This is my second question about the post "Is it possible to scientifically determine good and evil?" within 24 hours, but I feel that it addresses an independent concern.
I recently revised the question in order to make clearer the themes that I though were pertinent to the question, and to explicitly indicate that Sam Harris' antireligious comments were completely beside the point, for a forum such as ours where we are comfortable with having sources of morality be a subject of ongoing discussion without appeal to an organised authority. I was (and still am) sincere in the belief that my revisions only served to clarify the question.
Lennart Regebro has since revised the question to reproduce what seems to be a very close approximation to the first revision, and indicated to me in a discussion in the comments on his answer that he felt that I had substantially extended the question. While I certainly added some text — including the frank (and I think straightforward) admission that Harris' proposal only makes sense as a Utilitarianist programme — I don't agree.
I would really like to see this question treated fairly, precisely because of the ambitious nature of Harris' proposal. It would be nice to have a balanced and perhaps somewhat nuanced assessment of precisely what problems there might be with it, rather than a brusque invocation of Hume's Law when the entire proposal is to propose to make use of an axiom of the sort that Hume said was necessary (though he saw no satisfying candidates himself) to make is/ought connections.
However, I would also like to avoid getting into an edit war. An obvious solution would be to re-post the question, but this would make an obvious case for being an exact duplicate. I would like somehow to see if there is a somewhat broad consensus of whether my revision significantly altered the question, but I'm not sure how productive that is.
What would the forum advise?