I recently found this video of Sam Harris giving a TED talk in 2010 about how science can answer moral questions.
tl;dw Morality is the science of maximising the wellbeing of conscious creatures, we can measure wellbeing, so there goes religion.
There are actually parts of the video where I think he makes good points, such as when he says we have to have a consensus on morality and cant simply tolerate and respect all points of view.
However, what I think we must note here is the degree to which that which Ryan Faulk calls ‘humanism’ has taken over. (Harris actually extends the concept beyond Faulk’s definition to include animals.) Harris automatically assumes that morality is concerned with maximising the ‘wellbeing of [all] conscious creatures.’ This is, of course, a value judgment, and not one rooted in any scientifically verifiable fact, at least not any such fact that Harris has stated or provided evidence for.
Now, if I were writing this to critique atheist morality, I might stop here. I’ve made my point; Harris epically failed to show that ‘values reduce to facts’ but simply inserted a single, all-encompassing and somewhat arbitrary value (‘maximising the wellbeing of conscious creatures’). Of course once you have a single overarching value that covers everything, other values do reduce to facts. Is X good? Well, it’s good if and only if it contributes to the maximal wellbeing of conscious creatures. This may be difficult to measure, but Harris posits that in principle it’s measurable. (Personally, I think you get into trouble when trying to compare hedonic satisfaction levels among different individuals, but we’ll overlook that for the moment.) The fallacy here is obvious. What if I only care about human wellbeing? Or white human wellbeing? Or tall human wellbeing? Or bald human wellbeing? Or my own wellbeing? Heck, I could pick any arbitrary group I want and make its wellbeing the standard of morality. I’d probably be wrong, but science could not prove me so. And what if my standard isn’t based on wellbeing? What if I say ‘what adheres to the Ten Commandments is good, regardless of hedonic effect’? How can Harris possibly disprove these ideas ‘scientifically’?
But what I find far more interesting is that he surely does this unconsciously. He simply assumes humanist (or consciousist or something) values as a fact, and proceeds from there.
This is actually to be expected. It’s normal. People think these are facts, that they’re settled, that no one could question them. What we are up against is not simply ideologues, but ideologues who have no idea that there is anything but their ideology. It’s not that they’ve consciously rejected it. It’s not even that there’s honest censorship (which at least lets you know there are other ideas to be censored). To the modern man, universalist utilitarian morality is no more to be questioned than the necessity of breathing.
This is the problem we have to overcome. This is why it’s such a shock when you take the ‘Red Pill’ and are exposed to reactionary ideas for the first time. And this may be our greatest asset. Never having been exposed to anything but liberalism, how can the modern man have built up any immunity to competing ideas? He cant have.