Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[SteveII]

But why base morality on the "well-being of conscious creatures"? First what is good/goodness; bad/evil? Harris is redefining the moral words good and evil in nonmoral terms as the well-being of conscious creatures. So when we ask "why is maximizing well-being good?" it is the same as asking "why is maximizing well-being maximizing well-being?". This is question begging and circular.

First of all, I include all of the things you list in your Third point 

Happiness, love, fulfillment, security, companionship, loyalty, creativity, etc.

as subcategories of wellbeing. These are exactly the kinds of things I am talking about. What is good about these things? They are things that enhance our wellbeing. 

The attributes I listed ---all subjective. These things vary with every human being.

Conversely, if morality is just a question of doing whatever your God wants because he will either punish or reward you, then it is a-moral. It's worthless to anyone who doesn't believe in your God, and nothing more than a law system from a fascist dictator for those who do. So I don't agree that Harris is redefining Good and Evil in non-moral terms - quite the contrary, he is elucidating the true value of morality - IE why it is good to be moral and bad/evil to be immoral. Why is something good or bad? Because it has a good or bad impact on oneself and/or others. 

You are defending your moral ontology by attacking what you incorrectly perceive as mine?  

Of course the well-being of conscious creatures is 'good' as in "desirable"--the non-moral definition. The moral definition of 'good' is "that which is morally right; righteousness".  So Harris is claiming that the property of being 'morally good' (that which is morally right; righteousness) is identical with the property of 'well-being'. But his argument (and yours) is really that the property of being 'good' (that which is more desirable) is identical with the property of 'well-being'.  

Second, can rapist, liars and thieves be just as happy as 'good' people? Since their greatest state of 'well-being' conflicts with someone else's all you have is a continuum of well-being and not true 'morals'. What about psychopathic people or even worse, a group of psychopaths? How do you define well-being within that group? Linking well-being with brain states does not get you to anything resembling objective morality.

Hopefully the expanded definition of 'wellbeing' will help to clarify this. You have to evaluate the impact of any given behaviour on everyone affected. It's that simple - yes, the psychopath and the liar and the rapist want to do things that hurt other people - and we know this, so as a society we can take steps to prevent them from doing this. We can evaluate their action and see that if they do what they want, it will have a negative impact on others, therefore it is immoral. Morality isn't simple to work out in every application - but by recognising that what we value is human wellbeing, at least we know what we are trying to figure out. 

You have literally described a subjective process.

Regarding your statement about evaluating morality: "Science is the best approach to this, in fact, it is the only approach worth using" is wrong on many levels. First, science can only tell us what is and not what ought to be. It can describe how we are but not offer an opinion as to what is wrong with how we are. It certainly cannot tell what we ought to do (moral obligations) and therefore obligatory actions for things like the well-being of conscious creatures.

This is why we start from agreeing that we are conscious creatures who prefer health to illness, life to death, and pleasure and enjoyment and love over suffering and misery and despair, etc, and recognise that we all share this planet and have to find a way to live alongside one another. When I say we can use science to approach this I'm not just saying we get a group of bespectacled lab-coat wearing chemists to stir up some wellbeing potion. We use the scientific method. We use reason, we use argument, we use logic and empiricism to evaluation the moral implications of any given situation, and to identify what types of behaviour and what societal rules will best promote the value of 'wellbeing.' 

The scientific method? How do you apply that to happiness, love, fulfillment, security, companionship, loyalty, creativity, etc. Do you take an average? What if these things vary by country or time period? What then? 

Listen, I don't care what you believe. Just don't claim it's objective because you don't want to deal with the implications of believing in subjective morality.