After reading Kelsen and discussing the ways that value
judgments are different from facts, I was reminded of this TED Talk I saw a few
months ago. Sam Harris is a scholar of “New
Atheism” (like some famous atheist scholars you may have heard of—Richard Dawkins,
Christopher Hitchens). He writes and
talks about a lot of interesting theological/philosophical/scientific ideas,
and these are fascinating.
In this talk, Harris argues that “the separation between
science and human values is an illusion.”
As you can see, this applies directly to our discussion of Kelsen. Harris believes we can answer moral questions
with science, with facts. The common
belief is that because science deals with empirical claims, it does not
translate well into making normative ones.
Harris suggests that morality, like any science, has factual right and
wrong answers, and we can determine them.
Have a look (even a brief one), and let me know what you
think.
I found it interesting that he
seems to suggest that there are factual
answers, and it is important for us to know them (and converge on them), but he
stops there. He doesn’t seem to do much
to suggest we have moral obligations.
How do you view this in light of Kelsen?
Would he agree that some moral questions are actually factual
questions? Do you see flaws in Harris’s
argument? Do you think, if Harris is
right, that we could ever all accept any moral suggestions as fact?
I think he makes a good point. When it comes to moral/value-based issues, I think we CAN arrive at factual answers. Through real-world observations, we can observe the effects that a set of values have on a society.
ReplyDeleteSome issues seem clear to us: is it morally sound to kill someone? I think there are two subsets of these conflicts: 1)ones in which there is an absolute correct answer and this answer is clear to reasonable people and 2) ones in which there is an absolute correct answer but this answer is not clear to us. For the second type, I think we're simply in need of experimentation, further analysis of existing data, or additional quantifiable personifications of these values.
One could, of course, argue that this whole system relies on a belief in the scientific method. I'd argue, though, that anyone that rejects the scientific method is quite a bit out of touch with reality, and they are likely a personification of poorly chosen values.