Revisiting Sam Harris’ "The Moral Landscape": A 13-Year Reflection
Written on
Chapter 1: Context of 2010
The year 2010 feels like a distant memory. Concepts like a Trump presidency or Brexit were yet to emerge, the notion of lockdowns seemed far-fetched, and social media platforms like Twitter were still finding their footing. Facebook primarily catered to university students, a tool for comparing lives with acquaintances. Many viewed the Obama era as a pinnacle of progress, suggesting a world on an upward trajectory. It was during this simpler period, post the peak of the new atheism movement, that Sam Harris released "The Moral Landscape."
Harris' book argues that morality can largely be derived from science and philosophy, premised on the idea that human well-being should be the primary focus of ethical discussions. The reception of this thesis was mixed. Fast forward 13 years, and while Harris has a dedicated following, the book hasn't significantly influenced broader discourse. This raises an important question: why has it not resonated more widely? In contemporary Western society, where religious ideas often evoke indifference, there exists a palpable sense of moral outrage. Despite my critique of Harris’ arguments, it’s commendable that he at least attempted to engage with these critical questions. His work should have sparked deeper discussions, especially since we are at a crucial juncture where these conversations are sorely needed.
Section 1.1: The Irony of "Follow the Science"
Interestingly, during the pandemic, many invoked the phrase "follow the science," believing that clear scientific insights would reveal the moral path forward. However, it became evident that individuals often interpreted "science" in vastly different ways, leading to conflicting conclusions on how to respond. If we genuinely aim to use science as a moral guide, we must clarify the values underpinning our interpretations and how these values are established. Relying on political debates to navigate these moral waters is no longer viable.
Section 1.2: The Complexity of Morality
Harris’ assertion that "(1) some people have better lives than others, and (2) these differences correlate in a lawful manner with brain and worldly states" is already fraught with complexity. While it’s evident that avoiding suffering is preferable to enduring it, the term "states" oversimplifies our experiences. Everything is in flux; our experiences are interconnected and tied to our self-perception and our relationships. Thus, suffering cannot merely be categorized as good or bad without context. It may even lend meaning to other experiences or contribute to character development.
Subsection 1.2.1: Historical Perspectives on Suffering
Herodotus, the ancient historian, relayed a story from Persian King Cyrus, suggesting that "soft lands yield soft men," implying that hardship breeds resilience. In simpler terms, adversity shapes character. Our experiences, whether joyful or painful, derive their significance from our life’s narrative. Reducing well-being to mere "states" creates a fundamental issue.
Chapter 2: Harris’ Assumptions and Circular Logic
Harris recognizes, albeit briefly, that achieving moral elevation may sometimes necessitate suffering and negative emotions like guilt. However, this acknowledgment feels cursory and is often overshadowed by his critiques of religion.
A significant flaw in Harris’ argument is the multitude of assumptions he makes. He claims, “I argue that science can help us understand what we should do and want,” which is a circular argument. It presupposes the validity of the moral conclusions already drawn. Cultures like those of the Romans or Greeks were satisfied with their moral frameworks, yet Harris’ belief that we can assert their wrongness ignores the historical context that shaped our current moral views.
The first video titled "The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris" explores the foundational ideas of Harris' moral philosophy, delving into the implications of deriving ethics from scientific understanding.
The second video, "CFI-NYC | Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape," presents a discussion on the intersection of morality and science, highlighting the ongoing relevance of Harris' arguments in today's moral landscape.
In summary, while Harris attempts to present a scientifically grounded moral framework, he operates from a set of unexamined assumptions that are deeply rooted in a specific cultural and historical context. The ideas we hold about morality today are shaped by centuries of thought, including religious influences that have permeated our societal structures. Acknowledging these influences is essential to understanding the complexities of morality in the modern world.
Section 2.1: The Role of Emotional Experience
Despite his criticisms of religion, Harris acknowledges that moral intuition isn't solely derived from religious constructs. Our capacity for rich moral experiences is undeniable. After a profound experience with psilocybin, Harris reflected on love, questioning how to articulate the depth of feeling one can experience. Similarly, historian Tom Holland recounted a visit to the Holocaust museum, where an encounter with a ship used to rescue Jews evoked a powerful emotional response. Such reactions transcend mere historical or religious context; they touch on universal truths, embodying both subjective and objective realities that resonate deeply.
Subsection 2.1.1: The Limitations of Scientific Morality
The challenge lies in communicating the nuances of morality beyond the rigid confines of scientific language. Many religious moral teachings stem from narratives rather than mere statements, allowing for deeper connections with our experiences and truths.
In conclusion, while we possess a clear understanding of well-being, the notion that morality could be entirely derived from science reflects the complexities and challenges facing modern society. This perspective often arises from a fragmented understanding of our reality, emphasizing the need for a more holistic approach to morality that encompasses both rational thought and emotional depth. Harris' arguments, while thought-provoking, should prompt us to reflect on the broader context of our moral beliefs and the multifaceted nature of human experience.