Note: This is not a criticism, it is simply a hypothetical take on the book/ideology. Additionally, I realize the Moral Landscape argument is ‘bleeding-edge’ and this question maybe be more in the realm of philosophizing than pragmatism.
I have read the book and watched all the video media concerning Dr. Harris’ thesis on moral truths. The question I have is whether or not this subject is a slippery slope. Essentially, if the scientific community were to adopt the ideas of Sam, are there any obvious ways that the theory could be perverted to justify some alternative interest?
I don’t foresee many contradictions for individuals applying the Moral Landscape argument. It is more in its macroscopic utilization that problems could occur. Say, for instance, a ‘humanitarian’ foreign occupation. Could you leverage a greater-good argument for the civilians of the occupied country against the economic and social impact for the aggressor (using the Moral Landscape as a guideline)? Maybe this isn’t the best example, but I’m just positing. I am thinking of any large, multi-variable situation where the main justification is the ethical implications of action/inaction.
It certainly seems like Hume’s theory has seen this fate in Sam’s debate against William Lane Craig. Another example would be Ayn Rand’s political theories being adopted by questionable parties as well. I’m not insisting that I agree with these authors, but simply stating examples where ideas have been ‘bent’ beyond their intended scope.
Thoughts?
