Sam Harris and the science of morality
Offline Sam Harris has been on a speaking tour for an upcoming book and here is one of his lectures on Dawkins website:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5340
There is also an abbreviated TED lecture version as well. What do you folks think? Sam sold me on the whole facts versus values and on the notion that religion is a poor substrate for morality. I also like his "moral landscape" with various peaks and valleys. Yet he lost me on how exactly science can weigh into a secular based universal moral code. When I give food to a starving stranger, I know this is a good thing and the "goodness" is reflected in a particular neurophysiologic pattern in my brain. And likely, similar patterns of neural activity would be reflected in the various peaks of the moral landscape. And this can be a framework for universal well being and flourishing. This is the gist I take away from Sam's thesis. Morality arises from the brain. I don't see how this is prescriptive in shifting the moral zeitgeist. At the forefront of the cognitive neuroscience of mind and consciousness is Christoff Koch. He has an interesting framework as to how the neurophysiology gives rise to consciousness. Yet, Koch's morality is driven by his devout Catholic faith and really not informed by neuroscience. If not Koch, then how does Sam realistically expect all of humanity to accept a neural based universal moral code?
- Login to post comments
I don't think he necessarily meant constructing a moral system based on scans of the brain. He did say that brain mapping could be used to tell if someone acted out of love or not, and that we could learn a great deal about morality by studying brain function during morally significant activity.
The moral system he was suggesting was one based on a value of human wellness. This is basically the philosophy of utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism), which teaches that human happiness is the ultimate value, and that actions can be judged based on their net resultant human happiness.
Not all ethicists would agree with Sam Harris or utilitarianism. Some believe that actions should be judged based on whether they fulfill duties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics), regardless of whether or not they are intended to bring about human wellness. These people are of course loons and should not be allowed to operate complex or dangerous machines.
http://www.physorg.com/news189085599.html
Moral judgment can be altered by disrupting specific brain regions.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Yeah, 'duties' are ok, to a point, as long as they are all directed as improving human wellness, and they are not too specific, and not compulsory.
Anything else is just too OT to be taken seriously.
To make performance of duties by themselves the standard of moral worth is an abuse of the term.
Religious doctrines have a lot to answer for in enshrining primitive attitudes.
But just a general obligation that we should do what we can to improve human wellness, without destroying our own life experience, that's as far I would apply 'duty'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Science would need to make "a neural based universal moral code" feel better than a religious one. Everyone's only morality is to do what feels right.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen