- #1
leopard
- 125
- 0
Sam Harris, in The End of Faith, argues that morality is a kind of science. He says that “the fact that people of different times and cultures disagree about ethical questions should not trouble us. It suggests nothing at all about the status of moral truth.”
He continues:
Imagine what it would be like to consult the finest thinkers of antiquity on questions of basic science: “What,” we might ask, “is fire? And how do living systems reproduce themselves? And what are the various lights we see in the night sky?” We would surely encounter a bewildering lack of consensus on these matters. Even though there was no shortage of brilliant minds in the ancient world, they simply lacked the physical and conceptual tools to answer questions of this sort.
Their lack of consensus signified their ignorance of certain physical truths, not that no such truths exist.
Do you agree with Harris? Is morality a kind of science, where we progress and learn as we go? That there are objective moral truths that can be discovered? It certainly does seem morality can be progressive — for instance, woman’s rights and ending slavery was almost unthinkable a few hundred years ago.
If morality is progressive, what do you think the next step will be? An end to war? An end to eating animals? An acceptance of homosexuality? More concern about the environment? An end to religion? Something else?
For example: is it always wrong to stone homosexuals to death, or does it depend on the culture you live in?
Or if you don’t think morality is progressive, why not?
He continues:
Imagine what it would be like to consult the finest thinkers of antiquity on questions of basic science: “What,” we might ask, “is fire? And how do living systems reproduce themselves? And what are the various lights we see in the night sky?” We would surely encounter a bewildering lack of consensus on these matters. Even though there was no shortage of brilliant minds in the ancient world, they simply lacked the physical and conceptual tools to answer questions of this sort.
Their lack of consensus signified their ignorance of certain physical truths, not that no such truths exist.
Do you agree with Harris? Is morality a kind of science, where we progress and learn as we go? That there are objective moral truths that can be discovered? It certainly does seem morality can be progressive — for instance, woman’s rights and ending slavery was almost unthinkable a few hundred years ago.
If morality is progressive, what do you think the next step will be? An end to war? An end to eating animals? An acceptance of homosexuality? More concern about the environment? An end to religion? Something else?
For example: is it always wrong to stone homosexuals to death, or does it depend on the culture you live in?
Or if you don’t think morality is progressive, why not?