[Ham] > If (a) Goodness were absolute (or fixed), > (b) there would be no need for morality, > since (c) it would be impossible to choose > the alternative.
[Ham, reconstructed] 1) Morality is needed only if choice is possible. 2) Choice is possible only if there is more than one alternative. 3) Morality is needed. 4) :. There is more than one alternative. 5) If only one choice is good, there is only one alternative. 6) :. Not only one choice is good. 7) If Goodness were absolute, only one choice would be good. 8) :. Goodness is not absolute. [Ham] > regarding 1): morality is itself a "choice", not a "need". Then what is the role of statement (b) in your argument? [Ham] > regarding 6): how is it derived from my statement? From 4) & 5) by modus tollens. [Ham] > the only correct premise in this list of eight is #2. I was content to point out ONE false premise in your argument. You have claimed there are 6 others. A rather unusual way to support your argument. [Ham] > If Goodness were absolute, only one choice would be POSSIBLE. [Ham, reconstructed] a) If Goodness is absolute, only one choice in any situation would be good. b) Only good choices are possible. c) :. If Goodness were absolute, only one choice would be POSSIBLE. This revision of your thesis also fails because b) is false. Craig Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
