Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hearkening-hobbit t1_jcky0n7 wrote

Sam Harris' moral philosophy, particularly his merging of "is" and "ought," is irritatingly ignorant of advances in philosophy. Just as Sam takes care to differentiate between science and pseudoscience, I make the distinction between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy. The separation of "is" (descriptive) and "ought" (prescriptive) has been a widely accepted philosophical tenet since the 17th century, endorsed by British empiricists, including the eminent Hume. Hume's distinction posits that we cannot directly derive prescriptive, normative conclusions (what "ought" to be) from descriptive statements about the world (what "is"). This principle has been acknowledged by philosophers ever since. Yet, Sam Harris, a scientist with a modest background in philosophy, posits the contrary without offering an explanation. He asserts that morality can be determined based on the well-being of neurological systems.

3

slickwombat t1_jcr86xc wrote

Harris' issue there is that he doesn't understand the is/ought gap. He seems to think it's the thesis that there cannot be moral facts, when it's just the idea that any argument for a normative conclusion must contain a normative premise (i.e., that the conclusion must follow from its premises). And his own take on moral philosophy actually does bridge this gap, since it goes roughly like this:

  1. If our intuitions clearly indicate that some moral principle is true, then it is true.
  2. Our intuitions clearly indicate that we ought to maximize the well-being of conscious creatures.
  3. Therefore, we ought to maximize the well-being of conscious creatures.

That he doesn't acknowledge this might be continuing ignorance, general bloodymindedness, or just the fact that, laid out this way, it's clear that his project is a philosophical rather than "scientific" one as he purports. In any case, the actual problem with his moral philosophy isn't is/ought. It's that he doesn't argue for either premise well, nor even really explain sufficiently what "maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures" means.

2