Re: "Morality?" - Composite Reply(L. Crocker)

Delmar England (
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:51:20 -0400

At 09:43 PM 10/12/97 -0700, you(L. Crocker) wrote:

>>From your post of October 9:
>>> It is my personal preference that the terms, ought and should, be
>>> entirely eliminated from the language. Getting rid of these non-
>>> scientific terms would no doubt aid in holding focus upon the reality
>>> of a thing or situation.
>That sounds like a moral prescription to me, and if it sounds like a
>duck, and walks like a duck, your insistence that it's not a duck
>doesn't impress me.
Truly amazing. Its like telling a Christian that I don't believe any such
omni god exists, then being repeatedly asked what I think "God" intended. I
assert that morality is myth; send with it many arguments. You challenge
none, but not only assume that I must be mistaken, but hold "morality" as a
"sacred idea" not to be questioned. No priest nor preacher has ever
evidenced more faith in a revered fallacy. I'm sorry I intruded upon your
worship service. It won't happen again.

Delmar England