4 ms·
I am not dismissing Sam Harris' book out of hand (as I haven't read it), but I would be surprised to find his argument that "a scientific approach to morality w
by lovek323 14y ago
I am not dismissing Sam Harris' book out of hand (as I haven't read it), but I would be surprised to find his argument that "a scientific approach to morality would make us more moral" convincing. In order for Harris to show that his approach is more moral and to avoid a circular argument, he must have a definition of "moral" that can be proven without science.
- coldtea 14y agoExactly. I've read major philosophy on the matter (from Hegel and Kierkegaard to modern french theory), and this is a very common point. All our morals stand (and are inherited) from a cultural place outside science and proof. There is nothing scientific to suggest that one should not kill or exploit everyone in his way for his mere gain for example.