Notes from a Moral Prize Fight

Last year, Sam Harris announced he was seeking challengers for an intellectual prize fight [1]. The reason, he claimed, was that he had yet to see any serious arguments against the moral theory described in his book The Moral Landscape (TML). While detractors might question his eyesight, his claim is likely the swaggering bravado of the cocky prize-fighter who (having cleared sparring partners during training) boast their undefeated status.

Like all prize-fights, a prize was offered; two thousand for the selected essay and twenty thousand if its author managed to put his undefeated theory down for the count. Strangely, essays were restricted to 1000 words. The logic given was that if his moral theory was easy to beat, someone should be able to do it in 1000 words. That sounded like a self-proclaimed world champ requiring anyone thinking they can actually take him, to beat him in the first minute with an arm tied behind their back. In any case, he eased doubts about this limit by assuring everyone the essay would simply act as opening to a refereed dialogue, with increased freedom of movement for the contestant. Fair enough.

Steven Weinberg versus science-based morality

In 2012, a number of well-known scientists and philosophers gathered for a weekend to discuss hot-topics or unresolved issues within naturalism.  Basically they were trying to scope out and/or develop a more coherent world-view from a strictly scientific/materialist perspective.  The entire series is still available online and worth watching if you missed it.  

One video is dedicated to their discussion of morality.  To my surprise Steven Weinberg, a physicist, presented a solid argument against so-called science-based moral theories.  His portion begins about 7 minutes into the video, and he remains pivotal to the remaining discussion.

Against a Moral Landscape

I'm officially opening the site with the "publication" of my full response to Dr Sam Harris's book, The Moral Landscape.   Pictured above is my well worn and marked-up copy of said book.  While I found the overall concept intriguing, I had severe problems with the details (or lack thereof).

It seemed to me that Harris's intent was not so much about launching a well thought out moral system, but rather to indict moral relativism and multiculturalism (as abettors of religious intolerance).  In my response, I deal with both his moral theory and his criticisms of other moral positions.

You can also check out my entry into Harris's essay contest.  It contains some of my arguments against the moral system he advances.  It wasn't chosen, but that does not mean the points have been refuted by Harris, or can be.  I wish the winner of the contest much success in moving Harris toward a more sound position regarding (science and) morality.