"morals have no scientific foundation" Your consequentialist philosophical views also have no "scientific foundation". Science reveals the world as it is, not

"morals have no scientific foundation" Your consequentialist philosophical views also have no "scientific foundation". Science reveals the world as it is, not as it should be. You claim that somehow you are beyond values by applying this crude calculus of "lives saved". The truth is that you have not provided a foundation for your ethics. So what is it? I agree that you do not understand what I'm getting at. Maybe we should just table this. edited to add: "what exactly has been justified by the "ticking time bomb" experiment?" If you read The One Percent Doctrine, you will learn about the people the United States tortured to try to get intel about terrorist attacks, using the ticking time bomb justification. And hello, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." We invaded Iraq using similar justifications about the risks of WMD.