Sam Harris: Science can answer Moral Questions

I have watched the video of Sam Harris about Moral Questions which can be answered by Moral Questions. In this video, Sam Harris argues that science can and should be used to address moral issues.

I would think that science does have some input, but I also think this will be a hard sell if you take a wide view of the debate circuit. It seems to me that so long as people continue to blend their morality with dualism we’re going to have a hard time with the discussion. I think that science can tell us how to promote well-being; it can’t tell us that we should value well-being. Science can’t even establish that life itself has value. How to maximize well-being isn’t a moral question. The moral question comes when maximizing well-being means sacrificing autonomy. I would say that there is no absolute morality, as evidenced by the diverse moral systems in societies across the globe. This means that the objective standard we use to make our moral decisions is based on the real world. Since science is an important tool for understanding the real world I see no reason why science should not inform those moral decisions.

As it works now, we get our morality the same way we get our language: from the community we’re raised in. Like language, morality has an innate template that is modified based on local circumstances. Understanding that template could tell us a great deal about who we are. Harris goes way beyond discussing an approach to understanding the biological roots of morality. According to him, science can tell us what’s worth living for and what’s worth dying for. His own cultural biases are clear. He repeatedly uses aspects of Islamic radicalism to illustrate his points. Some might argue that US foreign policy played a role in establishing and perpetuating this extremism. *Their* culture might not be entirely to blame, yet he does seem to blame their culture. He states, “it is possible for individuals and even whole cultures to care about the wrong things”. According to Harris, we can no longer “respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human well-being”. What kind of action do you think he’s advocating? Can we be scientifically justified in forcing well-being on others?

            

Harris is right in his own way but there should still be a little faith involved. Not everything can be well explained with science but we all base it on faith. Many may argue about this video of his because each and every one of us has different beliefs so not all may agree with his way of thinking but this video only shows his beliefs and opinions and I have my own opinion about this matter.