Moral Landscape - Slippery Slope
Posted: 20 February 2012 04:52 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2011-08-12

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?

[ Edited: 20 February 2012 05:07 PM by MrPickle]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2012 02:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2819
Joined  2005-04-29

I don’t know if slippery slope says it precisely, but I agree with you at least in part. Morality that hinges on the power of a deity is a dangerous thing. Morality that relies on the power of science is no improvement, in my opinion.


By the way, here’s a much more active Harris forum, where a compelling question isn’t left to the chirping of crickets.
http://www.project-reason.org/forum/

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2012 06:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2011-08-12

Wow I’m glad you posted that. It seems like this forum is averaging around 1 post per 1,000 views.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2012 07:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2819
Joined  2005-04-29

Yes—peculiar, isn’t it? I see this forum as an archive of an exhilarating 5 or so years (starting in late 2004) of conversation between a vast assortment of personality types and levels of intelligence. I hope to see you at the more current forum soon. My name there is nv and my non-cyber name is Dave.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 February 2012 08:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2011-08-12

I was hoping you were going to say that your non-cyber name is Sam. haha!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 February 2012 07:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2819
Joined  2005-04-29

If only!

I have a feeling he doesn’t like me much, though over the years I’ve written many more words of praise for his courage and brilliance than critiquing words.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed