RE: thoughts on sam harris
February 15, 2013 at 10:26 pm
(This post was last modified: February 15, 2013 at 10:32 pm by mralstoner.)
On the topic of ethics, even highly intelligent people can write strange/biased things. Such is the case with The Moral Landscape (TML), even though the book has made an overall positive contribution to debate.
On the plus side, TML is a welcome advance on the scope of atheist/humanist topics i.e. finally we can talk about something other than rationality v. religion. Amen to that!
Harris starts off with the wonderful metaphor of the peaks and valleys of moral values. He states the obvious, that human values are all about happiness v. suffering, pleasure v. pain. A good start.
But on the negative side, just when you think a highly rational person like Harris is going to give a clear and precise account of the source of human ethics/values (like Hume or Bentham), alas he dissolves into a puff of ambiguity by offering the vague term "well-being".
God dammit! It's so freakin obvious that human values can only come from the realm of our feelings/desires/emotions. Why can't Harris just say so? Why be so vague? Who knows, but I think Harris is probably afraid of unleashing a wave of unbridled hedonism, so he opts for a vague term.
So, on the whole, even though Harris talks incessantly about happiness v. suffering (and implicitly/practically agreeing with Hume and Bentham), alas he is too vague in the end.
(Mind you, I haven't read the book thoroughly, just skimmed it and watched his videos. And I have not read his free will book.)
BTW, everything Sam Harris says about Islam is 100% correct: "Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest".
On the plus side, TML is a welcome advance on the scope of atheist/humanist topics i.e. finally we can talk about something other than rationality v. religion. Amen to that!
Harris starts off with the wonderful metaphor of the peaks and valleys of moral values. He states the obvious, that human values are all about happiness v. suffering, pleasure v. pain. A good start.
But on the negative side, just when you think a highly rational person like Harris is going to give a clear and precise account of the source of human ethics/values (like Hume or Bentham), alas he dissolves into a puff of ambiguity by offering the vague term "well-being".
God dammit! It's so freakin obvious that human values can only come from the realm of our feelings/desires/emotions. Why can't Harris just say so? Why be so vague? Who knows, but I think Harris is probably afraid of unleashing a wave of unbridled hedonism, so he opts for a vague term.
So, on the whole, even though Harris talks incessantly about happiness v. suffering (and implicitly/practically agreeing with Hume and Bentham), alas he is too vague in the end.
(Mind you, I haven't read the book thoroughly, just skimmed it and watched his videos. And I have not read his free will book.)
BTW, everything Sam Harris says about Islam is 100% correct: "Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest".
