[MD] Morality and Prudence

[Ham Priday]

Hi Horse, Steve, DMB, and All --

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

> In Lila Pirsig states:
> "The Metaphysics of Quality says that if moral judgements are
> essentially assertions of value and if value is the fundamental
> ground-stuff of the world, then moral judgements are the
> fundamental ground-stuff of the world.
> It says that even at the most fundamental level of the universe,
> static patterns of value and moral judgement are identical.
> The “Laws of Nature” are moral laws."
>
> So, while it is entirely possible (and for some people entirely
> normal) to act immorally, it is impossible to act amorally.
> So neither myself nor Steve (nor Pirsig) are saying that immoral
> behaviour is not possible. Just amoral behaviour/actions etc.

Steve concurred:
> Right, Horse, and thanks for digging up that quote. A distinction
> between true mortality and mere amoral prudence can't work in
> the MOQ. What distinguishes a psychopath from the rest of us
> cannot be the _lack_of morality. We will need to find other ways
> to talk about what is wrong with the psychopath in MOQ terms
> probably by distinguishing biological and social patterns.

So then, does this conclude Steve's debate with DMB?  Not likely.

I must admit that I've found their arguments amusing -- especially 
considering that Pirsig subtitled his seminal treatise for the MoQ "An 
Inquiry into Morals".  Could it be that we just don't recognize the liaison 
between Phaedrus and Lila as a study in morality?

Since nobody here seems to put much stock in definitions, I thought it might 
avoid further charges of  "defying the meaning of the words" (DMB) and 
"having serious difficulty with the English language" (Steve) if actual 
definitions were provided for reference purposes.  Here are Webster's 
definitions for the three variants of "moral" that are being disputed:

Moral -- a) of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior: 
ethical (judgments);
              b) expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior;
              c) conforming to a standard of right behavior.

Immoral-a) conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles

Amoral--a) being neither moral nor immoral; specifically lying outside the 
sphere to which moral judgments apply.

(Note: Webster's lists 'immoral', 'nonmoral', and 'amoral' as "shared 
meaning" synonyms with this proviso: "In spite of their common element of 
meaning, these words are rarely interchangeable without serious loss of 
precision.")

To complete my research, I even looked up "prudence":

Prudence -- a) the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of 
reason;
                   b) sagacity or shrewdness in the management of affairs;
                   c) skill and good judgment in the use of resources.

Now all Steve and DMB have to do is determine a standard for "right and 
wrong behavior" and "good judgment".  I would assume that the measure of 
good judgment could be determined by how favorable the pragmatic outcome is. 
Good and bad behavior are usually determined by the moral code of the 
society affected -- a collective judgment call.

There is still another question that needs to be answered, however.  How can 
a "moral" universe that allows "immoral" judgments/actions be reconciled 
with the moral "Laws of Nature"?  Unless DQ is both moral and immoral (in 
which case the universe is Amoral), this premise strikes me as a logical 
contradiction.

But don't mind me.  I'm just a bystander who happens to believe that man is 
the measure of all things; of their value, goodness, and morality relative 
to him.

So please carry on, gentlemen.  I wouldn't want a minor epistemological 
point to spoil such an entertaining discussion. ;-)

Prudently speaking,
Ham