Well, here’s a striking expression of Harris’s ethical outlook:
Nozick draws the obvious analogy and asks if it would be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of some superbeings. Provided that we take the time to really imagine the details (which is not easy), I think the answer is clearly “yes.” There seems no reason to suppose that we must occupy the highest peak on the moral landscape. If there are beings who stand in relation to us as we do to bacteria, it should be easy to admit that their interests must trump our own, and to a degree that we cannot possibly conceive. I do not think that the existence of such a moral hierarchy poses any problems for our ethics.
Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape (Simon & Schuster, 2010), 211.
Suppose we substitute “God” or “Yahweh” for “superbeings.” Mind you, I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of Yahweh, yet many infidels view Yahweh as a kind of “utility monster.”
Where does that leave the argument from evil? Again, I’m just addressing the atheist on his own terms, viz.
Would it be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of Yahweh? Provided that we take the time to really imagine the details (which is not easy), I think the answer is clearly “yes.” There seems no reason to suppose that we must occupy the highest peak on the moral landscape. If Yahweh stands in relation to us as we do to bacteria, it should be easy to admit that his interests must trump our own, and to a degree that we cannot possibly conceive. I do not think that the existence of such a moral hierarchy poses any problems for our ethics.
Yikes. Win win win.
ReplyDeleteSo does the argument depend upon what sort of being God is? Does it depend upon whether God has more being over and above others, or if God subsists on a different plane of being?
ReplyDeleteAwesome, Steve.
ReplyDeleteVytautas,
ReplyDeleteI'm using an a maiore ad minus argument. If Harris's "superbeings" represent the worse-case scenario, and that's acceptable, then anything that's not as bad is also acceptable.
Does the analogy take into account the question of sentience? Would anyone argue (except Picard) that bacteria have a "right to life" because they are sentient beings with potential?
ReplyDeleteI can see where we might feel some kind of obligation to the super-beings if they were the ones who, in fact, created us. But I can't see how the mere existence of a being, by itself, has anything to do with moral obligation.
Once again, I don't think God is a "utility monster." I don't think human beings are analogous to bacteria in relation to God.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm discussing Harris (and his supporters) on his own terms. The utility monster is basically a secularized god. A super advanced alien species.
If even the utility monster (i.e. "superbeings") is acceptable to Harris, then (a maiore ad minus) Yahweh ought to be acceptable to Harris.
No, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you did think those things. And yes, why is an alien super-being (invisible, unknown, speculative, esp. regarding our relationship to it) more appealing to Harris than Yahweh (Self-revelatory creator of all, Father of His adopted children)?
ReplyDeleteYes, that's the oddity of his statement.
ReplyDeleteThe argument from evil remains perfectly intact. This is not a philosophers morally perfect god Harris is talking about, obviously, since for some bizarre reason it requires evil be done for the sake of its "superior" happiness. Two completely different debates.
ReplyDeleteOne wonders why we would conclude this super being had superior mental states since it requires the sacrifice of a sentient being (If it was a member of an advanced alien race, one would have to assume it was the sociopath of the bunch.). One would think the opposite would be true. Similarly, Abraham should have said to Yahweh, "Anyone who asks me to murder my own son is clearly a demon and I won't serve you!" Of course, he'd probably be vaporized for giving the morally correct answer, but at least he'd die with a clear conscience.
Harris is guilty of addressing an extremely contrived thought experiment to give you guys fodder to confuse yourselves over. Enjoy.
Ben