Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions part 2 of 3

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions part 1 of 3
Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.

Adored by secularists, feared by the pious, Sam Harris' best-selling books argue that religion is ruinous and, worse, stupid -- and that questioning religious faith might just save civilization.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Sam
• Harris
• science
• morals
• part

[sam51092]

@MaryannS1977 Harris certainly doesn't think morality is 'unnecessary', he was only talking about how the TERM 'morality' might be unnecessary. Essentially he's saying that if the term 'morality' is applied to anything other than increasing well-being, then 'morality' (whatever it would be in that case) wouldn't matter and we should focus on increasing well-being anyway.

[Zeuts85]

@MaryannS1977 Nor was mine if it did. Anyway, I do not recall reading that Sam Harris had said morality is unnecessary. If he did, I can't imagine it was anything but a quote out of context from some thought experiment or the like, because that would completely contradict my understanding of his message. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Sam thinks morality IS necessary--very necessary--or he wouldn't be writing a book with the intent of proving morality's worth.

[Zeuts85]

@MaryannS1977 Sam Harris does not claim that science can determine objective moral truth. He acknowledges that morality is based on a subjective definition of "well-being." Read his book please.