Sam Harris Thesis Review
Sam Harris thesis review
Student
PHIL 2306
Professor
Community College
Sam Harris thesis review
“Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, of course, fully constrained by the laws of Nature (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science. On this view, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life.” (Harris, 2011) This is Sam Harris’s thesis in his book The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. This proposition purports science can answer questions about morality. Science is about empirical evidence not social norms or accepted moral standards (morality). His stance on morality is centered on naturalistic fallacy. It is the thought that morality is the result of evolution and social conditioning. (Craig 2012) The laws of nature do not determine right or wrong behavior with relativity to the conscious mind. We as humans do not become more moral as we evolve. As situations around us change our morals change based on what’s more beneficial to us. “We are selfish to one degree or another; we lack complete information about the consequences of our actions; and even where we possess such information, our interests and preferences often lead us to ignore it.” Harris states. (Harris, 2011) However, his thesis contradicts this statement.
I agree with many other critics of Harris” regarding his idea of well being. He does not define well being or what justifies it. If well being is a part of the science of morality what can increase or decrease well being? How can well being be the foundation for morality? I do agree
Student
PHIL 2306
Professor
Community College
Sam Harris thesis review
“Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, of course, fully constrained by the laws of Nature (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science. On this view, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life.” (Harris, 2011) This is Sam Harris’s thesis in his book The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. This proposition purports science can answer questions about morality. Science is about empirical evidence not social norms or accepted moral standards (morality). His stance on morality is centered on naturalistic fallacy. It is the thought that morality is the result of evolution and social conditioning. (Craig 2012) The laws of nature do not determine right or wrong behavior with relativity to the conscious mind. We as humans do not become more moral as we evolve. As situations around us change our morals change based on what’s more beneficial to us. “We are selfish to one degree or another; we lack complete information about the consequences of our actions; and even where we possess such information, our interests and preferences often lead us to ignore it.” Harris states. (Harris, 2011) However, his thesis contradicts this statement.
I agree with many other critics of Harris” regarding his idea of well being. He does not define well being or what justifies it. If well being is a part of the science of morality what can increase or decrease well being? How can well being be the foundation for morality? I do agree
References: Craig, W. (2012). Navigating sam harris ' the moral landscape. Retrieved from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/navigating-sam-harris-the-moral-landscape Harris, S. (2011, January 29). A response to critics. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-response-to-critics_b_815742.html Young, L., & Dungan, J. (2011, February 14). Where in the brain is morality?. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/~lyoung/www/Site/Publications_files/Young_Dungan_SN_proof.pdf