Harris & Dawkins: Pre-talk thoughts

Im currently en-route to Oxford for the first of the Sam Harris events and I’ve stopped off for a break from the M1 and to do some thinking.

I’ve got The Moral Landscape on the iPod and I’m about 2/3rds through it. This will be the second time I’ve listened/read through the book and my thoughts are starting to become clearer.

I think the negative reviews of the book are not entirely unfounded, but at their root lies perhaps a misunderstanding of how Harris is using the term ‘science’.

Whilst Sam does go into detail as to what he means by ‘how science can determine morality’ I also feel that he is not entirely blameless for the confusion. The subtitle of the book implies a very specific utilisation of the scientific discipline. The word ‘science’ conjures quite precise imagery in the collective consciousness of the book buying populace.

I think this is even more of a problem for the philosophers and theologians that have criticised it. It would be interesting to see what a philosopher of the sciences like Daniel Dennett thinks of it. I have no doubt that Dennett would set aside the fact that they are on the same team in order to de with Harris’s claims.

Sam is using the term ‘science’ very broadly, to the effect that we can use objective observation to see how the brain reacts to certain states of ‘well being’ and propositions of moral/ethical actions. He then argues this is the basis for deciding on whether actions are objectively moral or not.

This is another major area for confusion. I don’t think Sam is arguing that there exists objective morality outside of human experience. For example that there is an unseen rulebook somewhere that outlines morality independent of whether humans exist or not. This is essentially the line taken by religious apologists and what they mean by object morality. Harris is almost misusing the term objective, or at very least redefining t somewhat. This is why it felt to me that Harris and Lane Craig were debating at cross purposes last week.

I intend to write an in depth review of The Moral Landscape after the talks this week, and after I have finished reading/listening to it once more. This is obviously not that review, just my ongoing feelings on the subject.

Once you accept Harris’s claim that ‘well being’ is the subconscious or conscious default goal of all sentient creatures, his reasoning and arguments are extremely logical and convincing. This is not to say I’m completely happy with it, or that the first premise of ‘well being’ being the arbiter of what we should want is true. Harris foes however spend a lot of time giving reasons as to why he believes this is the case.

The negative reviews seem to be over looking these massive chunks of the book that address many of the concerns and supposed problems that are levied at it. It leads one to believe that many ‘reviewers’ are not actually reading the book itself :/

Anyway, quick slash and back on the road! Hope the weather is still this nice in Oxford

dB