Posted: Nov 11, 2010 11:05 am
Mr.Samsa wrote:MattHunX wrote:Woah, there!
First, read the rest of the book, if you can get it, then say Harris is ignorant, that is of you still think that.
I know I should, but I've watched all of his talks on this issue, all of his shorter commentaries on his book, read reviews of his book, and discussed it with other people who have read his book, and all lead me to the same conclusion: When he says "Science can determine human values", he means "People can decide through logic, reason or opinion what values they wish to hold, and once decided and defined, science can inform their moral choices".
As such, his position is redundant since that's how morality has been discussed since, practically, the dawn of time..
But I can accept that I might be wrong, I assume that you've read the book? If so, can you point me to the scientific literature that he cites to support his claim that right and wrong is a matter of increasing or decreasing human well-being? (I assume that this means that as long as it doesn't affect the well-being of a human, we can do whatever we like to animals. Unless he then slips into Peter Singer Woo-Ville where he starts discussing "conscious beings"...).
I am reading the book. Haven't finished it yet. I don't find anything wrong with his reasoning on why and how science could and should be able to eventually informs us on morality, as being related to the well-being of conscious creatures, and he is right in saying why Hume's is/ought distinction and moral relativism is wrong.
I am past the part I've posted, actually.