Not science, necessarily, but logic and reason. I can’t think of a single valid moral precept that can’t be reached by basic logic.

For instance, I can give you a list of logical reasons to not steal stuff:

• I don’t want people to steal my stuff.

• I don’t want a reputation as an untrustworthy person because that makes it more difficult to get things done.

• It is usually easier to acquire things honestly than to steal them.

• Thieving is risky. Buying stuff with your own money isn’t.

I also have two emotional, non-logical reasons, but they’re valid since they don’t contradict the logical ones:

• I wouldn’t enjoy using anything I stole because I’d know it wasn’t mine.
• I don’t want to be a thief.

You can do that with every valid moral precept. Other precepts, like hating people because they’re gay or from another country, can’t be supported logically. They can only be justified by religious and/or political dogma, and so should be rejected.

Posted: January 22nd 2011

See all questions answered by Dave Hitt

I think that Harris (or whoever wrote the subtitle to the book) is mistaken that science can determine human values. I believe that science can, in principle, tell us what the best course of action is, given certain preexisting fundamental values, but that it cannot tell us what these values should be.

It seems as though Harris assumes that it is a moral fact that we ought to maximise wellbeing, but provides no account of how science shows this to be the case. I agree with Mackie and Joyce in that I don’t believe there’s good reason to believe that any such facts exist.

The final part of Russel Blackford’s complementary, but critical review of The Moral Landscape goes into more detail about this criticism of Harris’ approach.

The point I’ve been making, and which Mackie makes throughout Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, is that claims about how we should act are not rationally binding on us irrespective of such things as our actual values and desires. Putting it another way, they are not objectively prescriptive. Alice is never rationally bound to act so as to maximize global well-being, if she actually places a higher priority on something else, such as maximizing the well-being of herself or her loved ones. That is what is frequently meant, including by Mackie, when philosophers say that morality is not “objective.” As Richard Joyce shows, there is always room for questions such as “What is that to me?”

Posted: January 22nd 2011

See all questions answered by bitbutter

I disagree. Science is a very powerful tool for finding out about us and how we experience the world. It can quantify suffering, for example.

But human values are abstractions. Truth and Justice aren’t essences that pervade the universe, as some religions would have us believe. Once we have made decisions about what we value, science can certainly help us with how we follow the route we have chosen, but even then it can only be a guide. The moral landscape is vast and full of ever-changing mountains and valleys. As we wander across it, our footsteps change the landscape. Finding the heights and even a clear route to the heights may be like predicting the weather, something that in the long term is doomed to failure. There is no map to guide us, but if we stride out well prepared and with good intentions, we can make progress, and when we stop every now and then to survey where we are, science will be vital.

Posted: January 19th 2011

See all questions answered by Steve Zara

It seems a bit early to tell if this can work, but I have high hopes for the effort!

Of course, we all know that it’s easy to “determine” values and morality, by making up a new set. Just ask the creator of any new religion! However, it has been noted many times that any system of morals that stands the test of time tends to follow certain common threads, like don’t murder people, don’t steal, etc. Generally, they all fall into the category of 'play nice with your little friends’.

The question Harris brings up is if the presence of these common moral standards implies that they are actually absolute from the standpoint of the human psyche, and whether you can confirm that scientifically. I personally think that it’s likely you can confirm it scientifically, and I look forward to seeing future research in that area.

Posted: January 19th 2011

See all questions answered by Blaise