Sam Harris
- Thread starter steve s
- Start date
Cain
Straussian
Disappointing interview. Stewart kept bringing up mathematics, so I wonder if he read beyond the title.
Harris seems to argue in favor using science to maximize human flourishing (although he seems to recognize the value of non-human suffering as well).
Science can tell us how long into a pregnancy before the fetus develops a heart beat, when it can experience pain, when it can survive outside the womb and so on. Science does not and cannot tell us if any of these traits or capacities are morally relevant. His position seems especially problematic when it comes to economics and political "science."
Harris seems to argue in favor using science to maximize human flourishing (although he seems to recognize the value of non-human suffering as well).
Science can tell us how long into a pregnancy before the fetus develops a heart beat, when it can experience pain, when it can survive outside the womb and so on. Science does not and cannot tell us if any of these traits or capacities are morally relevant. His position seems especially problematic when it comes to economics and political "science."
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
I've said before that his book is just sexed up utilitarianism.
What exactly is it scientists should be doing?
What exactly is it scientists should be doing?
Ivor the Engineer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,590
From the little I've read about his book, Harris seems to be more interested in science being used to discover what behaviours and organisations of society are harmful, rather than dictating what optimal moral behaviour is.
amused
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,440
Not a good interview performance by Harris. You can tell from the edits that they backed up and gave him a clear chance to articulate his thoughts, and he seemed to struggle even then.
I think the real value of his book, and others that will follow, is that it provides an alternative to point to when the assertion is made that religion alone is the source for morality. He may not make a bullet-proof argument, but it does at least chip away at the final pillar upon which religion is staking its claim to legitimacy.
I think the real value of his book, and others that will follow, is that it provides an alternative to point to when the assertion is made that religion alone is the source for morality. He may not make a bullet-proof argument, but it does at least chip away at the final pillar upon which religion is staking its claim to legitimacy.