Craig --
[Ham, reconstructed by Craig]: > 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]: > 1): morality is itself a "choice", not a "need". [Craig]: > Then what is the role of statement (b) in your argument? What "statement (b)"? The statement I made was: If Goodness were absolute (or fixed), there would be no need for morality, since it would be impossible to choose an alternative. If you follow the concept instead of trying to reconstruct it into a logical proposition, this should be obvious. If we are progammed by the "absolute morality of the universe" to behave in a certain "moral" way, what choice do we have? The point I am making is that man is free to choose BECAUSE morality is NOT an absolute. Good and evil, right and wrong, and everything in between are HIS precepts of relative value, not those of some esoteric property of the universe called Quality. The value of relational existence isn't "morality", it's man's freedom to choose. Try to understand the concept for what it is, Craig. It doesn't require logical analysis. --Ham 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/
