http://loveofallwisdom.com/2010/04/not-all-facts-are-empirical/

If we could find a way to empirically measure happiness, wellbeing and the like (through very complex neuroscience and social studies probably), then why couldn’t we come up with answers to questions about morality? The answers probably wouldn’t put every human being on the planet into a state of bliss if properly implemented, as this isn’t how Harris’ “moral landscape” proposal works. In a world with so many people of conflicting experiences and environments, why would we expect one correct answer, or a perfect state of being. However it seems reasonable to assert that with a logical and objective study of reality, we could find ways to raise the wellbeing and dignity of human beings.

Ceti, your argument makes a lot of sense even though I don’t personally see this coming through in his talk. He does make an example of the violence done in the name of gods, probably simply because these are the kind of atrocities that still occur today and still in the name of (or at least under the mask of) religion. Presumably these kinds of moral problems are ones that his idea of objective morality should in principle be able to understand. Your suicide bombing dilemma is very potent, but surely both nations in your example are at fault; one for convincing a man to kill himself and many civilians, and the other for sending a remote controlled drone to also kill civilians. It isn’t very helpful to look at these as black and white situations and conclude that in one reality the suicide bomber is right, and in another the country that sent the drone is. Surely a fully developed scientific study of morality would be able to pick up on these nuances.

Take for example the issue of the suicide bomber who kills himself while in all probability causing civilian casualties. Then take the drone that is remotely piloted, and where a push of the button takes out even more civilians. How is morality factored here? Then take the fact that the suicide bomber is in his own country fighting for what he understands is freedom, while the drone is piloted by the invading army from across the globe. Things get pretty dicey very quickly.

I wonder if Sam has even contemplated this moral quandary. From what I’ve seen, Harris’ biases move him to talk up allegedly religious motivated acts of suicide bombing, without even one iota of historical or political context (namely, suicide bombing is a weapon of the weak, whereas imperial armies have plenty of cruise missiles, drones, helicopters, etc. at their disposal, and where martyrdom has also been a secular tool of political mobilization for centuries). Indeed, if he were to objectively and scientifically run the numbers of people killed, maimed, and tortured in the world, he wouldn’t sit so comfortably condemning others and using loaded examples to provoke, while reaping the benefits of a system built on so much human misery.

Indeed, Sam by his very arguments reveals the dangerous possibilities inherent in such a absolutist drive for allegedly objective moral values. This drive reveals a fundamentalist crusading atheism far more similar to the fundamentalist theism that the new atheists decry. While universal values are a noble goals as embodied in various UN conventions, ignoring the very real power structures to force a particular moral outlook has always done more harm than good, especially when they serve to justify the acts of the rich and powerful at the expense of the desperate and hopeless.