[MD] Begging the question of what is Quality

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

All,

According to the MOQ it's at least sometimes moral to beg the question
of "What is Quality (ie. moral value)?" Pirsig claims to have empirical
experience that doing so increases our understanding of morality and
helps us in making moral choices.

Begging the question is an informal fallacy, a form of rhetoric. The MOQ
states logic to be the subset of an undefined concept, Quality, for
which it's moral to beg the question of how to define it. This is not
intended to disallow logic.

Logic is about form. But arguments, that are informal fallacies, do not
have any flaw in their form. Therefore begging the question of how to
define Quality does not make the MOQ inconsistent or disallow logic.

When Russell applied logic to fictional entities and concluded they
don't exist, Meinong told him his argument begs the question. In this
case, nobody assumed that it's moral to beg a question about fictional
entities. Furthermore, Meinong rejected Russell's argument on moral
grounds, not because there would've been a flaw in its form. If it is
permissible to reject an argument on moral grounds surely it should be
permissible to accept an argument on moral grounds, too?

All axioms of logic are chosen on moral grounds since otherwise they'd
be theorems. For example, it's moral that axioms aren't unnecessarily
complicated and that it's easy to make relevant proofs with them.

Regards,

Tuk


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html

[John Carl]

Tuk,



On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko <

All,
According to the MOQ it's at least sometimes moral to beg the question of
"What is Quality (ie. moral value)?" Pirsig claims to have empirical
experience that doing so increases our understanding of morality and helps
us in making moral choices.
Begging the question is an informal fallacy, a form of rhetoric.

jc:

There is something about immediate experience, Tuk, that doesn't beg any
questions. It's about as empirical as you can get. But at the same time,
it's not reducible to words or conceptualization because words and concepts
are always just slices - sliced for convenience sake, into bite-size
digestibles. You know this.

The MOQ states logic to be the subset of an undefined concept, Quality,
for which it's moral to beg the question of how to define it. This is not
intended to disallow logic.

Jc: Right. Logic has its important place. I think the most important
thing to remember about Quality, next to the fact that you can't define it
- you KNOW what it is! That's revolutionary, really. That right there,
saves the world, if the world would just pay attention.

Logic is about form. But arguments, that are informal fallacies, do not
have any flaw in their form. Therefore begging the question of how to
define Quality does not make the MOQ inconsistent or disallow logic.

Jc: exactly.

When Russell applied logic to fictional entities and concluded they don't
exist, Meinong told him his argument begs the question. In this case,
nobody assumed that it's moral to beg a question about fictional entities.

Jc: I think a lot depends upon the personality you're arguing with.
Russell had a certain mindset BEHIND his logic and his categories, whereas
the MoQ is evolved from a certain story - a narrative that makes no
pretension at being other than, "a fictional entity"

Furthermore, Meinong rejected Russell's argument on moral grounds, not
because there would've been a flaw in its form. If it is permissible to
reject an argument on moral grounds surely it should be permissible to
accept an argument on moral grounds, too?

Jc: I mean this literally: Absolutely. Truth IS a moral order. It
really can't be grounded any deeper than that. There is nothing deeper
than that.

All axioms of logic are chosen on moral grounds since otherwise they'd be
theorems. For example, it's moral that axioms aren't unnecessarily
complicated and that it's easy to make relevant proofs with them.

The value of logic is in construing causation into the abstract to see if
there is possible contradiction. That's the moral code for intellectual
patterning. Your good work is appreciated, my friend,


JC
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html