The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris. I was hooked to the concept even before reading this book. This book did stir up lot of criticism by people who didn't even read it. When compared to his prior books, this one is surprisingly less polemic against the religious dogma.
Science and morality are in a way analogous to medicine. Cartesian dualism drives us to easily adapt to say pills for a heart condition but we refuse to categorize depression even as disease.
DNA entered our mainstream "life" five decades ago. This decade we accepted it with no qualms to vindicate so many innocent victims. No one even questions the DNA as life building blocks (in-fact, the facts are reverse engineered to fit into religious dogma). For all the current apprehensions, I think by end of this century, neuroscience probably would take the same route. People probably wouldn't even remember this guy named Sam Harris who was screaming for reason early in the century. That doesn't make Sam's quest less nobler.
Yes, religion is a big hurdle to integrate morality into science but the most difficult hurdle to overcome would be the fear of exposing the human hypocrisy.
Why is so important for science to pursue on the morality front? We are social creatures and the herd mentality can sway either way. Here is a excerpt from the book; conversation between Sam's friend and his four year old daughter:
"Kid: It's so sad to eat baby lambies.
Father: So, why don't you stop eating them?
Kid: Why would they kill such a soft animal? Why wouldn't they kill some other kind of animals?
Father: Because, people like to eat the meat. Like you are, right now.
His daughter reflected for a moment; still chewing her lamb and then replied: It's not good. But I can't stop eating them if they keeping killing them."
I rest my case. Amen!!
We cannot continue to kid ourselves to live in perpetual moral abstractions; life is too precious to do so. Yes, we don't have answers to all the moral qualms. But we do have self evident answers for the ubiquitous ones if we stop rationalizing for our argumentative thriving. If we don't want to embarrass the future generations and don't want to be remembered as quintessential specimens of Dunner-Kurger effect; then its about time we shed these abstractions and have a honest conversation to hone morality. Future of our civilization depends on it and I cannot think of a better cause to die for.
"Kid: It's so sad to eat baby lambies.
Father: So, why don't you stop eating them?
Kid: Why would they kill such a soft animal? Why wouldn't they kill some other kind of animals?
Father: Because, people like to eat the meat. Like you are, right now.
His daughter reflected for a moment; still chewing her lamb and then replied: It's not good. But I can't stop eating them if they keeping killing them."
I rest my case. Amen!!
We cannot continue to kid ourselves to live in perpetual moral abstractions; life is too precious to do so. Yes, we don't have answers to all the moral qualms. But we do have self evident answers for the ubiquitous ones if we stop rationalizing for our argumentative thriving. If we don't want to embarrass the future generations and don't want to be remembered as quintessential specimens of Dunner-Kurger effect; then its about time we shed these abstractions and have a honest conversation to hone morality. Future of our civilization depends on it and I cannot think of a better cause to die for.
No comments:
Post a Comment