The Complexities of Sam Harris' Moral Philosophy Debunked
Written on
Understanding Hume's Insight
In his renowned 1738 work, Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume articulated a critical differentiation in ethical discussions. He noted that many ethical writers begin with conventional reasoning, establishing the existence of a deity or making observations about human behavior. However, at a certain point, they transition from discussing "is" and "is not" to making claims about "ought" and "ought not." Essentially, they leap from factual realities to moral judgments.
Hume argues that there is no logical pathway that connects a set of facts to moral imperatives, stating that it is "altogether inconceivable" how one can deduce what one ought to do from what simply is. This gap, often referred to as the "is/ought gap" or "fact/value distinction," has significantly influenced moral philosophy.
In recent years, neuroscientist and commentator Sam Harris has asserted that Hume's view is incorrect, positing that one can indeed derive "ought" from "is." However, this assertion proves to be more complex than he suggests.
The Dissection of Harris' Claims
Harris has made several claims that seem to dismiss the fact/value distinction. His remarks in a 2018 Twitter thread appear to imply that our understanding of facts can guide us in implementing our values—an assertion that even Hume would not contest. For instance, Immanuel Kant echoes Hume in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, asserting that while empirical knowledge can inform us on how to achieve certain ends, it does not dictate whether those ends are ethical or desirable.
To illustrate this, imagine a medical professional tasked with treating a tyrant. If one believes they have a moral duty to save that individual, their medical knowledge can provide the means to do so. Conversely, if one believes it is right to eliminate the tyrant, the same knowledge can facilitate that action. Both Hume and Kant acknowledged that factual information can aid in pursuing moral aims but cannot dictate what those aims should be.
Section 1.1 The Hot Stove Analogy
Assuming Harris understands the philosophical implications of his claims, one interpretation is that he recognizes the gap between facts and moral conclusions, yet believes it is trivial. His position might suggest that common sense will naturally lead to correct conclusions about morality once we have established the facts—akin to touching a hot stove and realizing it causes pain.
However, this viewpoint conflates personal discomfort with moral wrongdoing. For instance, many affluent individuals may feel that paying high taxes "sucks," while those in poverty might argue that poverty itself is a far worse condition. This raises the question: how do we determine whose perspective holds moral weight?
Section 1.2 Harris’ Moral Framework
In The Moral Landscape, Harris proposes that the well-being of conscious beings is the ultimate moral aim. He argues that we can define a universal morality by considering the extreme of human suffering. He suggests that if one cannot acknowledge that universal suffering is inherently bad, their understanding of "bad" is flawed.
Harris contrasts this with the concept of "absolute bliss" and proposes that the morality of actions can be assessed based on their effects on the "moral landscape." This consequentialist view aligns with thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, who prioritize outcomes over intentions.
However, consequentialism is not the sole moral theory. For example, libertarians like Robert Nozick prioritize individual property rights over societal welfare, while John Rawls advocates for policies that benefit the least advantaged, regardless of overall utility.
The Trolley Problem Revisited
Consider Philippa Foot's classic trolley scenario where a driver must choose between saving five lives or one. Many initially argue for the former based on the outcome of fewer deaths. Yet, Hume's critique highlights that this conclusion requires additional premises: not just that the outcomes differ, but that the action taken should prioritize better consequences.
Similarly, Judith Jarvis Thomson's variation of this scenario complicates matters further. George, standing on a bridge, must decide whether to push a heavy man to stop an out-of-control trolley. Most students instinctively feel that pushing the man is morally wrong, indicating that consequentialism may not always provide clear answers.
Conclusion: The Philosophical Implications
If Harris isn't merely asserting that empirical observations can guide moral conclusions, what is his actual argument? It may be that he relies on the Worst Possible Misery concept to bolster his claims. However, this raises various philosophical challenges: different ethical theories can explain why extreme suffering is undesirable, and even if suffering is bad, it does not necessarily follow that only happiness is good.
Harris' final argument equates morality with physical health, suggesting that just as health is empirical, so too is morality. Yet, ethical debates often involve more nuance than discussions of health, as they grapple with deeply contentious issues. Harris conflates practical medicine with the philosophy of health, leading to oversimplifications in his moral reasoning.
In summary, while Sam Harris has garnered attention for his provocative claims about morality, a deeper engagement with philosophical literature could have enriched his understanding and discourse on these complex issues.