What’s good, and what’s evil? TraÂdiÂtionÂalÂly, reliÂgion and phiÂlosÂoÂphy have answered these quesÂtions, pushÂing sciÂence to the side, askÂing it to stick to the world of natÂurÂal laws and knowÂable facts. But Sam HarÂris wants to change things. At TED, he’s arguÂing that sciÂence (parÂticÂuÂlarÂly neuÂroÂscience) can address moral quesÂtions preÂciseÂly because these quesÂtions fall into the world of knowÂable facts. And, even betÂter, sciÂence can proÂvide definÂiÂtive, highÂly objecÂtive answers to such quesÂtions. Just as there are sciÂenÂtifÂic answers to all quesÂtions in physics, so there are clear answers in the moral realm. This applies, for examÂple, to whether chilÂdren should be subÂjectÂed to corÂpoÂral punÂishÂment, or how sociÂety deals with very meanÂingÂful genÂder quesÂtions. (Things get a litÂtle emoÂtionÂal on this topÂic at about 11 minÂutes in.) The upshot is that HarÂris isn’t buyÂing a radÂiÂcalÂly relÂaÂtivist posiÂtion on moralÂiÂty, and this will disÂapÂpoint many post-modÂernists. The EnlightÂenÂment project is alive and well, ready to make its comeÂback.
Update: You can find a rebutÂtal to Harris’s theÂsis from physiÂcist Sean CarÂroll here. Thanks Mike for pointÂing that out.
An interÂestÂing rebutÂtal to HarÂris’s theÂsis from physiÂcist Sean CarÂroll here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/03/24/the-moral-equivalent-of-the-parallel-postulate/
FanÂtasÂtic. Sam HarÂris is such an enjoyÂable author, I was not surÂprised to find that he is enjoyÂable to lisÂten to. He needs a podÂcast on iTunes or a course at The TeachÂing ComÂpaÂny. I know I would subÂscribe or purÂchase.
So unforÂtuÂnate that Sam HarÂris has overÂlooked the art of conÂtemÂplaÂtive reliÂgion in it’s entireÂty. If Mr. HarÂris were to allow himÂself a moment of humilÂiÂty in the presÂence of livÂing conÂtemÂplaÂtive masÂters, I think that he would quickÂly realÂize the deep (and recordÂed) empirÂiÂcal research into the nature of conÂsciousÂness and moralÂiÂty that conÂtemÂplaÂtive… See More “reliÂgions” have been underÂgoÂing for at least 2500 years. HarÂris’ fatal blind-spot may well be his subÂconÂscious subÂscripÂtion to ProtesÂtant indiÂvidÂuÂalÂism and sciÂenÂtifÂic mateÂriÂalÂism… The roots of which are hardÂly unreÂliÂgious. Once he starts “interÂroÂgatÂing” peoÂple’s emoÂtionÂal responsÂes with neuÂro-gadÂgetry, it is likeÂly (like many othÂers) that he will disÂcovÂer empirÂiÂcal eviÂdence SUPPORTING the very same devoÂtionÂal eleÂments of conÂtemÂplaÂtive reliÂgious culÂtures that he so vigÂiÂlantÂly aims to disÂprove.
There is so much great neuÂroÂsciÂenÂtifÂic research going on around ethics, emoÂtionÂal states, and human comÂpasÂsion at the moment. A great BudÂdhist scholÂar & neuÂroÂsciÂenÂtist named B. Alan WalÂlace has a very good video on this subÂject… http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=983112177262602885#