posted
I have no idea what kind of traffic this place gets, I just stumbled across it the other day and decided to submit one of my posts. Have any of the philosophy people here heard of it? Anyway, they included my entry and I had a huge boost in traffic today, which was cool. Now I wish I had actually spent a bit more time being careful with some of my points...
My post was an exploration of Sam Harris's basic premise in The Moral Landscape. I make explicit his basic assumptions and then evaluate what works and what doesn't work. Check it out!
My post is pretty critical of a few points, but on the whole the book is really excellent. Anyone who enjoys Sam Harris should check it out, and anyone interested in science and morality should also check it out. Anyone who doesn't enjoy his religious criticisms can skip his chapter on religion and the book would actually be better for it. My post:
quote:1) Ethics is about the conscious states of organisms. (okay) 2) Conscious states of organisms are within the realm of science. (okay) 3) Ethics is about maximizing the well being of conscious organisms. (hmmmm)
Does Harris believe that he put forth scientific arguments for these assumptions? They are mighty large, all three of them.
Anyways, Sam Harris's whole schtick is about stroking the ego of Westerners. It bleeds from everything he has to say, especially in his defense of torture.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there's an inherent rejection of dualism that I don't think Harris spends much time defending that would address point 2. Though he may, and I'm not remembering. I imagine that his discussions of psychology and neuroscience and scientific research are implicit defenses of that point though. What parts of consciousness do you think are not within the domain of science (as defined by Harris)?
Point 1 he does defend. But what else could ethics be about? Do you have an example that contradicts it?
He defends the well being part of point 3, but never the maximizing aspect.
What do you mean by stroking the ego of westerners? As far as I know he's made arguments that our rejection of torture but acceptance of collateral damage is hypocritical, but I don't remember him ever making arguments specifically for the use of torture. In an essay? How is speaking out about the evils and danger of religion stroking the egos of westerners? He also seems to take many liberal and conservative viewpoints and sounds off against the right as much as the left. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cool, I've had a huge increase in traffic as a result, but as my blog doesn't get all that much traffic to begin with it wasn't too hard to pull that off.
Destineer, I'd welcome any thoughts or criticism you have on the post (keeping in mind it wasn't written in an academic vain).
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Destineer, I'd welcome any thoughts or criticism you have on the post (keeping in mind it wasn't written in an academic vain).
What you said looks exactly right to me. Harris extends the domain of what he calls "science" to cover pretty much all knowledge, and he makes some pretty substantial normative assumptions along the way. As you point out, there's no way to scientifically establish whether happiness is all there is to well-being.
The move he makes is tempting, when there are so many people who hold deep beliefs without seeing any need to justify them. But the solution isn't to pretend, as he does, that there are no deep questions in the domain where our best source of evidence starts breaking down.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
