Good morning everybody,

Adam wrote:
>If you say just that life is sacred without defining the physical essence of
>life, than it's easy to distort and say life really just means "intelligent"
>life or "advanced" life. Energy flow (the unidirecetional entropic flow) is
>the physical essence of all life, regardless of sentience or intelligence.
>If it is recognized that all things that are alive (humans, animals,
>barnacles, plants, trees) share an ordered energy (low-entropy) quest, and
>that that quest is sacred, than it must be that even the barnacles and ferns
>are sacred, not just the "advanced", "domineering" humans (whom we know to
>have beliefs in the sacred).
>

All right, the argument seems to be:  all things that are alive are on a
quest; the quest is sacred; therefore, all living things are sacred.  Why
is the quest sacred?  Suppose we deny that the quest is sacred, then what?

[snip]
>
>From this it is clear to me that you have decided that: intrinsic value=no
>killing. I don't see it that way. Just because something has intrinsic value
>doesn't mean it is never morally justified that it should be killed. This
>issue in fact is at the core of ethical theory: the cases are exagerrated
>and abstracted so that the question points to principles and
>contradictions--when exactly is it morally justified that those with
>intrinsic value should be killed? They try to drive home the distinction
>between utilitarianism and deontology with the trains examples: is it worse
>to let 3 humans be killed through not diverting your train or to make the
>proactive choice of diverting the train and killing one person instead?

Why is the trolley's quest not sacred?  Great example:  the trolley is on a
quest, moving on the tracks in a high entropy situation seeking to reduce 3
humans to a tragically premature but ultimately inevitable low entropy
state.  The quest is sacred; therefore, the trolley is sacred.  Movement
and entropic flow is the essence of the trolley's physical existence.  Why
does the entropic principle as you describe it only apply to biological
life?

After all, you write that for "the inanimate (the non-living) there is
merely a random shuffling of matter-energy, not a purposeful quest in the
form of low-entropy sorting."  It doesn't sound to me like the hell-bound
out of control trolley is engaged in merely "random" shuffling of
matter-energy.  No sir, that trolley is purposefully aiming (on a quest, if
you will) for a "low-entropy sorting":

>
>I hope I have touched on that above. The unidirectional entropic flow is the
>physical essence of life, of time, of existence, of consciousness, for all
>living things. Again, with the inanimate (the non-living) there is merely a
>random shuffling of matter-energy, not a purposeful quest in the form of
>low-entropy sorting. That quest, being unique to the living, is the physical
>basis on which our intimations of the sacred rest.
>

I am being only partly facetious above:  why according to your "sacred
quest" model are living things privileged over non-living things?  Perhaps
I misunderstand your distinction between "random shuffling of
matter-energy" and purposeful "low-entropy sorting."  Where does the
*purpose* come from?  Is "purpose" some sort of vital principle or force
that underlies the origin/existence of life?

Jim


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%