusing. She uses the doctrine of no-self to protect her ego, to evade debate when her never-changing views are challenged. 

Bringing this point back to the actual topic, I want to say just one thing.  Because the MOQ expands the notion of morality all the way down and it rejects the Cartesian subject, we'd certainly want to dramatically re-conceptualize our notions of moral agency but that would be an expansion of the notions, not an evacuation of them.