The issue I have with Harris' assertion that science can answer moral questions is that science is simply a method, therefore can only describe rather than proscribe. His claims seem to also completely dismiss that there are many differing avenues of beliefs, even within the same individual at numerous levels of consciousness. Thus, you can be completely open & liberal, yet still show signs of unconscious identifiers of discrimination occurring subconsciously but never act upon them (But they're there - thus this individual is consciously moral, but unconsciously immoral). There is also a stark difference between what people typically SAY we want versus how we actually behave in reality due to evolutionary processes, which are often socially counter-intuitive. For example, women typically claim they wish to meet a man who is sensitive & caring. Yet, the scientific evidence shows that upon first impressions woman actually react more favorably to a strong, risk-taking "Protector" type to aid in ensuring their unborn child's survival. These perceptions occur completely outside of conscious awareness & does make sense evolutionary speaking. But is far removed from any social of moral aspects of 'morality'. As evolution is not purposeful.
@mahatmastick - I think what Sam's saying is that if you accept that morality has something to do with the well-being of conscious creatures, you can then treat it like a science. Then, you can have people learn and study morality and the various ways its been applied, and its effects on persons and societies, and come up with suggestions on various issues on what the best course of action is. Morality will essentially be a social science. Oh, the Pope and Khomeini would fail such a course!
![Yeat & Quavo - 5BRAZY [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4XxnTAwyxus/mqdefault.jpg)
That was truly excellent
The issue I have with Harris' assertion that science can answer moral questions is that science is simply a method, therefore can only describe rather than proscribe. His claims seem to also completely dismiss that there are many differing avenues of beliefs, even within the same individual at numerous levels of consciousness. Thus, you can be completely open & liberal, yet still show signs of unconscious identifiers of discrimination occurring subconsciously but never act upon them (But they're there - thus this individual is consciously moral, but unconsciously immoral).
There is also a stark difference between what people typically SAY we want versus how we actually behave in reality due to evolutionary processes, which are often socially counter-intuitive. For example, women typically claim they wish to meet a man who is sensitive & caring. Yet, the scientific evidence shows that upon first impressions woman actually react more favorably to a strong, risk-taking "Protector" type to aid in ensuring their unborn child's survival. These perceptions occur completely outside of conscious awareness & does make sense evolutionary speaking. But is far removed from any social of moral aspects of 'morality'. As evolution is not purposeful.
@mahatmastick - I think what Sam's saying is that if you accept that morality has something to do with the well-being of conscious creatures, you can then treat it like a science. Then, you can have people learn and study morality and the various ways its been applied, and its effects on persons and societies, and come up with suggestions on various issues on what the best course of action is. Morality will essentially be a social science. Oh, the Pope and Khomeini would fail such a course!