[MD] A Science of Morals

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Steve, All:

Science proposed a social morality a hundred years ago. It was called 
"eugenics." The result was disastrous. Now Harris wants to get science 
into the act again. His proposal: an undefined goal of human "well 
being," the motive of eugenicists, communists, socialists and brutal 
authoritarians of all sorts.  Thanks Harris, but no thanks.

The great step forward taken by Pirsig was to free morality from it's 
social cage and show how it is the basis of the world's order. Now there's 
a theory worth investigating. When Harris understands that physical 
laws are moral laws, then perhaps he will have something worthwhile to 
say. But, I doubt if he is interested in learning anything new. His ill-
disguised intent, as with most science types, is to demonize religion, 
completely ignoring the history of genocides perpetrated by atheist 
regimes.    

Regards,
Platt  



On 2 Apr 2010 at 18:50, Steven Peterson wrote:

> Hi Bo, All,
> 
> 
> > Steve before
> >> I am surprised that there is not more interest in Harris's endeavor
> >> toward a science of morals on this forum. I once thought that Pirsig's
> >> MOQ may provoke an intellectual conversation about morals in the US,
> >> but after about 20 years it seems less and less likely that the MOQ
> >> will gain much traction in mainstream thought. I have much more hope
> >> for Harris's upcoming book to start the conversation that we have so
> >> sorely needed to have.
> >
> > Sic! The lame and tame "MOQ as an 4th. level pattern" (another
> > SOMish idea)  has no chance, and he looks elsewhere for still more
> > "intellectual (philosophological) conversation about morals in the US".
> 
> 
> Steve:
> I did indeed make a controversial claim as you noted. It seems very
> unlikely to me at this point that the MOQ will gain popular footing. I
> think we need to look toward pragmatism to attack SOM and to popular
> intellectuals like Harris to attack the notion that morality is a
> concern for churches alone and irrelevant to science.
> 
> Best,
> Steve