[MD] The Moral Landscape

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Platt.


>> Platt:
>> > Sam Harris knocks religion like other "educated liberal types" and like
>> them
>> > is apparently oblivious to the fact that his concerns about "nuclear
>> > proliferation, climate change, the crisis in education, poverty across
>> the
>> > world" and similar liberal ain't-it-awful afflictions spring straight out
>> of
>> > Western religious teachings. In fact, I'm always amused by the responses
>> I
>> > get from this group when I asked them to express their moral principles.
>> > Invariably their answers reflect religious concepts such as love thy
>> > neighbor, treat others as you would be treated, and help others "in
>> need."
>>
>> Steve:
>> What are you suggesting we are supposed to make of the fact that
>> sometimes religions get it right when it comes to values? That they
>> are making true claims about virgin births and the like? Surely not.
>>
>
>
>> If they get something right about values it is because they happened
>> to stumble upon a true belief about human flourishing. But in such
>> cases, the basis for saying that the belief is true is whether or not
>> the belief does or does not contribute to the evolution of static
>> patterns toward dynamic Quality.
>>
>


Platt:
>  What religions teach about values is far from being just lucky guesses
> about what's right (assuming there is such a thing as "right values"), but
> rather what has proven right for the flourishing of societies (and the
> brotherhood of priests) over eons of experience.


Steve:
How do you explain that what has been "proven right" by the various
religions are contradictory views on human flourishing?



>> Steve
>> It is also obvious that religions frequently get things wrong when it
>> comes to values.
>
>
> Platt
> Are you taking it upon yourself to decide right from wrong?


Steve:
Doesn't everyone?


Platt:
>On what basis may I ask?


Steve:
Hopefully on the basis of our best understanding of what does and does
not contribute to human flourishing. The basis is that fact that there
are better and worse ways for humans to behave because there are ways
to thrive and ways to languish which  depend on facts about the world
and ourselves.


Platt:
>Have you adopted Pirsig's universal moral order and
> the subsequent conflicts between levels? For example, are you a multi-
> culturist, or do you think like Pirsig that it's OK to judge cultures other
> than our own? (I bet Harris is a "diversity" advocate like all
> good liberals.)

Steve:
It is part of Harris's thesis that some cultures are better and worse
than others where "better" and "worse" refer to the contributions of
sets of values to human flourishing.



Steve:
>> And religions often disagree about what is moral. How
>> do we decide who is right? What both Pirsig and Harris promote is
>> rational inquiry into values. Neither one thinks values are a matter
>> of faith. The way Pirsig and Harris think we ought to decide in
>> conflicts about what is moral is through rational inquiry, and whether
>> or not a particular value does or does not agree with a particular
>> Western religious tradition is completely beside the point of whether
>> or not it is moral.
>>
>
> Platt
> It seems perfectly rational to me to see what societies have flourished
> best over the many years of human history and compare the results with
> the religious beliefs of those societies. I think you will find that
> societies
> whose morality is based on the Judeo-Christian code have fared better
> than, say, those based on Islam. Whether Harris takes such a rational
> approach I can't say not having read his book.

Steve:
Harris has dones that. By just about any measure you can think of, it
is the less religious counties in the US and less religious countries
that are thriving.


Platt:
>But I dare say his
> approach is nothing at all like Pirsig's who posits a moral universe at
> every level, from particles to ideas, with huge moral battles going on
> between
> the levels at all times.

Steve:
You are correct that Harris paints no pictures of such metaohysical
battles. I don't think doing so would help him make his case against
relativism and religious ogmatism regarding morality.

Platt:
>And, I dare say that, unlike Pirsig, Harris
> doesn't assign any blame to rational intellectuals for taking biology's side in the
> conflict between society and biology, thereby causing our current moral
> anarchy and multiple social troubles.

Steve:
There you would be very wrong. His book is aimed primarily at liberal
intellectuals who are convinced that values talk is noncognitive
babble.

Best,
Steve