[MD] The Moral Landscape

[Platt Holden]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Platt,
>
> Platt:
> > Sam Harris knocks religion like other "educated liberal types" and like
> them
> > is apparently oblivious to the fact that his concerns about "nuclear
> > proliferation, climate change, the crisis in education, poverty across
> the
> > world" and similar liberal ain't-it-awful afflictions spring straight out
> of
> > Western religious teachings. In fact, I'm always amused by the responses
> I
> > get from this group when I asked them to express their moral principles.
> > Invariably their answers reflect religious concepts such as love thy
> > neighbor, treat others as you would be treated, and help others "in
> need."
>
> Steve:
> What are you suggesting we are supposed to make of the fact that
> sometimes religions get it right when it comes to values? That they
> are making true claims about virgin births and the like? Surely not.
>


> If they get something right about values it is because they happened
> to stumble upon a true belief about human flourishing. But in such
> cases, the basis for saying that the belief is true is whether or not
> the belief does or does not contribute to the evolution of static
> patterns toward dynamic Quality.
>

Hi Steve:
 What religions teach about values is far from being just lucky guesses
about what's right (assuming there is such a thing as "right values"), but
rather what has proven right for the flourishing of societies (and the
brotherhood
of priests) over eons of experience.


> Steve
> It is also obvious that religions frequently get things wrong when it
> comes to values.


Platt
Are you taking it upon yourself to decide right from wrong? On what
basis may I ask? Have you adopted Pirsig's universal moral order and
the subsequent conflicts between levels? For example, are you a multi-
culturist, or do you think like Pirsig that it's OK to judge cultures other
than our own? (I bet Harris is a "diversity" advocate like all
good liberals.)

 Steve

> And religions often disagree about what is moral. How
> do we decide who is right? What both Pirsig and Harris promote is
> rational inquiry into values. Neither one thinks values are a matter
> of faith. The way Pirsig and Harris think we ought to decide in
> conflicts about what is moral is through rational inquiry, and whether
> or not a particular value does or does not agree with a particular
> Western religious tradition is completely beside the point of whether
> or not it is moral.
>

Platt
It seems perfectly rational to me to see what societies have flourished
best over the many years of human history and compare the results with
the religious beliefs of those societies. I think you will find that
societies
whose morality is based on the Judeo-Christian code have fared better
than, say, those based on Islam. Whether Harris takes such a rational
approach I can't say not having read his book. But I dare say his
approach is nothing at all like Pirsig's who posits a moral universe at
every level, from particles to ideas, with huge moral battles going on
between
the levels at all times. And, I dare say that, unlike Pirsig, Harris
doesn't
assign any blame to rational intellectuals for taking biology's side in the
conflict between society and biology, thereby causing our current moral
anarchy and multiple social troubles.

Best,
Platt




>
>
>