[MD] The Moral Landscape

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 21 Oct 2010 at 9:26, Steven Peterson wrote:

Hi Platt,

> Steve:
> Yes, an ever-improving moral code. Just as rational inquiry has
> increased our knowledge about every other subject, it has and will
> continue to add to our knowledge about morals.
>
> What do you propose as the alternative to rational inquiry into
> morals? Just go with whatever people used to believe? Go with whatever
> the Catholic Church says? Personal moral intuition?

Platt:

[crickets chirping]

> Platt
> An ever-changing moral code based on what a bunch of scientists
> say at any given time? That's not my idea of the good life. I like to
> plan ahead with some assurance that what is right today will be right
> tomorrow.

Steve:
That would be nice, and i can understand why you would desire such
certainty, but where do you hope to get this assurance that all of
what we believe to be true today about morality will never be found to
be false tomorrow? Religions make such promisses, but that doesn't
mean that they can deliver.

Platt
There are certain moral principles fashioned by eons of human history that all 
cultures at all times follow. One that comes immediately to mind is the 
universal ban against incest. Others, such as bans against lying, cheating and 
stealing are also considered in most cultures to be wrong. If such principles 
are found to be false in the future, I would be very much surprised. Can you 
think of any universal moral principles that science might change?    

Platt:
>Nor do I want to governed by a bunch of scientists
> susceptible to corruption by money and politics.

Steve:
Who is talking about being governed by scientists. Scientists will
tell you that not washing your hands after using the bathroom spreads
disease. Have you ever been forced by a scientist to wash your hands?
Nevertheless, isn't it good to know how disease is spread?

Platt
I've never known scientists to be shy about trying to influence legislatures or 
for politicians to cite scientific studies to justify government regulation. 
That's "talking about being governed by scientists."
. . 

> Steve:
> The fact is that the word morality is generally not used in that
> sense, and I can't see how thinking of atoms as having morals will
> help us determine what is right and wrong for human beings. Perhaps
> you can explain.
>
> Platt
> Read Lila. The explanation is there in full.

Steve:
I have read Lila as you know. I am not aware of any explanation of why
thinking of atoms as having morals is necessary before one can
rationally inquire into morals. I don't think any such requirement
obtains.

Platt
I do. Unless rooted in universal order, morality will always be relative and 
subjective. Like trying to define "well-being." 

> Steve
> Yes and yes. We've already been through this. I already posted an
> essay where Harris goes into his mystical experiences.
>
> Platt
> He plays lip service to meditation and the "contemplative life."
> But does he have any concept of Dynamic Quality as a moral
> force? Not that I can see. In fact, his faith in science suggests
> that religious mystic experience plays no role in determining how
> to moral behavior. Reason is his church -- a restrictive, narrow
> view IMO. .

Steve:
Agreed that Harris has no conceptof dynamic Quality as a moral force.
He doesn't have the MOQ vocabulary, nor would he benefit from using
it.

I don't see how religious mystical experience could possibly determine
morals. Are you talking about Moses having the 10 Comandments divinely
revealled to him? The MOQ subscribes to no such morality through
revellation. In fact, if you don't understand that the MOQ promotes
rational inquiry into morals and opposes the notion that morals are a
religious matter, you literally don't understand the first thing about
the MOQ 

Platt.
I can see you don't understand undefinable Dynamic Quality or believe in 
Pirsig's premise that DQ is a moral force. Oh well, someday it may be revealed 
to you.