From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Physics and Morality
Date: 11 Sep 1992 22:16:15 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:

                                             Anyway, I thought that this
 looked like a good place for people to give me their opinions on the whole
 idea

Well, you asked for it :)

 	To the best of our knowledge, goodness and evil have been concepts
 known to man since the beginning of the human race.  For nearly as long,

This may be trivial, but it would probably be better to
"anchor" the knowledge  of good & evil with something other
than "the beginning of the human race".

                                                           The teaching of
 what is good and what is not is traditionally put in the hands of religion
 and those who teach it.  Often, however, these religions conflict with one

This begs the question of who the "they" are that are putting 
religion into others hands.

 another; one's idea of good is another's idea of evil, and yet another
 feels the whole thing to be morally neutral.  It is sometimes said that no

It might be good to provide an example of a situation/action/etc,
and even mention a philosopher/theologian or two: one that posits
objective ethics, another who posits only subjective ethics.

 	To seek this standard, we shall begin with the Odd Couple Postulate,
 which states: "To assume makes an ass of you and me."1  This is a form of
 Ockham's razor, a philosophic rule which states that one should not multiply
 entities beyond necessity.  Very well, then, if we begin by saying we do not

You may want to recheck Ockham.

 presume the existence of a God or other entity- indeed, if we do not presume
 the existence of any being, including ourselves- we begin with only the
 Universe itself.  What can be said about the Universe that will always remain

If we do not presume subject (the universe), can we presume
object (ourself); if so, what are the implications of this?

                                   The physical laws, discovered and tested by
 scientists, that I will hereafter call the Great Laws. 

If there is terminology you do not have to invent: "Great Laws",
you may want to use it.

                                                     As one philosopher said,
 	God bless the goods we was given,
 	God bless the U.S.  of A.,
 	And God bless our standard of livin',
 	Let's keep it that way.2

Paul Simon is a philosopher? This is misleading, not only that
it doesn't seem to have a great deal to do with your argument.
 
 Inertia is a force that cannot be denied in human society.

This is a sweeping generalization, and does not seem to
make much sense, e.g., ONLY in our society?

 	Simply put, yes, physical laws are true and inexorable.  Yes, they
 have been tested for thousands of years, and yes, to the best of our
 knowledge, they always hold true.

I don't see how morality follows from the observer/observed 
problem and I don't think it is concise or necessarily true
that physical laws are "inexorable", or "always hold true".

                                                      A fire set by an
 arsonist transforms the matter of the house in question into heat energy,
 destroys the order its structure had held, and reduces the house to a state
 of inert uniformity.  

I think you should rethink "inert uniformity".

 	Suppose we take the hypothetical empty Universe- the one devoid of
 entities- as an example.  Here, we must add an entity, for it is only the
 action of an outside force- a consciousness- that can change the course of
 a Great Law.  Let us say this entity consists of matter and energy both- that

As you will no doubt discover from other reactions to your
post, this is a wide open target.

 it is alive, for surely a thing with no energy other than the potential
 inherent in its chemical bonds is not alive.  What is that entity's most
 innate drive? What is the drive found in all creatures, from the lowest
 protozoan to the great sperm whale? Continued existence.  The definition of a

 	Is it not illogical for such an entity to act against its own
 existence? Of course.  For there is no such thing as nonexistence, only
 change.  Thus runs the Third Great Law.  Matter becomes energy; energy becomes

This depends entirely on your definition - one that should
remain consistent.

                                        It is foolish and illogical to strive
 for something that cannot be achieved; it is a waste of energy and a hastening
 of one's own death, and the eventual disintegration of the Universe into
 uselessness and void.

Yet it happens all the time, c.f., your getting out of bed example.

                                           The continued existence of one's
 self, and therefore, the Universe, is the only logical course of action.
 From this proceeds all good.

Even if you had shown that this goal was logical (which IMO you
have not), it does not automatically follow that what is logical
is "good".

>	If we wield the blade of Ockham and reduce the number of entities in a

Try and keep your metaphor consistent (i.e., razor).

                            The other is the biological imperative to continue
 to exist, which is really a form of the Third Great Law.  

You have not shown that the "biological imperative to continue to
exist" is a form of the "Third Great Law".

                                             Continued existence in the most
 ordered form possible, whether for bridges or beings or societies, is the
 highest form of good. 

Why?

Dano