PHIL 3310. Exploring the philosophical, ethical, spiritual, existential, social, and personal implications of a godless universe, and supporting their study at Middle Tennessee State University & beyond.
For those interested, here is a TED talk by Sam Harris, where he argues that science can serve as a foundation for our moral judgements. I think he has some compelling arguments, but I'm curious to know what all of you think.
See Harris's "The Moral Landscape" for an extended discussion of his challenge to the wall of separation between facts and values (blurb posted above).
I think Harris is partly right: science can help clarify what kinds of facts are relevant to the determination of what conditions do and do not support human flourishing. But we still have to decide to value human flourishing as a universal good, not just for ourselves but for all. Facts do not compel assent to "ought" statements, but they can influence people of good will to re-examine their values and evaluate whether they're being satisfied by present practice.
I think that makes sense. The idea of using science to further understand and evaluate human flourishing is a great idea in my opinion, so that people can use data to begin to understand the implications for their beliefs and actions. But I do agree that what every person "ought" to do based on these scientific findings is still unclear, so it doesn't really solve all of the mysteries surrounding morality.
See Harris's "The Moral Landscape" for an extended discussion of his challenge to the wall of separation between facts and values (blurb posted above).
ReplyDeleteI think Harris is partly right: science can help clarify what kinds of facts are relevant to the determination of what conditions do and do not support human flourishing. But we still have to decide to value human flourishing as a universal good, not just for ourselves but for all. Facts do not compel assent to "ought" statements, but they can influence people of good will to re-examine their values and evaluate whether they're being satisfied by present practice.
I think that makes sense. The idea of using science to further understand and evaluate human flourishing is a great idea in my opinion, so that people can use data to begin to understand the implications for their beliefs and actions. But I do agree that what every person "ought" to do based on these scientific findings is still unclear, so it doesn't really solve all of the mysteries surrounding morality.
Delete