franz kiekeben
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Philosophy
  • Publications
  • Contact

IS SAM HARRIS REDEFINING MORALITY?

3/14/2018

0 Comments

 
As most people reading this probably know, Sam Harris claims that morality is concerned with well-being, and thus that science can, at least in principle, determine which are the correct moral values. However, some critics have claimed that Harris is talking about morality in a non-standard sense, and that as a result his argument doesn’t work. 

Whether Harris is redefining morality came up in a recent discussion between Matt Dillahunty and YouTuber Stephen Woodford. (I didn’t watch the whole video, but the question is briefly discussed starting at 1:12:54.) 

Woodford defended Harris by arguing as follows: Morality is about right and wrong, and Harris agrees with that, so he isn’t redefining it. He merely claims that right and wrong have to do with well-being. He is therefore using a different standard than what many others use to determine right from wrong, but is nevertheless still talking about morality. Dillahunty sort-of agreed with this. 

But Harris’s position does amount to a redefinition. If he were merely defending a utilitarian ethic — in other words, if all he was doing was arguing that the right action is the one that increases well-being the most — he wouldn’t be redefining anything. In that case, he would only be talking about what he thinks is the correct moral viewpoint. But Harris doesn’t stop there. He also wants to maintain that morality is objective — that there is a fact of the matter regarding what is right and what is wrong. And in order to do so, he claims that morality is about well-being. Briefly, his argument is that, since moral questions are questions about well-being and well-being is an objective property, morality is objective. 

But morality isn’t about well-being. It is, as Woodford said, about right and wrong. 

The difference here is somewhat subtle, so I'll try to make it as clear as possible. What Harris is doing isn’t merely claiming that the correct standard to use in determining right from wrong is well-being. He’s also claiming that that is the only standard that even makes sense. For him, “right action” just means “an action that increases overall well-being.” And that’s a very different claim. Harris’s view implies that anyone using “right” in a different sense isn’t merely disagreeing on a moral matter. Instead, anyone who does so is using the word incorrectly. 

But in fact, it is Harris who is using the word incorrectly. Right and wrong, good and bad, are not by definition about well-being. Someone who disagrees that increasing the overall amount of well-being is always the right thing to do isn’t misunderstanding the meaning of “right.” He just has a different moral view. 

This is all the more important because Harris’s argument isn't just wrong: It is also tied to a utilitarian ethic that probably most of his followers wouldn’t support if they actually understood it. 

Dillahunty says that the only people who disagree that morality is about well-being are divine command theorists. But that’s obviously not true! I think what’s going on here is that many atheists see only two possibilities. On the one hand, there are the religious moralists who base their ethics on a holy book, irrespective of whether that is conducive to human interests. (If God wants women to be deprived of equal rights and to wear burkas, too bad for the women.) On the other hand, there are those who see morality as being about the well-being of all of us. And of these two, which is better? 

But if we are interested in having moral views that correctly reflect what actually concerns us, the above is far too simplistic. It completely ignores some very important moral distinctions. 

Here’s one example. Most of us would say fairness is a good thing. Everything else being equal, a fairer outcome is better than a less fair one. The problem is that one cannot consistently say this while maintaining that the only thing that matters is the overall amount of well-being. For if two possible outcomes have the same net result in terms of well-being, they must be equally good, even if one is more fair than the other. In other words, overall well-being doesn't say anything about how that well-being should be distributed. What’s worse, an outcome may result in a greater amount of overall well-being while being less fair — which means it might reasonably be viewed as the less desirable outcome. And it’s not just with respect to fairness that this problem occurs. The same thing can be said regarding justice and rights. 

I’m not denying the importance of well-being. We should all be concerned with it — and not with what is in some old holy book. But that doesn’t mean that morality is or should be exclusively about well-being. 


​
[Originally published at Debunking Christianity]


0 Comments

CHOOSING HELL

3/6/2018

0 Comments

 
“God won’t force you into Heaven against your will. If you don’t want him now here, you’re not going to want him in eternity.” 
— Frank Turek 

The above is an increasingly common idea among Christians: God is merely giving you the freedom to choose. The point, of course, is to avoid the criticism that God punishes nonbelievers by sending them to hell. Instead, God simply let’s some of us spend eternity apart from him. As C. S. Lewis put it, "the gates of hell are locked on the inside." 

But as usual, the religious want to have it both ways. For, if hell is simply what the rest of us prefer, then why bother with trying to save our souls? If I’m simply not going to want to be with God, as Turek says, that means I’ll be happier in hell — so why try to convince me to go to heaven instead? On this view, Christianity is simply a club for those who might enjoy it (maybe somewhat like this). Non-Christians are those who’d rather spend eternity doing other things. And that obviously won’t do. So Christians also insist that separation from God is actually a very terrible thing. 

If it is really so terrible, however, then why doesn’t God perform something like an intervention for those of us who will otherwise end up there? We don’t let people we care about make horribly wrong choices if we can prevent it, even though they themselves may think it is what they want. We sometimes intervene to try to convince them they would be better off making different choices. And God obviously has the ability to convince anyone what is truly in their best interest. It follows that if God lets some of us choose something that is really, really bad for us (and for all eternity!) he must not really care about us. 

“God is merely letting us decide for ourselves” may sound good, but given that one of the two options is the most horrible mistake one could ever make, it isn’t good at all. ​




[Originally published at Debunking Christianity]


0 Comments

    Archives

    April 2022
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014

    Categories

    All
    Atheism
    Creationism
    Determinism And Free Will
    Ethics
    Infinity
    Politics And Religion
    Presuppositionalism

    RSS Feed

Link to my author's page on Amazon