[MD] The Moral Landscape

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Platt,


> Steve:
> It's not meant to be true by definition. It's true because life G is
> better than life B. The basis of morality for Harris is that same as
> that of Pirsig: some things are better than others.
>
> Platt
> Yes, but as you know, Pirsig applies that basic premise beyond human affairs.
> Big difference.

Steve:
I understand that there is a difference, but does it matter in this
discussion? Perhaps you can explain why it is important that Harris
extends his conception of morality to include inanimate objects.



> Steve
> As for whether or not studying the conditions that best foster
> well-being, if such a study happens to confirm some Christian values
> as worth valuing so much the better for Christian values, but it is
> the rational inquiry into values that stands in judgment of
> Christianity rather than the other way around. The MOQ sees the
> situation in the same way.
>
> Platt
> Except the MOQ acknowledges religious experience in a way that I doubt Harris
> ever dreamed of:

Steve:
Why do you keep pretending to know things a bout Harris that you don't
know? As usual, you are wrong about him.

Please see the New York Post article "Selfless Consciousness Without Faith"
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/01/consciousness_without_faith_1.html