Wheel of Morality

Well, with the elections behind us, it’s time for me to return to more literary concerns. Like morality. Wait. What?

Well, I’ve, been reading The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. I don’t like him as much as I like Richard Dawkins. Or as much as Dawkins likes him. For those who are curious, Harris is one of the so-called “Four Horsemen,” a group of articulate, very public writers who have concerns about the use of religion in modern society. Time was, I was a bio nerd. It’s the coolest science because it isn’t mathematical like physics. It’s all observation, memorization and analyses. Like a social science. My favorite topics were micro bio (especially Virology), genetics, and evolutionary theory. Richard Dawkins is an Evolutionary biologist, who first became known for his theory of the Selfish Gene. Unsurprisingly, I’m a big Dawkins fan. Dawkins is really pushing Harris’ book (and others such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Because you know, he’s just awesome like that). So I’m reading Harris’ book.

It’s okay.

At the most basic, it has two premises
1) Morality doesn’t come from religion
2) Science can and should be the basis for morality.

On point one I agree fully. On point two... Maybe? He defines it too narrowly, but if you look past his definition to the substance, he has the right idea. Really, science already can and does inform morality. What he wants to say is “we should pay more attention to it.” Really, morality is a product of reasoning. Science, viewed as a reliable source of information and a good way to hone one’s ability to reason is therefore an important tool for making moral decisions. So in principle, I agree with the guy pretty much 100%.

The problem is that he also ACTS like I do. Except even worse. He’s extraordinarily abrasive, and highly dismissive of pretty much everyone in the entire world other than himself. Academics, scientists and journalists are broadly declared as living in Ivory Towers with stars in their eyes who are either to delighted by diversity to ever question morality, or who are liars putting on a show and making claims about morality they can’t reasonably support.

Okay, I understand. I’m an academic too, more or less. You want people to listen, you take your argument out a step or two farther than you expect people to go. Most people won’t rush immediately to your side. So your goal is to shift the middle ground. Like dragging a rug with a man standing stock still on top of it, you’re changing their position without them actually having to move. Establishing a new base line. But Harris gives the impression that he’s looking for a fight. If you fight fire with fire, you end up with a bigger fire. And on the one hand, he absolutely hates cultural relativity but admits again and again to multiple peaks and valleys (i.e. good and bad moral choices) available at every junction. So what exactly does he stand for? How absolute is morality in his mind? How much room is there for debate? Does he expect anyone to listen to him when he’s such a huge jerk all the time? All excellent questions. I have my own answers, but I’m curious to know his.

Personally, I’m of the mind that a truly top notch education solves all. It gives us information and teaches us to reason, which is pretty much what he’s looking for, and does so organically rather than by picking fights, which would make it a much more long term solution. His book is largely comprised of “Here’s an example of a very smart scientist who is totally unreasonable about morality.” That’s all fine and good as far as it goes, but the argument is that science can determine morality (he defines the moral choice as that which is best for human well being). He constantly cites medicine as a self-evident example of science being moral. Better health = better life. But that’s about as far as he goes with it. He never gives it a practical application for real life issues. He just keeps yammering on about how the mutilation of female genitalia is not acceptable, moral relativity be damned. Dude, you’re preaching to the choir. And spitting in my face. And not telling me anything new. Turn around. Your audience is out there. This whole clog dance on my toes routine is getting old.

Still a good read for anyone interested in issues like social-behavioral theory etc. but is he as good as Dawkins? Not even close. And I still think that the neo-Hobbesian Rational Peasant by Samuel Popkin is the best book of this kind. Someone should tell Harris that he’s not the only smart man in town and that his objective view of morality should probably consider the significance of condescension.