Sam Harris: The Is/Ought Distinction

I wrote a post on Sam Harris earlier, but here is my article published on The Leather Library expressing my views on the “fatal flaw” in Sam Harris’ book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Determines Human Values.

I really won’t say too much here (this will be my first short post, yay! But if I keep going on parenthetically, who knows…) but I do think the is/ought distinction is legitimate.

Okay, I’ll shut up now. Just click the link above that says “here” if you’re interested in science and morality and happiness. Or even if you’re not. Just click the link. Because clicking links is fun. The way it transports you onto a new page is like magic, a magic carpet ride, without the rug burn.

3 thoughts on “Sam Harris: The Is/Ought Distinction

  1. I clicked! I agree with you that he has to make the argument. However, I have not read the book but I sense that his main point is that secular reasoning is a better guide to ethics than religion. I would agree with him on that.


    • See, here you’ve used careful, thoughtful language in a way Harris does not seem capable. I agree that “secular reasoning” is a “better” guide to ethics than religion.

      Harris wants to be more controversial. He says whatever science finds out about what makes people happy is what ethics should be based on. He wants to cut out philosophy as well as religion, yet he focuses on the latter. If he had tempered his claims a bit, I probably wouldn’t take issue with them. But then maybe he wouldn’t be a famous as he is!

      Thanks so much for clicking!


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 )

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.