|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm opposed to the conclusion because otherwise it means that quarks and gluons and gravity and hydrogen have moral purpose
Fundamental, universal morality is an incredible claim. Probably as incredible as the claim of the existence of god
As I said earlier, there are three branches of Philosophy: what is stuff and how does it work (Physics and Metaphysics), what can we know about stuff and how (Epistemology), and what is the value of stuff. The two most study aspects of the third branch are Aesthetics and Ethics (that is, the value of willful actions) because they're the ones with most practical implications. Why aesthetics is a worthwhile study is irrelevant to this discussion; why ethics is valuable is that we (presumably) have some intellectual control over our actions, so if we can teach the intellect how to optimize those actions, then our actions will improve.[1]
Of course quarks and gluons and gravity and hydrogen have varying values to the various things they come in interaction with; I absolutely reject that they're a-value, and evaluating them would (hypothetically, if anyone bothered to do it) fall under this third branch of Philosophy, and it'd be semantics to debate if it falls under "ethics." But whether the activity of gravity is good or bad gets into stoner territory: regardless of whether or not gravity is good, it exists and it's going to happen to you, so whether or not a hypothetical world without it is better is not nearly as useful as learning the mathematical laws that predict it.
If we could influence gravity--if, for example, we were constructing a new universe--the morality of physics[2] would be a crucial branch of discussion.
________________
An entirely other can of worms is whether determinism exists, in which case there is no "willful" or "influenceable" action. This is possible, but its possibility is nothing more than a probabilistic weight that is placed on moral discussion. I discussed this in great length with (I think) spoon a long time ago and can dig it up if it's a sticking point to you.
[1] That's more an example than an underlying reason. We can also influence other people's actions through societal structures, for example. The point is that willful action is influenceable, so learning about optimizing it is interesting, if not extremely practical.
[2] Not to be confused with the Metaphysics of Morals, which is already a crucial discussion to have :P
|
Reply With Quote