[MD] The Moral Landscape

[Platt Holden]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:03 AM, 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.
> >>
> >
>
>
> Platt:
> >  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:
> How do you explain that what has been "proven right" by the various
> religions are contradictory views on human flourishing?
>

Hi Steve,
Religions don't "prove" anything right or wrong (although they may claim
to do so). The proof, if such exists, lies in specific cultures. Identify
"flourishing" cultures, then examine their dominant religion or lack
thereof.
Therein lies such proof as can be ascertained.

>
> >> 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?
>
> Steve:
> Doesn't everyone?
>

Platt
Not by a long shot. The law, judges and juries determine what is
right and wrong. So do parents, priests, academics and employers
among others. Certainly the way we're brought up and the society
we live in influences our moral decisions. So I would argue that
most decisions about right and wrong are made for us. We comply
in order to flourish within our society..

>
> Platt:
> >On what basis may I ask?
>
> Steve:
> Hopefully on the basis of our best understanding of what does and does
> not contribute to human flourishing. The basis is that fact that there
> are better and worse ways for humans to behave because there are ways
> to thrive and ways to languish which  depend on facts about the world
> and ourselves.
>
> Platt:
> >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:
> It is part of Harris's thesis that some cultures are better and worse
> than others where "better" and "worse" refer to the contributions of
> sets of values to human flourishing.
>

Platt
Glad to hear it. But you, I and Harris all seem to beg the question, "What
constitutes human flourishing?" It seems the answer can only come after
we have each made certain nonrational moral assumptions. That gets to
the root of the problem don't you think?.

>
>
> 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.
>
> Steve:
> Harris has dones that. By just about any measure you can think of, it
> is the less religious counties in the US and less religious countries
> that are thriving.
>

Platt
Well, that's the root of the problem. What are the measures that put
one county or country over another on the flourishing scale? Pirsig says
by its contribution to the evolution of life. Not only is that a moral
assumption but mighty hard to measure.

>
>  Platt:
> >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.
>
> Steve:
> You are correct that Harris paints no pictures of such metaohysical
> battles. I don't think doing so would help him make his case against
> relativism and religious ogmatism regarding morality.
>
> Platt:
> >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.
>
> Steve:
> There you would be very wrong. His book is aimed primarily at liberal
> intellectuals who are convinced that values talk is noncognitive
> babble.
>

Platt
Thanks for the correction, although it doesn't specifically address Pirsig's
critique of intellectuals. Still I wonder: does Harris define a initial
premise
for a moral code? Pirsig posits advancement of evolution. Ayn Rand posits
individual freedom. I posit expansion of consciousness. What does Harris
posit?
And how do we escape from invoking a nonrational moral judgment in
establishing any initial premise?

Best,
Platt

>
>