Why Sam Harris is wrong on ethics as science

<strong>Why</strong> <strong>Sam</strong> <strong>Harr<strong>is</strong></strong> <strong>is</strong> <strong>wrong</strong>
on ethics as science
Massimo Pigliucci

“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I
have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in
the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establ<strong>is</strong>hes the being of a
God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of
a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual
copulations of propositions, <strong>is</strong>, and <strong>is</strong> not, I meet with no proposition
that <strong>is</strong> not connected with an ought, or an ought not. Th<strong>is</strong> change
<strong>is</strong> imperceptible; but <strong>is</strong> however, of the last consequence. For as
th<strong>is</strong> ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or
affirmation, 't<strong>is</strong> necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd;
and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what
seems altogether inconceivable, how th<strong>is</strong> new relation can be a
deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.”
-David Hume, Treat<strong>is</strong>e of Human Nature, 1739

Hume vs. <strong>Harr<strong>is</strong></strong>:
the great <strong>is</strong>/ought debate
and the difference between
science and philosophy

<strong>Harr<strong>is</strong></strong>’ project
- Religion has nothing to do with morality
- Moral relativ<strong>is</strong>m <strong>is</strong> dangerous nonsense
- Moral questions are “factual” and therefore
admit of non-arbitrary answers
- Science provides the only meaningful
answers to moral questions

What th<strong>is</strong> d<strong>is</strong>cussion <strong>is</strong> NOT about
Can evolutionary biology tell us something
about how a moral sense originated?
Can cognitive science tell us something
about how our moral sense operates?

<strong>Why</strong> that sort of science couldn’t tell us
anything about the truth of moral judgments
exact calculations,
shared with
language
But <strong>is</strong> Fermat’s theorem true?
estimations,
shared with
spatial tasks
and analogies

Two important caveats
(tucked in the endnotes)
Note 2 to Intro: “I do not intend to make a hard
d<strong>is</strong>tinction between ‘science’ and other intellectual
contexts in which we d<strong>is</strong>cuss ‘facts.’”
Oh? That means The Moral Landscape <strong>is</strong> NOT about
“How Science Can Determine Human Values”

Note 1 to Chapter 1: “Many of my critics fault me for
not engaging more directly with the academic
literature on moral philosophy ... [but] I am convinced
that every appearance of terms like ‘metaethics,’
‘deontology,’ ‘noncognitiv<strong>is</strong>m,’ ‘antireal<strong>is</strong>m,’
‘emotiv<strong>is</strong>m,’ etc. directly increases the amount of
boredom in the universe.”
Really? Too bad that’s the d<strong>is</strong>cussion that justifies
the entire project!
(And I’m sure other people would find terms like
“parietal lobe,” “cerebellum,” “fMRI scan”
and “norepinephrine” equally boring...)

<strong>Harr<strong>is</strong></strong>’ Project: 1-Religion has
nothing to do with morality
“The point which I should first w<strong>is</strong>h
to understand <strong>is</strong> whether the pious
or holy <strong>is</strong> beloved by the gods
because it <strong>is</strong> holy, or holy because it
<strong>is</strong> beloved of the gods.”

<strong>Harr<strong>is</strong></strong>’ Project: 2-Moral relativ<strong>is</strong>m
<strong>is</strong> dangerous nonsense
* Relativ<strong>is</strong>m doesn’t explain moral conflict
(we don’t d<strong>is</strong>agree about abortion as we
do about chocolate vs vanilla)
* Relativ<strong>is</strong>m doesn’t give us any guidance
for how to live (leads to nihil<strong>is</strong>m)
* If every moral judgment <strong>is</strong> relative,
relativ<strong>is</strong>m <strong>is</strong> not, well, relative
Peter Singer
Simon
Blackburn

√(9) = 3
<strong>Harr<strong>is</strong></strong>’ Project: 3-Moral questions
are “factual”
Yes, they are, but “factual”
may mean several things...
If X then Y
X
Therefore Y
A bachelor
<strong>is</strong> an
umarried man

<strong>Harr<strong>is</strong></strong>’ Project: 4-Science can
answer moral questions
Warning, morally reprehensible picture
coming up (if you are not a relativ<strong>is</strong>t)

<strong>Why</strong> <strong>is</strong> genital mutilation of young
girls morally <strong>wrong</strong>?
<strong>Harr<strong>is</strong></strong>: because it causes pain,
which reduces human well being,
and we can measure th<strong>is</strong> via brain scans
(neurobiology rules!)

Okay, but:
a) Surely we don’t need science to tell us that!
b) Th<strong>is</strong> assumes we think that inflicting
pain on children <strong>is</strong> <strong>wrong</strong>.
c) Which may be because we think it <strong>is</strong> good
to increase happiness and decrease pain
(utilitarian<strong>is</strong>m).
d) Or because we think human beings have
a right not to be harmed (deontology).
e) Or because we think it <strong>is</strong> not conducive to anyone’s
eudaimonia to harm children (virtue ethics).

An example of how philosophy
approaches moral questions
Meat Boy: “<strong>Why</strong> are you a vegetarian?”
Veggie Girl: “Are you in favor of bestiality?”
< MB <strong>is</strong> surpr<strong>is</strong>ed, but thinks about it >
MB: “It’s yucky.”
VG: “That’s not a good reason, you are
indulging in emotiv<strong>is</strong>m.”
< MB <strong>is</strong> a bit embarrassed,
thinks some more... >
Thanks to JG for th<strong>is</strong> scenario

Meat Boy: “Well, bestiality <strong>is</strong> forcing something
on the animal without consent.”
Veggie Girl: “I see. And don’t you think that
eating an animal <strong>is</strong> in the same ball park?”
< MB <strong>is</strong> now really embarrassed >
Options available to Meat Boy at th<strong>is</strong> point:
a) Admit that vegetarian<strong>is</strong>m <strong>is</strong> as moral
as refraining from bestiality (or more).
b) Admit that bestiality <strong>is</strong> moral (so he can
go on and eat meat).
c) Look for a better argument that d<strong>is</strong>criminates
between vegetarian<strong>is</strong>m and bestiality.

What then?
Irrational d<strong>is</strong>course Rational d<strong>is</strong>course
Relativ<strong>is</strong>m
Religion
Emotiv<strong>is</strong>m
Logic
Math
Philosophy
SCIENTIA
Science