No Man’s Land

Keith adds an intriguing comment to an old post about Sam Harris:

The specific answer as to why people get angry about such issues is, I think, that the topic of morality seems to sit in a no man’s land between personal taste and hard facts. Read more.

This entry was posted in morality and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to No Man’s Land

  1. It seems to me that both Harris, in his argument that science should dictate morality, and the various religions who assert that following their path is the one moral path, are leaving out a whole field of moral study: philosophy. Some philosophy is tied to science, some to religion, but a lot of it comes from other intellectual traditions as well.

    A study of eastern and western philosophical traditions might yield some very interesting ideas about goodness. Nietzsche has one approach. Aikido is a philosophical approach (though one that requires people to learn the ideas physically rather than just think about them). Zen, which Diane has talked about, might fit more under philosophy than religion.

    It’s not that there isn’t overlap; it’s just that there are more alternatives in studying goodness than looking at religion and science. I understand why the religious groups don’t think that way, but it surprises me that the scientists don’t. I haven’t read Harris — only Diane’s review — but it seems to me that he is as blinkered by his approach as any fundamentalist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s