Chapter 1: The Intersection of Science and Morality

The discourse surrounding ethics and morality has been significantly influenced by the work of Sam Harris, particularly in his provocative book, “The End of Faith.” This publication sparked widespread debate, attracting both praise and criticism for its firm stance against irrational beliefs.

In the realm of modern atheism, Harris, alongside other New Atheists, has become a prominent figure. He responded to critiques from Christians through his work “Letter to a Christian Nation,” which aimed to challenge the intellectual and moral claims of Christianity, leading to further polarization of opinions about him. Both of these works have garnered a diverse and extensive readership.

When Harris critiques religion, he is often confronted with the argument that his scientific approach fails to address moral dilemmas. His latest book, “The Moral Landscape,” directly tackles this objection, often referencing Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of “nonoverlapping magisteria,” which posits that science and faith operate in entirely separate domains, each inadequate for exploring the other’s subject matter.

Gould suggested that matters of faith—such as meaning, morality, and the purpose of life—lie outside the purview of scientific inquiry. However, Harris, drawing from his background in neuroscience, presents an alternative view, asserting that scientific understanding is essential for grasping these concepts. He argues that moral and religious truths must be connected to facts regarding the well-being of conscious beings, which can only be uncovered through scientific exploration, particularly in neuroscience.

This leads to a pertinent question: Why rely on ancient philosophers or religious doctrines for insights on human flourishing when we have contemporary disciplines focused on studying consciousness?

Many refer to David Hume’s distinction between facts and values, suggesting that while factual claims can be scrutinized logically, values cannot. Harris disputes this by asserting that values can indeed be examined scientifically, and he believes that the appropriate values are those that enhance human well-being. He notes, “Just as individuals and groups can be mistaken about how best to maintain their physical health, they can be mistaken about how to best cultivate their personal and social well-being.”

Yet, I find myself reflecting: How can we ascertain that the morally correct action is, as Harris claims, the one that maximizes our overall well-being? Has science definitively proven this? If it hasn’t, could it be that Harris’s assertion of “science is all we need” arises from a standpoint that transcends scientific reasoning?

As I engage with Harris’s philosophy, I draw parallels to utilitarianism, a long-established ethical framework with inherent complexities. While I may agree with the foundational principles, I am left questioning: How can we measure well-being across individuals? Is a scenario where one person experiences extreme happiness while billions are only marginally content preferable?

Alternatively, should our aim be the greatest cumulative well-being, which might result in a society where many lead lives barely worth living? What about the ethics surrounding the painless cessation of life if only conscious experiences are deemed significant? How should we balance current well-being against future prospects?

Harris does not shy away from these challenges. He references Derek Parfit’s extensive exploration of these dilemmas but seems to acknowledge them only briefly before advancing his argument.

The definition of well-being itself is multifaceted. Although Harris frequently suggests that conscious experience is paramount, he also asserts that truth holds significant value. This raises further questions: Does happiness derived from falsehood diminish overall well-being? If subjective experience is the sole measure, is there a moral disparity between a partner who lies for pleasure and one who speaks the truth? Harris’s position on whether well-being is anchored in factuality remains ambiguous. If he maintains that it is, how has science substantiated this?

Despite his academic background from Stanford, Harris appears to overlook much of the discourse surrounding well-being. He neglects the “capabilities approach” in economics and philosophy, which rigorously addresses the identification and measurement of well-being components. Prominent thinkers like Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum are notably absent from his analysis.

What stands out in “The Moral Landscape” is its challenge to moral relativism. Harris argues that moral inquiries possess definitive right and wrong answers, irrespective of cultural or religious contexts. While not every question may have a clear answer, he posits that science can illuminate many moral issues. In fact, he seems to contend that no question can be resolved without scientific input.

This assertion prompts fascinating inquiries about the relationship between scientific inquiry and moral reasoning. Is it feasible for science to serve as the exclusive judge of moral truths? Or are there facets of morality that extend beyond what science can probe? Harris’s perspective certainly challenges traditional understandings of the division between ethics and science, yet it also opens the door for new discussions and investigations.

As we navigate these intricate themes, it is evident that Harris’s work, while intellectually stimulating, leaves numerous questions unresolved. The convergence of science, philosophy, and ethics remains a fertile ground for ongoing exploration and dialogue.

Chapter 2: Insights from Neuroscience and Ethics

This video titled "Relationship Between Science & Ethics-Moral Psychology Research Group" delves into the intricate connections between scientific inquiry and ethical reasoning, emphasizing how moral psychology can inform our understanding of morality.

In this interview with Darcia Narvaez regarding her book "Neurobiology and Development of Human Morality," the discussion highlights the interplay between neurobiology and our moral frameworks, providing a deeper understanding of human morality.