I certainly agree with Brandon Watson that "Harris's tendency to get sidetracked into polemic repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, weakens the force of otherwise straightforward argument virtually every time he argues." But I also think, if we're going to be scientific about it, that we should start by doing what one usually does when faced with a complex problem: simplify it to whatever extent it can be simplified. I don't think many people doubt that morality can be studied by science, or that there are dimensions to morality worth scrutinizing scientifically. But that by no means suggests that science can serve as a basis for morality, which is what I think Harris is driving at. Biology, for instance, does not serve as the basis for life. Life serves as the basis for biology. Something that is studied necessarily predates the study of that something and that something must find its origin, therefore, is something besides the study of it. So it seems to me that the fundamental premise is dubious.
No comments:
Post a Comment