Ethics

In Sam Harris’ argument about morality, he claims that science, in principle, is an able issue the basis for the moral truths that we believe in. Harris adds that facts are not that far apart about values. It means that values are a type of facts which are inclined to conscious creatures and their well-being. These non-moral facts he says are the cultural constructions regarding the neurophysiology of suffering and happiness, human relationships about social institutions, and how they are affected by specific laws, retributive impulses, and social emotions that are either negative or positive. He describes values as factual claims that can be understood scientifically based on these claims. The states governing the human brain and wordy events are the governing factors of the well being of humans based on the scientific principles Harris is talking about.

Harris uses the scientific approach as the basis of discussion regarding morality. The says that the non-moral facts are the sole determinants of moral behavior. He gives the example of cultural experimentation to make the identifications of which practices were effective. Analysis of the expectations and behavioral tactics show that the quality of life can be improved. Harris uses faith and religion as examples of what defines morality determinants since they are usually not questionable though the society should not significantly follow these ideas and strategies. He proposes that the levels of well-being globally would be enhanced by looking at morality at a scientific approach. The environment and contexts that behavior occurs would be better defined by studying morality through a behavioral perspective. It means that if the framework is correctly analyzed, variable identification of the cultural practice development and moral behaviors will increase the occurrence.

Though Sam Harris has some truth to his argument, moral values cannot be described using science. Science can not define the values that are important to human well-being through it can describe why and how what we are doing is valuable to us. Science gives us a trace of the moral arc to show why there is an increased moral illumination to human beings. The more morality is defined using science, the less morality can resemble social constructs due to it being quantified. Practical reasoning is then eroded as it is taken away by the fact that we can no longer learn how to live.

The definitions of morality, faith, and religion bring out in Harris’ argument are subject to questioning. Though people might question faith and the constructs behind it, we cannot argue with the fact that our beliefs have, in a way, assisted in being morally upright with the fear of suffering judgment. Belief systems have helped people understand what is right and wrong, and the consequences involved in defying these morals. Scientific explanations only seek to point and define morals but not give details to the important aspect involved. Morals foundations were not discovered by science. Scientific approaches are only assumptions, and morality is built around natural selection: the freedom to determine what to do and what is good or bad. Science can then be seen as a means to get where we want to go and morality how we behave and carry ourselves during the process.

Works Cited

Shermer, Michael. The Moral Arc: Can Science Determine Morals? 8 April 2015. https://www.moralarc.org. 29 July 2020.