Skip to main content

The Irony from Sam's Perspective

Submitted by Ken Watts on Fri, 06/11/2010 - 12:30

THIS IS THE PENULTIMATE installment in a series on Sam Harris' talk about a scientific morality at TED.

One of the things Sam fails to understand, at this juncture, is that much, if not most, of religious morality comes straight out of "an intelligent analysis of the causes and conditions of human well-being."

For the most part (with one rather disturbing exception still to come) Sam's motives are impeccable.

On the other hand, I've pointed out, in detail, where his model fails to achieve those motives, and the one change which would make it work.

At the same time I've been loosely following the structure of Sam's talk, which is now near the end.

It's at this point that Sam brings up the irony he perceives about his views.

I, too, see the irony, but for quite different reasons.

As Sam puts it:

Now, the irony, from my perspective, is that the only people who seem to generally agree with me and who think that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions are religious demagogues of one form or another.

And of course they think they have right answers to moral questions because they got these answers from a voice in a whirlwind, not because they made an intelligent analysis of the causes and conditions of human and animal well-being.

Sam would like to free us from those who use religion as an excuse to dictate to the world what our "oughts" ought to be.

But in the same breath he introduces his own priesthood: those who would base all morality on "an intelligent analysis of the causes and condition of human and animal well-being".

One of the things Sam fails to understand, at this juncture, is that much, if not most, of religious morality comes straight out of "an intelligent analysis of the causes and conditions of human well-being."

You would be hard put to find much support in the Bible, for example, for moral stances against playing cards or drinking or dancing or even abortion or homosexuality.

Most of the basis for these stances comes out of religious reasoning about human well being, not direct revelation.

It's not reasoning that either Sam or I would agree with—and it's certainly not reasoning that is rooted in scientific research—but it is reasoning, and often intelligent reasoning—once the false premises are granted.

No doubt Sam's priesthood would do a better job—one that we would be more likely to agree with.

But by reducing morality to a single doctrine, and rooting it in the knowledge of "moral facts," Sam would still be instituting a top-down system which ignores the way real human morality works in the real world.

His values would still be moral values as I defined them above—"values" deduced from a belief system by experts, at the expense of the natural values of humanity.

To get what he wants, he only has to let go of that top-down, legalistic, model.

Then no one, no single group of experts, would be dictating what we ought to value.

In fact, the endurance of religion as a lens through which most people view moral questions, has separated most moral talk from real questions of human and animal suffering.

This is why we spend our time talking about things like gay marriage and not about genocide or nuclear proliferation or poverty or any other hugely consequential issue.

Sam wants us to focus on the real issues, those issues which involve our natural human values.

But the demagogues are right about one thing, we need a universal conception of human values.

Yet he wants to do this by mimicking the approach to morality taken by demagogues.

But if, by "a universal conception of human values" Sam meant—instead of just an alternative starting point for another top-down system—an understanding that:

  1. values are natural to humans,
  2. that we agree on most of them, most of the time,
  3. that when we have serious moral disagreements it's a matter of worldview (rather than a matter of natural values), and that
  4. questions of worldview can normally be decided by science or by common sense,

he can have his cake and eat it too.

He doesn't need to create his own top-down system to escape the top-down systems of toxic religions.

Sam can have everything he really wants with a natural view of morality.

Unless, of course, he wants to introduce a new priesthood—a new, authoritarian class of the superconscious.

I don't want to believe this of him, but it would be neglectful not to point out that the end of his talk contains some disturbing hints in that direction.

Next: Sam's Authoritarian Leanings...