It interests me the fact that Sam Harris in “The Moral
Landscape” makes it very explicit that he is not arguing that we can base all
our ethics on a purely Darwinian biological framework. If I understand him
correctly, he basically stated that we have transcended this whole process of
evolution and its crass “physics” of selfish genes. This strikes me as
inconsistent on two basic pieces of evidence – how he attempts to follow
mechanistic neuroscience down the rabbit hole to its logical conclusions of no
free will, and also in the fact that he and other New Atheists consistently
blast Christians for being inconsistent with the science. But, in this case, he
himself makes an unwarranted leap of faith. Let me explain.
If we follow pure mechanistic science on its own terms, the
idea that the universe works on laws and causality alone, and we trust the
workings of Darwinistic biology, that organisms exist to keep on existing and
passing on their genes to the next generations, then it appears that all ethics
are simply a product of this ruling process… Ethics should evolve to fit this
model, if we are indeed a part of this process. Funny thing is, Harris claims
we have reached a point where we transcend the system that we are apparently
locked in. It certainly appears we do. But that is beside the point. If Harris
is really is so committed to following the science wherever it leads, then why
does he make this assertion that we transcend the process? What evidence does
he have for this? Indeed, he seems to be playing the “free miracle card”….
Doing something like that would get Christians laughed at. Talk about a double
standard.
Indeed, there are good reasons to claim we have reached a
point of transcending Darwinian process. To truly follow the system of ethics
in terms of ethics would be antithetical to the idea of human flourishing that
Harris bases his whole book on…. Namely, the idea that we should all be as
happy and fulfilled as possible, and avoid the worst possible misery for everyone.
This is quite common to both virtue ethics and utilitarianism. In this, he
seems to be talking sense. But that’s beside the point. If we are to follow the
Darwinian process and derive ethics from it, love would be very conditional. I
have written on this before in another essay. We have eugenics and the forced
sterilisations of Margaret Sanger to thank for applying Darwinian logic to
ethics. Supposing that a consistent Darwinian ethic would be cold and savage,
it appears that to solve this problem, Harris has chosen to be inconsistent. If
he was consistent, his whole theory would not stand. However, it is ironic that
he has not also chosen to be inconsistent with the materialism that inescapably
(so it seems), destroys any notion of free will, so crucial for ethics.
I am not going to restate the argument against free will
from neuroscience. I’m tired, and pretty tipsy. Let’s start from the point that
if it is true, then it opens up a massive can of worms regarding ethics. How
can one possibly develop prescriptions on how one is to live one’s life if it
is metaphysically impossible to follow them in one way or another? Indeed, the
person does not exist in this account – they are reduced to an indifferent
process of chemical reactions in the brain. If one cannot really make a choice,
what is the point of developing moral laws and values by the use of scientific
method? And if the processes in the brain are themselves irrational, how can we
even trust our thoughts on science (I am borrowing Lewis’ idea)… Our thoughts
seem infinitely more likely to be mistaken, given an infinite amount of ways to
be wrong, and one way to be right. It is
possible to ignore these problems, but it still makes ethics, in reality,
completely pointless. Also, why do we not hold dogs, prawns, mud crabs and
babies morally accountable? Because they do not have the reason to consciously
choose their actions one way or another. Not only does lack of free will cut
out any notion of choice from any party, rational or not, it also undercuts the
reliable of rationality, if we are perfectly consistent. This creates at least
as many problems for Harris than the logical conclusions of Darwinism does! It
is strange that he does not take the step of evasion in this case as well. Why?
My answer to this question is, of course, a theory. I cannot
know his mind. But it appears that he is desperate not to give Christianity
even an inch. Christianity stresses the importance of free will… And so, Harris
appears to not want to give the idea any credit… At any cost, although it seems
he refuses to see the horrible cost of expunging free will has on ethics. The
metaphysics is poison, as I have argued for briefly. The claim of hostility to
Christianity seems quite well justified. He had written “Letter to a Christian
Nation” and “The End of Faith” – both polemically atheistic books…. And in “The
Moral Landscape”, he goes out of way to attack the “immorality of Christianity”
(on a superficial level he had a point, but that’s for another essay)…. If he
really wanted to save his case, he really should have sidestepped the free will
issue! It is an odd, but perhaps explainable anomaly.
This writing does not in any way prove we have free will….
Simply that Harris has been inconsistent in his writing of “The Moral Landscape”.
The issue of free will is critical, to put it lightly. I will probably spend my
life trying to solve it, if it does not drive me as mad as Nietzsche in the
process…
Aaron Carlin 1/12/2014
No comments:
Post a Comment