Sam Harris and the Question of Objective Morality
I discovered the work of Sam Harris from Andrew Sullivan’s link to Harris’s TED talk, which argued that there can be — and is — an objective, evidence-and-logic basis for determining good moral systems. His talk includes the suggestion that we can, and should, empirically critique religious or cultural moral systems for their relative “rightness” in achieving human well-being and fulfillment.
I was intrigued, because of the recent re-emergence of my critical stance on organized religion.
His proposition is an explicit attack on the concept of moral (and implicitly, cultural) relativism. Since moral relativism is a practical tenet of modern liberal thought, particularly among the highly educated, his talk attracted a lot of criticism.
Andrew Sullivan has posted a link to the ongoing debate between some of his critics and Harris on this issue.
I find the discussion intriguing. I’m currently reading his first book, The End of Faith, which addresses the dangers of courting religious moral relativism in a world where some people are willing to kill themselves and others for their beliefs, and those people may be able to acquire nukes.
I have to admit that I’m currently biased towards accepting Harris’s argument, though I understand the criticisms so far, I think. It’s tricky to court the siren song of “right and wrong” in the realm of morality. And I worry that Harris’s arguments could be used for evil™. Once you have a verifiable “right way” to live, what’s to keep it from being implemented by the dictatorship of the majority? Perhaps he addresses these things in his book.
