Sam Harris’s Failure to Formulate a Scientific Morality

[Jason Fowler 0]

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-winter/sam-harris-unscientific-morality.asp

An interesting read, it is too bad he is such a mixed bag. While Dr. Harris is very effective in tearing down religion, he, like other new atheists, falls flat in advocating a positive philosophy.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-winter/sam-harris-unscientific-morality.asp

An interesting read, it is too bad he is such a mixed bag. While Dr. Harris is very effective in tearing down religion, he, like other new atheists, falls flat in advocating a positive philosophy.

Atheism is inherently negative. It is the denial of a belief. His positive claim that some aspects of ethics and morality (as he does in his book, -The Moral Landscape-) are not adequate demonstrated in the book. His hypothesis the some aspects of morality and ethics can be dealt with by genuine quantitative science is just that, a hypothesis and it still awaits adequate corroboration.

ruveyn

[ewv 0]

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-winter/sam-harris-unscientific-morality.asp

An interesting read, it is too bad he is such a mixed bag. While Dr. Harris is very effective in tearing down religion, he, like other new atheists, falls flat in advocating a positive philosophy.

From the article it appears that his theory has nothing to do with being an atheist, which is irrelevant. He's a run of the mill utilitarian, or maybe run of the bentham. His advocacy of science and desire to base morality on fact are good but there is nothing new in his utilitarianism, which is a false and impossibly incoherent theory refuted long ago, with or without quantitative measurement and the traditional "hedonistic calculus". Apparently he went off the rails even farther by embracing the traditional collectivist utilitarianism in the 'greatest good for the greatest number' version. There is nothing new about it. See any reputable history of philosophy, and especially Leonard Peikoff's history of philosophy course, which had a section on the versions of utilitarianism and their variants and fallacies.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

The fact that there are four flavors of ethical theory: consequential, utilitarian, virtue-based and deontic indicates that ethical theory is still back in the days of Aristotle and the Nicomachian Ethics. Until Ethical THeory is firmly linked to physical laws (moral actions should have causes just like any other action in the Cosmos) Ethics will remain in the realm of judgement, rather than solid empirically based testable theory.

Ethics is not even as advanced as classical physics was in the day when The Aether filled all of Space.

Since I am a simpleton I have reduced the thing to a set of simple rules, the most important of which is: Do not do to other people what you would not want them to do to you. Good old Jewish commons sense. That plus the observation that while one is alive, he can take action and be responsible for the result. Very simplistic. Yes. But it works for me.

ruveyn

[RayK 0]

The fact that there are four flavors of ethical theory: consequential, utilitarian, virtue-based and deontic indicates that ethical theory is still back in the days of Aristotle and the Nicomachian Ethics. Until Ethical THeory is firmly linked to physical laws (moral actions should have causes just like any other action in the Cosmos) Ethics will remain in the realm of judgement, rather than solid empirically based testable theory.

Ethics is not even as advanced as classical physics was in the day when The Aether filled all of Space.

Since I am a simpleton I have reduced the thing to a set of simple rules, the most important of which is: Do not do to other people what you would not want them to do to you. Good old Jewish commons sense. That plus the observation that while one is alive, he can take action and be responsible for the result. Very simplistic. Yes. But it works for me.

ruveyn

A simpleton is someone "lacking intelligence or common sense, so I will take you as you state, "a simpleton." Because that would be the only way you can claim that ethics/morality has not advanced since Aristotle as you write on a site dedicated to the fans of Ayn Rand who created a fully integrated philosophy to include an ethical system totally integrated to the nature of man and scientifically backed. Ayn Rand called her morality "the morality of reason" which man uses to guide his choices. So, Mr. Simpleton, it seems you misunderstand that you cannot have morality without having choices which means they do have a cause, the individual making the choice(s) in relation to his standard, his life. Take away choice and you destroy morality, try and relegate morality to mathematical calculations and you destroy the virtues used by man to guide those choices. If anything you are the type of person that has kept man's ethics from moving forward along with people like Sam Harris.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

veyn

A simpleton is someone "lacking intelligence or common sense, so I will take you as you state, "a simpleton." Because that would be the only way you can claim that ethics/morality has not advanced since Aristotle as you write on a site dedicated to the fans of Ayn Rand who created a fully integrated philosophy to include an ethical system totally integrated to the nature of man and scientifically backed. Ayn Rand called her morality "the morality of reason" which man uses to guide his choices. So, Mr. Simpleton, it seems you misunderstand that you cannot have morality without having choices which means they do have a cause, the individual making the choice(s) in relation to his standard, his life. Take away choice and you destroy morality, try and relegate morality to mathematical calculations and you destroy the virtues used by man to guide those choices. If anything you are the type of person that has kept man's ethics from moving forward along with people like Sam Harris.

I never denied choice. I will quote myself " That plus the observation that while one is alive, he can take action and be responsible for the result. Very simplistic. Yes. But it works for me."

The disconnect between ethics/morality and the physical laws of the cosmos means that ethics/morality is not as well founded as is physical science.

Unfortunately, physical science does not address the same problems and issues as does morality/ethics/(also politics which is morality Writ LARGE).

The consequence is the morality/ethics will not have the same firm empirical basis as does physical science.

And so mankind will continue to muddle on.

ruveyn

[RayK 0]

veyn

A simpleton is someone "lacking intelligence or common sense, so I will take you as you state, "a simpleton." Because that would be the only way you can claim that ethics/morality has not advanced since Aristotle as you write on a site dedicated to the fans of Ayn Rand who created a fully integrated philosophy to include an ethical system totally integrated to the nature of man and scientifically backed. Ayn Rand called her morality "the morality of reason" which man uses to guide his choices. So, Mr. Simpleton, it seems you misunderstand that you cannot have morality without having choices which means they do have a cause, the individual making the choice(s) in relation to his standard, his life. Take away choice and you destroy morality, try and relegate morality to mathematical calculations and you destroy the virtues used by man to guide those choices. If anything you are the type of person that has kept man's ethics from moving forward along with people like Sam Harris.

I never denied choice. I will quote myself " That plus the observation that while one is alive, he can take action and be responsible for the result. Very simplistic. Yes. But it works for me."

The disconnect between ethics/morality and the physical laws of the cosmos means that ethics/morality is not as well founded as is physical science.

Unfortunately, physical science does not address the same problems and issues as does morality/ethics/(also politics which is morality Writ LARGE).

The consequence is the morality/ethics will not have the same firm empirical basis as does physical science.

And so mankind will continue to muddle on.

ruveyn

Morality is a science, the science of discovering and defining a code of values to guide man's life in accordance to his nature. So, once again, you are wrong as Ayn Rand's theory on morality is sound and backed by evidence drawn from existence and the nature of man. And, so mankind will only continue to muddle if, like you, they deny the facts of existence and man's nature and hence what type of code of values he needs to survive and flourish.

[Carlos 0]

This is Ruveyn's quote but I couldn't get the quote thing to function correctly.

(moral actions should have causes just like any other action in the Cosmos)

They do have a cause, and that is volition.

Until Ethical THeory is firmly linked to physical laws... Ethics will remain in the realm of judgement, rather than solid empirically based testable theory.

Ethics is not even as advanced as classical physics was in the day when The Aether filled all of Space.

Ethics cannot be described with mathematical physical laws as with Physics or Classical Mechanics because the object of study is radically different; men have volition, they think with their minds and make decisions, and this cannot be modeled or quantitatively described like the trajectory of a cannonball.

But ethics can still be scientific in its own way, and people often observe that good men live happy, fulfilling lives, while bad men live in grinding misery.

[ewv 0]

The disconnect between ethics/morality and the physical laws of the cosmos means that ethics/morality is not as well founded as is physical science.

Unfortunately, physical science does not address the same problems and issues as does morality/ethics/(also politics which is morality Writ LARGE).

The consequence is the morality/ethics will not have the same firm empirical basis as does physical science.

And so mankind will continue to muddle on.

The attempt to apply the methods and criteria of the science of one field to an entirely different subject matter is not scientific. That physical science of "the cosmos" does not describe morality does not mean that the science of ethics does not or cannot have a firm empirical basis. Pragmatists trying to follow the dogmas of social mores from pre-civilization wandering tribes as "ethics" are at best muddling on. Tradition, pragmatism, and religious dogma are not science.