Apr
25.
Episode 35 is an analysis of a recent talk given by Sam Harris on science and human values. The talk was part of a TED conference, and you can see part 1 here. Harris thinks that he has argued that moral facts are actually scientific facts. I think he has failed, and here I offer an explanation of how I think he has failed. In brief, I think his entire presentation is an exercise in circular reasoning.
Harris has a new book on the subject, The Moral Landscape, which is to be released later this year. If you’d like to order a copy, please use this link and the Book Depository will look kindly on me.
Similar Posts:
- Public Lecture: The New Atheism, Science and Morality
- Buy from The Book Depository and help this site!
- Coming up…
- My new favourite bookstore
- The New Atheism, Science and Morality – University of Auckland
- He's making a list, he's checking it twice…
Tags: atheism, Ethics, meta-ethics, podcast, scepticism
You’re evil. I just wanted to read it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent episode, as usual. I enjoyed the occasional ‘definitions’ which you give to phrases like “realism” or “antirealism.” I also found listening to your “Moral Argument For God’s Existence” episodes to be helpful to really understanding this one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good podcast. You did indeed tear Harris a new one
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This was my introduction to your show and it made a very good first impression, I’m a fan. I hope your awesome analysis gets the notice it deserves, I’ll be listening to this for the rest of the week.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This whole group of ‘New Atheists’ don’t seem to realise what you stated towards the end of your podcast is true; once a deity is gone any chance of objective morality (and any reason to act ethically) goes and we are left with moral nihilism.
It would be good if they could read some Foucault, Derrida or another postmodern philosopher and see that in a post-religious world/paradigm there are no foundations for morality. Yet the “New Atheists’ seem too arrogant, have you read Richard Dawkins ‘critique’ of postmodernism? Its an appalling piece of philosophy but highlights his level of thinking on this subject.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Angry Atheist – Well, there might still be some reasons to act in a way that other people think of as “morally” – it earns respect, it encourages people to treat you in a way that you often like to be treated etc. It just removes the ability to say, as a matter of fact, that those who dispense with this beautiful lie and live as they please, are actually doing anything wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Should Richard Dawkins and co read some Foucault or Derrida?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Richard Dawkins and co need to read beretta online blog and listen to its podcasts.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
If I were given the herculean task of defending Harris’s position, I would have tried to plump for some property identity claim. I could have first tried to establish that the property of being right was identical to the property of promoting (or, perhaps, at least not conflicting with) the well-being of humans and other sentient creatures. I would have argued for this claim by appealing to various empirical facts about the function of morality within human societies in addition to appealing to certain conceptual claims and moral intuitions. I would have argued that out of all the candidate properties out there for being the referent of the term ‘right’, the property described above is the best candidate, given all the relevant empirical, intuitive and conceptual data. Then I would have gone on to argue that the well-being of humans and other sentient animals is itself a property that can be determined by scientific means (by evolutionary psychology, happiness indicators or whatever). I’m not saying that this sketch could be filled out in a convincing way. But it would have a least been a shot of actually arguing for Harris’s position , unlike what Harris himself gave us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Indeed Kenny – people have actually argued for a naturalistic morality after all. Harris’s problem is that he just didn’t argue at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kenny, where can you buy those Happiness Indicators you speak of? I’ll get two.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I watch stuff from time to time on TED – Do you think you could sling a little lingo in a TED talk for us?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t know George – what does it mean to sling a little lingo in a TED talk?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Watch some TED stuff and then you’ll see. Keep up the good work though Glenny.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I just watched Harris’ talk and listened to your podcast-good work Glenn.
Harris didn’t really argue for anything and in fact his talk was so poor and contained such little information I was thinking in parts that maybe I had missed what he was arguing. This was not the case though; Harris just did not present his case well.
Is Harris arguing for a sort of utilitarianism? It seemed like that in many parts. The way he critiqued the practices of Muslims fathers killing their raped daughters seemed to rest on some Western liberal assumptions about morality. It was a shame that he did not elaborate on how we can use science to say that what these Muslim men do is objectively wrong. In fact it was a shame that he did not go into some applied ethical work (I suspect that he can’t do this thought for obvious reasons). He should not be too sure that the moral values we will get from science support the values that we in the West already hold (if in fact we can get values from science), for all we know these values could state the opposite and support the practices of these Muslim men.
All in all a poor show. I liked your comments at the end about the lack of understanding about is being discussed by the New Atheist movement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Great podcast! you need to publicize this more!
I definately agree with “Angry Atheist” when he states that atheism leaves us with moral nihilism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just wanted to say that I thought this podcast was wonderful, and heartily agreed with the whole thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0