(July 23, 2022 at 1:34 pm)Angrboda Wrote:(July 23, 2022 at 1:30 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Some people don't agree that destruction is part of moral content or of moral import, even if it (as in destruction) is real, and I guess that would seem like an equivocation to them - but obviously not to me.
It would seem that if there were a mountain, and someone dynamited that mountain, there would be (and is) a great deal of differentiation between those two states of mountain - and not mountain, regardless of whether or not this was (or what you, or what I) would take to be an item of moral import.
Learn what a vector is.
It's equivocation regardless of moral import. Utility is teleological and without a loss in utility, there is no destruction. You simply don't get it from the universe herself.
Well wait a minute. Destroy comes from the roots, "de-" (away) + "struere" (build)
So any complex or composite form, if it loses its form, is destroyed. Certainly, a mountain has a form that a pile of rubble does not, and can be destroyed by dynamite.
However, is it bad to destroy a mountain, or is the mountain "harmed?" I'm not sure that can be true unless someone has feelings about that change of state.