Four essays On Why Sam Harris Is Wrong About Morality

Last week, Jonathan Haidt, TVOL Business Editor, wrote an essay titled Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind. That essay explored the psychological reasons why people’s passionately held beliefs are generally immune to being changed by rational argument. That essay was not meant to address the substance of Harris’s claims about morality. It was not meant to be a submission to Harris’s “Moral Landscape Challenge,” which offers to pay $20,000 to anyone who can convince Harris that his thesis was mistaken. Due to the level of interest in Harris’ Moral Landscape challenge, and the valid point that Haidt’s article did not explore the actual substantive issues with Harris’ position, we are publishing the entries of four TVOL editors: All argue that Harris’ central claim – that “questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science” – is false.The other contest entries by TVOL Editors are “Necessary, But Not Sufficient”, by Jiro Tanaka, “How Science Can Help Us Be More Reasonable About Morality” by Michael Price, and “Mainstream Science of Morality Contradicts Sam Harris’ Central Claim” by Mark Sloan.Why I think Sam Harris is wrong about moralityPosted by Jonathan Haidt in moral philosophySeveral commenters have said I should not just critique the excessive certainty of the New Atheists. I should respond directly to Sam Harris’s Moral Landscape Challenge. I should say why I think the argument he makes about a science of morality are wrong. (Harris argues that what is right and wrong can be determined scientifically, just as we can determine truths in the natural sciences). Fair enough. So this morning I submitted the following text as my entry in his challenge.Continue to read Haidt's entry at The Righteous Mind websitePost-Script: Harris offers a thoughtful response to the initial essay, titled Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind, here, describing a recent time when he changed his mind not in response to a friend, but to a logically and emotionally compelling documentary.