Every new “true” thing I learn seems to shrink the domain where I can hold useful moral opinions. There is no point having a moral opinion about the law of gravity.So truth is also about increasing moral minimalism.As you learn more, you should have less need for moral opinions.
—Venkatesh G Rao(Be Slightly Evil)
I find myself unsure what the author thinks moral opinions are for. Or possibly about what they think truth is for.
Is gravity a good thing or a bad thing, or does it depend, and if so on what? Should there be more gravity, or less, or different types of gravity, or does it depend, and if so on what? These questions matter only to the extent that I can influence gravity. There’s no point to having a moral opinion about gravity unless I can influence gravity.
And learning truths about gravity increases the likelihood that I will be able to influence gravity.
As I learn more, I have more need for moral opinions… or, at least, my moral opinions have more effect on the world.
Perhaps, i missed to convey the context or atleast the implicit inferences i made out of the parts before. The basic idea, I inferred is that moral opinions are useful educated heuristics for dire, time-crunched situations one makes beforehand to save the time required for decision-making. I can think of a situation in HPMOR where Harry wants to tell Dumbledore, there are things that are exactly worth thinking about(even though they are horrible) beforehand, because there wouldn’t be time to think when they happen. Dumbledore prefers and/or recommends the opposite, not think, but act whatever your natural instincts say. And from that context, i can see the point he makes. Besides, i would be surprised if there were no theists who used to attribute things falling down to god, started to atleast make complicated explanations about gravity after Newton’s Discovery.
I must say that, I am tempted to agree with the last part though. i.e: the more I learn, the more effect my moral opinions have on the world. If anything, I would say it is immoral to fail to form moral opinions the more truth you learn about the world.
I don’t think learning the law of gravity tells you anything about the usefulness of having a moral opinion about things falling down.
It would surprise me if Newton changed much about peoples having moral opinions about things falling down.
The example seems to be purely chosen for learning new things that change one’s moral beliefs.
I would be surprised if there were no theists who used to attribute things falling down to god, started to atleast make complicated explanations about gravity after Newton’s Discovery.
Newton himself was a theist who attributed things falling down to God. Although he claimed “hypotheses non fingo” (“I make no hypotheses”, or possibly “I feign no hypotheses”) for why gravity actually works, he seemed unafraid of implying that it was in some way a function of the Holy Spirit. Still, I’m unaware of anyone attaching moral significance to gravity, whether before Newton or after.
Well, except Yvain, but that implication runs the other way!
Every new “true” thing I learn seems to shrink the domain where I can hold useful moral opinions. There is no point having a moral opinion about the law of gravity.So truth is also about increasing moral minimalism.As you learn more, you should have less need for moral opinions. —Venkatesh G Rao(Be Slightly Evil)
I find myself unsure what the author thinks moral opinions are for.
Or possibly about what they think truth is for.
Is gravity a good thing or a bad thing, or does it depend, and if so on what? Should there be more gravity, or less, or different types of gravity, or does it depend, and if so on what? These questions matter only to the extent that I can influence gravity. There’s no point to having a moral opinion about gravity unless I can influence gravity.
And learning truths about gravity increases the likelihood that I will be able to influence gravity.
As I learn more, I have more need for moral opinions… or, at least, my moral opinions have more effect on the world.
Perhaps, i missed to convey the context or atleast the implicit inferences i made out of the parts before. The basic idea, I inferred is that moral opinions are useful educated heuristics for dire, time-crunched situations one makes beforehand to save the time required for decision-making. I can think of a situation in HPMOR where Harry wants to tell Dumbledore, there are things that are exactly worth thinking about(even though they are horrible) beforehand, because there wouldn’t be time to think when they happen. Dumbledore prefers and/or recommends the opposite, not think, but act whatever your natural instincts say. And from that context, i can see the point he makes. Besides, i would be surprised if there were no theists who used to attribute things falling down to god, started to atleast make complicated explanations about gravity after Newton’s Discovery.
I must say that, I am tempted to agree with the last part though. i.e: the more I learn, the more effect my moral opinions have on the world. If anything, I would say it is immoral to fail to form moral opinions the more truth you learn about the world.
I don’t think learning the law of gravity tells you anything about the usefulness of having a moral opinion about things falling down.
It would surprise me if Newton changed much about peoples having moral opinions about things falling down. The example seems to be purely chosen for learning new things that change one’s moral beliefs.
I would be surprised if there were no theists who used to attribute things falling down to god, started to atleast make complicated explanations about gravity after Newton’s Discovery.
Newton himself was a theist who attributed things falling down to God. Although he claimed “hypotheses non fingo” (“I make no hypotheses”, or possibly “I feign no hypotheses”) for why gravity actually works, he seemed unafraid of implying that it was in some way a function of the Holy Spirit. Still, I’m unaware of anyone attaching moral significance to gravity, whether before Newton or after.
Well, except Yvain, but that implication runs the other way!
Newton was no atheist. Newton’s theory of gravity is about attributing that things are falling down due to God. Newton wanted to explore God’s nature.
God fits into it as well as he did in Aristotelian physics in which educated people believed before Newton came along.
Newton did get into trouble for suggesting that the heavens follow the same laws as things on earth got he didn’t go against the idea of God.