Sam Harris

I just finished The Moral Landscape and began to think as I came near the end that—although welcome to comment on human morality and offering an additional argument for arriving at it without reference to religion—science is not needed to arrive at a proper understanding of our moral landscape.

Socrates, via Plato, already provided us with an adequate argument for the basis of morality, namely the concept of justice—with which all but the sociopath has an innate biological relationship.

Aristotle once said that those not in need of social relationships would prove themselves either gods or beasts. Since there are none of the former we are only left with the latter, those whom the law are forced to deal with.

I agree that science can contribute much to our moral understanding but do not Greek drama and the works of Shakespeare also provide us with an analysis of the “moral peaks” of which Dr. Harris speaks?

The Moral Landscape, for me anyway, is simply icing on a moral cake that has been cooling since the Renaissance, an addendum to that sentiment of long ago that “the proper study of any mankind is man.”

We should make sure the general reader does not come away from Dr. Harris’ latest book thinking science is the only way in which we can arrive at moral truths, a sentiment I am sure he would agree with.

______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Jeffery L. Irvin, Jr., Ph.D.

Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

The observer, when he seems to himself to be observing a stone, is really,
if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the stone upon himself.

                                      ~Bertrand Russell
______________________________________________________________________________

I suspect you of making a distinction without a difference.  “The Proper study of Mankind is Man” implies an empirical approach to moral philosophy.  Through the observation of human nature, you derive definitions of human good and bad.  This is the application of science to moral philosophy.

Socrates and Aristotle both, more or less followed this principle.  Aristotles Ethics and Politics were based on study of 158 different states their laws and history.  Very close to an empirical scientific approach to these issues.

Instead of saying that Socrates and Aristotle represent a different approach to answering fundamental questions about human ethics, I would tend to say that they were early champions of the scientific approach to these questions.

I just saw Sam Harris on CSpan which I why I am here.  His definition of well being as being synonymous with good is very close to Aristotles definition of happiness as the ultimate good.  His idea that the narrow utilitarianism which justifies injustice to the few for the good of the many is very close to Aristotles concept that men are born to be Citizens, and properly concerned with the welfare of others and the state.

I didn’t really see anything new in Mr. Harris presentation.  You could make the point that Aristotle, Confucius, Buddha, et al, said basically the same things 2500 to 2300 years ago, and that his ideas only sound ‘new’ because advocates of one or another of these men have advanced narrow definitions of their teachings which distorted their fundamental message.

It is true that modern neuroscience tells us more about the mechanisms involved, and how those mechanisms arose through evolution, but when it comes to fundamental observations about the human condition, it was possible to observe then as now what produces happiness, satisfaction, joy, sorrow, and make sound observations which remain as valid today as more than two millennia ago.

It sounds like we agree for the most part. Although, it’s possible you did not get the main point of my post.

My point was that in the struggle for hearts and minds via reason we must use all the tools at our disposal. Those tools are literature—the humanistic tradition, if you will—and science.

Since not everyone has an affinity for scientific thought we must help lead them to the right conclusions using methods easier to grasp.

Literature, in the form of Greek drama, Shakespeare, the modern novel, etc., allows many more people to participate in the dialogue regarding the moral landscape. Literature is simply more accessible. The moral investigations of a Dickens, Flaubert, Thackeray, or Tolstoy are much easier to digest than modern science, especially in a society where math and science are so poorly taught and understood.

Literature can help to achieve what Dr. Harris seeks: a more complex dialogue about the moral landscape divorced from simple religious doctrines—doctrines that ultimately lead to human suffering.

I called science’s contribution to the discussion of morality “icing on a moral cake” because it is important to understand not only that morality is a complex issue but that this complexity is rooted in our biology, not some ethereal experience. We too frequently attribute the ineffable to god or spiritual experiences. Science is now starting to reveal that the ineffable is a state of consciousness rooted in our biology.

The great thing about the work of Harris, Dennett, Ridley, and others is that they allow us to refute the argument for the “god of the gaps.” They give us the assurance that in time science will help us to understood, for the most part, human consciousness. That is why Harris’s latest work is important, but I’m not sure it is a good starting point for the average person.