Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions Analysis
Harris brings us many points and views in his TED talk. Though there are some ideas I must agree with, I do not agree with his overall ideology that he is presenting. He persuades the audience by using reason and logic. His main thesis was near the beginning of the video. He states that, “The separation between science and human values is an illusion,” adding that moral choices are decisions made solely upon facts. Science in my opinion can articulate to us what is, not simply what it ought to be. Some values cannot be purely drawn from facts. Facts convey to us a piece of information that is objective, or express to us something known to be true. While values allow us to interpret, internalize,
…show more content…
An example would be the bombing of Hiroshima. The morality was good in a way that it prevented millions of lives being saved, but at the cost of thousand of Japanese people dying.
The more facts and information we have about the world around us that are scholarly and valid, the better we can make more rational and calm decisions. Therefore, science should guide our morality to some extent because it allows us to evaluate different kinds of ethical choices that are needed, and disregard those that are faulty. For example, say that we want our children to grow into healthy and mature adults. The best course of action to do so is to invest in research in nutrition. To see what foods, vitamins, and drinks stimulate and maximize a child’s growth and health overall. Such a method would require us to gather and expand the area of nutrition scientifically. However, this is where Harris fails to draw the line, especially with ethics. I believe that science cannot define ethics. At the core of Harris’ ideology, he simply assumes science can help assist and apply
…show more content…
The notion of “do not lose your Queen” is something to always consider when playing the game. Harris notes that sometimes, the best move to make is to forfeit the Queen. For this example, the main idea he is trying to convey is that there are sometimes exceptions to the rule, even in morality. However, this example may not be the best to use (weakening his argument). He infers what he believes and definite what is ‘good’ in the game of chess. Consequently, insinuating the definition of morals. However, if you defined the term ‘moral,’ it is based on what a person’s standard of behavior is or belief regarding what is acceptable to them.
The best analogy in his speech is how we perceive primates, insects and rocks. We give primates more moral recognition and more ethical obligations than the other domains (insects and rocks). This is a factual claim that primates experience a wider range of emotion than insects and rocks, such as happiness and sadness. We treat them differently because they are more similar to us and we can empathize with those exact emotions. If there was new evidence indicating that insects and rocks can feel the same range of feelings, then that would change our moral views of the said
In “Toward a Universal Ethics,” written by Michael Gazzaniga, a question is posed to coax his audience toward a science based ethics. “The question is, Do we have an innate moral sense as a species, and if so, can we recognize and accept it on it’s own terms? It is not a good idea to kill because it is not a good idea to kill, not because God or Allah or Buddha said it was not a good idea to kill.”(Gazzaniga, 420 para. 6). Gazzaniga answers the question for us, but he was wrong to assume that the brain’s systematic response to moral situations means that science should dictate ethics and morality. Instead, ethics and morality should be considered a part of humanity, which is influenced and balanced by many things including science, religion, and individual
...o die, everything is growing farther and farther apart toward a state of decay; and as it goes, so goes hope, so goes man’s faith in what he can see, think, and reason. This is the hard reality that becomes apparent; if ethical action is limited to man’s thought about morals and principles that are, according to man, “absolute”, then man may be the most arrogant and ignorant of God’s creation.
“The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.”
To begin, “On Morality'; is an essay of a woman who travels to Death Valley on an assignment arranged by The American Scholar. “I have been trying to think, because The American Scholar asked me to, in some abstract way about ‘morality,’ a word I distrust more every day….'; Her task is to generate a piece of work on morality, with which she succeeds notably. She is placed in an area where morality and stories run rampant. Several reports are about; each carried by a beer toting chitchat. More importantly, the region that she is in gains her mind; it allows her to see issues of morality as a certain mindset. The idea she provides says, as human beings, we cannot distinguish “what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’';. Morality has been so distorted by television and press that the definition within the human conscience is lost. This being the case, the only way to distinguish between good or bad is: all actions are sound as long as they do not hurt another person or persons. This is similar to a widely known essay called “Utilitarianism'; [Morality and the Good Life] by J.S. Mills with which he quotes “… actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.';
While if a cow is killed at thirty months, it is not more tragic than to be killed at forty, fifty, or sixty months, no one will say a thing. This prime example that humans are thought to be more superior, they think nothing of the cow and how he suffers. So Singer rephrases his argument to compare a human with low cognitive ability and a cow, they both do not have plans for the future, so the new argument would be the difference between killing a human and a human with severe mental retardation. This although may raise a lot of controversy, but it is the say as the humans and nonhuman. Singer also says the capability to suffer is a big aspect of life. Every living animal has the ability to suffer, meaning humans and nonhumans are very similar. Whether it is a human or a nonhuman, when they lose someone close to them, you see a change in their
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
In the article,"An Atheist Manifesto," by Sam Harris he discusses how God does not exisit because if he did exist there would not be any evil in this world. As I was reading this article I found it very intresting how Harris is so negative and believes that everything that happens is God's fault. "....at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?No,.." stated Harris. He should understand that God gave us a gift called "free will," and with that gift it comes with a price that we should live with the consequeces by the descisions we make as human beings. I liked this article because it showed me the other side of the coin
Society seems to be divided between the idea if science is more harmful than helpful. We live in a world where humans depend on science and technology to improve important aspects of society, such as medical machinery, which supports the fact that science is more of a friend than a foe. Science is advancing every day. The United States has come a long way with its ongoing developments, giving individuals a chance to improve society as a whole. Not only does the United States benefit from such growth, but every modernized country does so as well. Through science and technology, individuals learn from past endeavors and apply it to present and future projects, paving the way for new discoveries and efficient enhancements
Since the mid-20th century, a central debate in the philosophy of science is the role of epistemic values when evaluating its bearing in scientific reasoning and method. In 1953, Richard Rudner published an influential article whose principal argument and title were “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments” (Rudner 1-6). Rudner proposed that non-epistemic values are characteristically required when making inductive assertions on the rationalization of scientific hypotheses. This paper aims to explore Rudner’s arguments and Isaac Levi’s critique on his claims. Through objections to Levi’s dispute for value free ideal and highlighting the importance of non-epistemic values within the tenets and model development and in science and engineering,
In the article, “What Science Tells Us About Good and Evil” states that “ Other studies have measured callousness and lack of emotional expression in adolescents using questions like whether the subject feels guilty upon doing something wrong”, I was quite surprised with this statement. I feel like teens would be the more emotional ones especially going through hormones they definitely don't lack emotions. It is actually surprising that studies show that because I don't think that would be true depending on teens attitudes it's not so believable for me, but on the other hand they are not normal teens if they are doing evil acts. There must be something psychologically wrong with them. I don’t think that kids can just be born psychopaths I
For instance, greed is a great example of a corrupted morality. Ichabod Crane, the main character in the “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” is a victim of this greed. “He was satisfied with his wealth, but not proud of it; and piqued himself upon the hearty abundance, rather than the style in which he lived” (Irving 143). He had a lot, perhaps more than he actually needed, but instead of being satisfied with it, he sought more. In order to obtain more wealth, he planned to take advantage of Katrina Van Tassel, a beautiful girl with a rich father.
...wever, in the best interest of advancing education and an enlightened society, science must be pursued outside of the realm of faith and religion. There are obvious faith-based and untestable aspects of religion, but to interfere and cross over into everyday affairs of knowledge should not occur in the informational age. This overbearing aspect of the Church’s influence was put in check with the scientific era, and the Scientific Revolution in a sense established the facet of logic in society, which allows us to not only live more efficiently, but intelligently as well. It should not take away from the faith aspect of religion, but serve to enhance it.
The term ‘scientific literacy’ has eluded precise definition ever since it was coined in 1958. That year, in light of the astonishing swift advancements made by mid-century scientists (e.g. the splitting of the atom, space exploration), three publications appeared that made reference to scientific literacy: a report by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which called for a larger technically trained workforce to safeguard our economic and military strength, and a more scientifically literate public able to execute civic responsibilities intelligently; a publication from Paul Hurd and colleagues at Stanford University that exhorted curricula leaders to develop pedagogies that promoted both the cultural and practical aspects of science; and a published address by the president of Shell Chemical Corporation, who called for new curricula emphasizing the fundamentals of science, its history, and its significance for active citizenship and everyday life (see DeBoer, 2000 for review). As DeBoer (2000) noted, however, all three publications used broad brushstrokes to define scientific literacy, thus shrouding the term in ambiguity. Indeed, when asked how they interpreted “scientific literacy,” scientists and science educators had disparate notions about the role content knowledge and a broader understanding of the nature of science had in developing a scientifically literate student (DeBoer, 2000). If nothing else, this example underscores the need for clear definitions and fully articulated curricular goals. To this end, educators have spent several decades making sense of the conceptual spectrum of scientific literacy, resulting in the dissection of scientific literacy into the following sub-genres: pra...
Bishop argues that science is beneficial when it is understood. He explains that many critics blame science for the problems that exist in our world today, yet it is society that has ignored the warning signs that science has provided. Bishop demonstrates this point through his statement:
Natural sciences are sciences whose methodology is based on the observation of the physical world. Unlike ethics it is a highly empirical discipline. The basic and perhaps only way used to produce knowledge in the scientific world is through inductive reasoning, as the methodology that is usually followed by scientists involves conducting several experiments and making observations, based on which they make logical conclusions. Ethical judgements hinder the methods of acquiring knowledge through scientific development. Several methods require the interaction with animals, which could end up being harmful for them. Moral codes and values oppose to such situations and therefore encourage us to raise concerns every time there is a potential for scientific research involving animal experimentation. As I learned in my IB Biology course, Xenotransplantation, the transplantation of organs from animals,...