What Does Science Say About Morality: Round II

We had point (Sam Harris. ) and counter point (Sean Carroll); this was my post.

Well now we have counter-counter-point (Sam Harris) and counter^(3) point (Sean Carroll). As I understand it: Carroll talks about morality depending on accepted axioms (say, in the way that mathematics does; for example one can accept the axiom of choice and do math, or NOT accept the axiom of choice and do math). Harris says “come on; we really can’t get anywhere like that; there are (for practical purposes) universally accepted moral axioms and to deny these is to be as crackpotty as denying the accepted laws of science. In other words, the laws of morality should be able to be put on the same sort of footing that the laws of science are, even if we don’t know those laws and even if some moral dilemmas are difficult to resolve.

Now if I am understanding this wrong, I welcome correction.

About these ads