[MD] A Science of Morals

[Ham Priday]

Craig (articulating his revised moral paradox):

> A & B torture & murder the other 6 billion people on earth.
> There is a robot-run prision that will ensure the worst possible misery
> at the push of a button. C in her dying moment believes
> A & B should be punished & that she ought to push the button.
> A & B believe that C doesn't understand the meaning of 'ought'.
> Does C ?

If A, B, and C are torturing and murdering other people, they are terrorist 
fanatics.  It isn't "the meaning of 'ought' which at issue here, but the 
value of human life.  When duty is separated from value, behavior is treated 
from an amoral (authoritarian) perspective.  This is what will happen if the 
Court should decide (with Harris) that morality is based on the "order of 
the universe".  From this kind of thinking comes such nonsensical adages as 
"Times have changed, and our social mores have to catch up with the 
changes."  Time is constant; only values change by the sensibility and will 
of man.

If our values do not hold to the sanctity of human life, civilization is 
doomed.

Essentially speaking,
Ham