Regarding the Moral Landscape

(*Reprinted from Food Poisoning for Thought as part my ongoing process to unify my web presence.*)

Regarding "The Moral Landscape"

Sam Harris is one of my favorite people with to disagree.

I have spent a little time this morning attempting to read Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape" and am at an impasse. It is the same impasse I reach with people like Michael Shermer when debating things like GMO crops. Shermer is convinced that the only valid objection to GMO crops is and must be "Do they hurt people who eat them? Are they less healthy for human consumption?" and dismisses anyone who has objections to GMOs by convincingly arguing that his two chosen objections are invalid. Objections such as how intellectual copyright laws change the dynamic for subsistence farmers in the third world, or how pesticide resistant crops are exacerbating the rise of pesticide resistant weeds and insect pests, or other non-human health based concerns are ignored. I have a similar issued with the underpinnings of Sam Harris' premises for the Moral Landscape. I think the subject and the premise of Harris' book is very interesting, but thus far I feel he has squandered it. Harris' assertions seem to me to be similar to a man who wins the lottery and uses his millions to buy the world's largest stuffed shark collection. Yes, money can buy stuffed sharks. Certainly, purchasing things is a valid use for money. Do I think that this is the best use of that money, or returning to Harris's book, that idea? No, I don't.

Harris asserts, unless I misunderstand, that human well being and the minimizing of suffering of conscious beings should be the underpinning of objective morality. Now, I don't want to suggest that morality should ignore well being and the minimizing of suffering, but I would dispute the idea that well being sits at the center of morality. Well-being is like gas mileage. A well run car will get good gas mileage, but good gas mileage won't get you to Cleveland if you have no wheels. And further, you won't any gas mileage without a working engine, solid axles, etcetera.

So if I disagree with Harris that well being underpins all morality, then what do I think does underpin morality- objectively using science (because I agree with Harris that Science should be able to help us determine objective morality)? Well to digress for a moment, I should ask you what other species behave in moral ways? Cats are notoriously amoral and learn rules and social cues much slower than dogs. Why is this? Cats are solitary predators in the wild with a few exceptions such as lions and hyenas is we are expanding our definition to include a feliformes. Dogs are social predators and groups cooperation is necessary for survival of the pack and survival of the pack is necessary for survival of the individual (in most cases). As such, while I agree with Harris that morality is something objectively knowable, I do not agree with his idea that well being is the key. Now I suspect and anticipate that Harris will, as I continue reading, delve in and elaborate on the idea that he means 'the greater good', that is the highest wellbeing for the most number of people (or conscious beings to use his phrase), and that gets closer to my own idea, but I would like to pause here with a quote from Ursula Vernon, speaking in her work "Digger" through the character of Ed "Fair? Tribe is not concerned with fair! Tribe must work!" And that in a nutshell is my divergence with Harris.

My issue thus far with Harris is that he has found a wonderful telescope and pointed it down rather than up, whereas Harris' other critics seem to object to Harris finding a telescope at all.

John Horgan stated in his review of "The Moral Landscape' (Which Harris seemed to feel was near slander, but I found rather favorable to Harris) that "Harris might be on sounder ground if he likened morality not to science but to engineering. Science seeks one true answer to the questions it poses: How does heredity work? What keeps the moon moving in its orbit? Engineers would go mad if they thought in terms of exclusively true solutions to problems like building a bridge or designing a new cellphone. Engineers seek the best of many possible solutions given the physical and economic constraints imposed on them by particular problems."

I like this idea, I feel that it does nothing to hurt Harris' original good idea. I will keep reading, because the book is certainly thought provoking. And, if nothing else, it is forcing me to organize my own ideas better.