A Science of Morals

[Leela]

Hi All,

Recently, Sam Harris gave a TED talk on what science may be some day be able to tell us about morality. He has a book coming out called “The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.” I’ll be interested to hear what you think about his talk.

See the video here:
project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/

Regardless of what he will be able to do with a science of morals, I think he will start an important broad conversation about moral truth.

Best,
Leela

 

[HelenaMT]

Hi All,

Recently, Sam Harris gave a TED talk on what science may be some day be able to tell us about morality. He has a book coming out called “The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.” I’ll be interested to hear what you think about his talk.

See the video here:
project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/

Regardless of what he will be able to do with a science of morals, I think he will start an important broad conversation about moral truth.

Best,
Leela

A way to scientifically justify objective morality? I love it. Although Sam Harris is an atheist and probably wants to find a way to replace religion as the only basis for objective morality, any steps away from the dangers of moral relativism are ones worth taking. Thanks for posting this.

 

[HelenaMT]

Just some further thoughts:

I find I need to add that the problem for this sort of scientific approach might be the bias of those wishing to prove or disprove a particular moral law-a secular scientist might want to show that it is immoral to introduce religion to a minor child. A religious-leaning scientist might look for ways to show why homosexuality or promiscuity is detrimental to a person’s overall well-being and therefore immoral.

More than in any other field, there will be an enormous chance for bias among those wishing to push their own agenda.

I found his take on moral relativism to be quite accurate, though:
"Moral relativism is clearly an attempt to pay intellectual reparations for the crimes of western colonialism, ethnocentrism, and racism. This is, I think, the only charitable thing to be said about it. "

His statement at the end of the article, that “Moral experts” would also constitute an elite group, and the existence of such experts is completely in line with my argument," brings to mind another problem with the concept of a scientifically based objective morality. What would we expect the role of such “moral experts” to be?

In the past, there was an overlap between purely religion-based laws (no divorce, illegal adultery, no stores open on Sundays, no sodomy, etc) and more universal laws against theft, battery, rape, murder etc. in that the power of the state could be brought to bear against either. If these “moral experts” ever reached a consensus on one standard, would it be easier for the state to use those experts to legislate morality once again?

When religious people push for laws based on morality, it’s often seen as a violation of the separation of church and state. If the moralizers are purely secular, though, on what grounds would one argue against such legislation ?