Is MoQ more ethical than SOM? Why?
To start, allow us to bottom-line Pirsig's answer(s) from Lila,
We know that Pirsig's MoQ defines reality as Dynamic Quality
v Static Quality,
(Now we know an Aristotelian 'equals' assumes R, DQ, and SQ are classical objects. Classical objects are stable. They do not change stochastically.
MoQ reality is like quantum reality which changes stochastically.)
a Quantonic-equal sign,
and assume R, DQ, and SQ are stochastic quantons or quantum objects!)
In words, MoQ reality is DQ in interrelationships with SQ.
When DQ creates SQ, SQ becomes reality's moral judgment. When DQ changes SQ, the changed SQ becomes reality's newest, revised moral judgment. SQ's beginning response to DQ at each unit of change is ethical behavior. SQ v DQ, for each (quantum) unit of ethical behavior Values the interrelationship preconditions (as residuals) from its previous unit of ethical behavior and chooses, ethically, a next ethical unit of behavior.
If all you want is a short, sweet, purely MoQ answer that's it. However, if you want to see how SOM does it, and an example of SOM's naïveté in asserting anthropocentric ethical principles, proceed.
If you look in a dictionary for a definition of ethic or ethics you will see something like this:
If we look in our encyclopedia we find this on ethics:
As a student of MoQ, you must remember definitions like those above are written in SOM formal language using SOM formal definitions. SOM defines each word in terms of SOM's conventional philosophical foundation. SOM's foundation affects basally how we think. We will see many outcomes of those basal affects below in our example of a contrived set of SOM ethics (Resnik's Principles of Ethics).
As a reminder then, let us review some differences between MoQ's and SOM's philosophical foundations.
If one considers our partial list of comparisons above, one may choose to distill our nine concepts. Using this author's perspective, we may distill both SOM and MoQ to one-liners:
Now we have some foundation, and we may continue our discussion of our March, 1999 Quantonic Question, "Is MoQ more ethical than SOM?" And, "Why?"
|Is MoQ more ethical than SOM? Why?
Look at SOM first. SOM philosophy tells us communal ethics one set of ethical principles fits all sentients and may be determined absolutely, for all time.
Then look at MoQ. MoQ philosophy tells us each locally autonomous entity may choose its own local ethics, and realize those ethics will evolve over time.
We think it is remarkably clear MoQ is more ethical than SOM. Why? For one thing, SOM assumes ethics may be assessed and established based on dialectic, i.e., rational thought - SOM logic. SOM confuses morality and politics with truth and thus uses logical dialectic to discuss them.
MoQ sees morality and politics as rhetorical issues, whose ethics (goodness) may be assessed, but not whose truthfulness may be assessed. Elsewhere on this site, we disclose abundantly SOM logic's many ills. Also, SOM assumes logically and rationally a monolithic control group (state, church, union, corporation, etc.) may reasonably decide and impose codes of ethics for all its members.
MoQ assumes ethics begin with both individual excellence and network cooperation. MoQ assumes a network of individuals striving and evolving toward personal excellence and concomitant holistic excellence of its local network. MoQ assumes Value excellence is more ethical than a few members of a group deciding objective, global ethics for all.
Garn LeBaron recently allowed us to publish his paper, The Ethics of Euthanasia, on our Quantonics web site. You may want to see particularly, a portion of his paper where he uses Pirsigean MoQ Ethics as a candidate solution for ethical considerations surrounding an issue of euthanasia.
Also, recently we found an example which illustrates our concerns about SOM's approach to ethics. A professor at a university in Michigan, USA decided to teach students about ethics. He chose philosopher and ethicist David Resnik's set of Principles and Ethics to teach to his class.
Allow us, for our own local purposes here, to assume Resnik's underlying de facto philosophy is classical SOM, or one of SOM's ISM derivatives. Assuming his SOM legacy, we can construct a straw man of Resnik's Principles of Ethics, and we can look at each of his principles and feign SOM logic and rational thought to restate his principles and perhaps expose what he may be saying.
According to Resnik,
If you are a SOMite, and assuming Resnik is of a classical persuasion, the above principles and their SOM assumptions appear entirely reasonable, even noble. Resnik, in his (we presume) SOM realm, appears noble and enlightened. He is saying that you may apply his Principles of Ethics to your daily life and work decisions to successfully adhere and guarantee an ethical path.
But with a little MoQ morphing of your mental mush, and a few well-directed questions, one may see naïve ludicrousness in Resnik's Principles of Ethics. OK, let us just ask some simple questions:
Here we see one of SOM's great weaknesses. SOM assumes one global truth in one global context. How else could Resnik write down such a list of principles? Clearly, SOM manifests intrinsic ineptness dealing with multiple contexts. Why? SOM assumes reality is a single context. That is how SOMites garner Babel like Resnik's "principles."
If you are a student at a university, is this a level of education you want to pay for? Do you want to attend a university where its administration claims objective rationality? Does it make you wonder how universities assess Quality? That is Pirsig's BIG question. He told us, almost four decades ago, our Western educational system has a problem a basic problem of philosophy. Apparently we still do.
As an observant and persistent reader, you might say, "Well SOM is not our only Western philosophy today." To wit, we agree. Another major Western philosophy today is cultural relativism. Cultural relativism (CR) tells you your ethics may be whatever you want them to be. Your ethics are up to you, independent of your network and interrelationships within your network. If that is what you want, go for it.
From our own MoQ perspective neither SOM nor CR are acceptable philosophically ethical foundations for our entry into Western culture's third millennium. We need something better, and we propose Pirsig's MoQ or something like it.
But guess what, reader? Does this Babel stop? Does it decline? Nope! We just see more and more of it. Our most recent 19Nov99 issue of AAAS' Science journal just arrived. Their editorial, A Hippocratic Oath for Scientists, is by Sir Joseph Rotblat. Rotblat is calling for Resnikian ethics too. He quotes a pledge by USA's Student Pugwash Group,
Repeating our queries above, who decides what is "socially responsible?" Who decides what is "harm?" Is it ethical to harm animals? Is it ethical to abort fetuses? Does it "...harm humans..." to insist they all abide a single ethical system? Who decides what are "ethical implications?" Does this mean people in a good old USA can decide what is ethical for all nations? Does one ethical system fit all? Can we make our whole globe adhere one social/ethical system? Is universe next? Are we going to impose our ethics on Alpha Centaurians? What about ethical diversity? Are Rotblat and Resnik saying we do not want ethical diversity? Apparently. Isn't that equivalent to saying one ethical 'God' fits all? If not, please explain... Would they deny fellow humans their ethical freedom? Probably Resnik would. Rotblat too.
(To really put Rotblat in a proper perspective, consider he is a 'Sir,' he is emeritus professor of physics(!) at University of London, and a 1995 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.)
It amazes us to see inane SOM Boole like this published in an exemplary science journal.
So now we have another example of how...
SOM's anthropocentric ethics are inane static Babel. CR's anthropocentric ethics are sheer chaos.
MoQ's ethics not only are better than SOM's; they are better than CR's too! MoQ's ethics are reality's most highly evolving ecomixture of DQvSQ. MoQ offers a DQ-SQ ethical-reality dance, i.e.,
evolving simultaneously both cohesively and autonomously, ubiquitously, continuously, and omnivalently.
Thanks for reading,
Definition - Innate: Here, we mean a classical concept as axiomatic to a philosophy. A concept is designed in, anthropocentrically, as philosophical genetic code. (SOM appeals to humanism and anthropocentrism.)
Definition - Intrinsic: Here, we mean a comcept/meme as natural, part of an underlying reality which its philosophy attempts to describe. (MoQ appeals to an undifferentiated (quantum isocohesive) isoflux isocontinuum, a nonactuality, a nonapparent nonphysical space (e.g., Vacuum Energy Space, Quantum Vacuum Flux, Zero Point Flux/Energy, etc.), something greater than itself.)