Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are
commonly thought unanswerable by science.
But Sam Harris argues that science
can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and
setting out what constitutes a good life.
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I
have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary
ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations
concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that
instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with
no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This
change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this
ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ‘tis necessary
that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason
should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation
can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.”
Harris justifies his position by asking his audience to consider
under what circumstances we feel that we have moral obligations: “Why is it
that we don’t have ethical obligations toward rocks? ... Because we don’t think
that rocks can suffer. ... [talking then about insects having a very limited
inner life] This is a factual claim, this is something we could be right or
wrong about.” He continues: “If culture changes us, it changes us by changing
our brains. And therefore whatever cultural variation there is in the way human
beings flourish can at least in principle be understood in the context of a
maturing science of the mind,” implying that neurobiology — the field in which
he is getting a doctoral degree — will soon be the key to moral discourse.
The talk at this point takes a sharp turn, where
Harris aims his fire at moral relativism, though he never actually mentions the
term: “Just admitting that there are right and wrong answers to the question of
how humans flourish will change the way we talk about morality.” Taking the
example of several States in the US that allow corporal punishment of children, he asks: “Is it a good idea,
generally speaking, to subject children to pain, and violence, and public humiliation as a way of encouraging healthy emotional
development and good behavior?”
The final argument of the talk is supposed to
reinforce the analogy between moral and scientific expertise, both of which are
non-arbitrary: “Most Western intellectuals ... say, well, there is nothing for
the Dalai Lama to be really right about or for [serial rapist and killer] Ted
Bundy to be really wrong about. ... [One] likes chocolate, [the other] likes
vanilla. ... Notice that we don't do this in science,” at which point Harris
proceeds to compare differences of opinions about an expert in string theory
and himself, claiming that the expert gets the right of way quaexpert. “This is just the point, ok,
whenever we are talking about facts, certain opinions must be excluded. ... How
have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as
moral expertise?”
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento