It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sam Harris claims that "moral" propositions and "values" are "concerned with the flourishing of conscious creatures in a society". He argues "Social morality exists to sustain cooperative social relationships, and morality can be objectively evaluated by that standard.
When it comes to defining morality, Harris' main contention in The Moral Landscape is therefore, first, that there are facts about the way that brain activity results in feelings of well-being or suffering. This includes facts about which patterns of thought and action tend to promote such neural events. Following that, Harris makes a pragmatic appeal to common sense, arguing that society should (and already largely does) make decisions based on at least trying to maximize people's well being as the day's science understands it. If this is the case, he says, it seems obvious that we should (and often do) define such discussions as 'moral' discussions.
Harris adds that discussions that have no bearing on the so-called "flourishing of conscious creatures" would so simply not be moral discussions, once morality is defined this way. Of course, operationalizing terms related to morality or physics does not prevent alternative use outside the scientific community.
Harris believes we must admit that the question of what normally leads to human flourishing has objective, scientific answers. Harris contends that certain beliefs, actions or legal systems may prove to lead reliably to human suffering (e.g. by resulting in dangerously inadequate access to food or health care). He mentions serial murder and acid throwing as examples of practices that are not moral gray areas. That is, these practices are very probably sub-optimal for a society's flourishing. Evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson describes how, while philosophers often identify the most challenging moral situations, there are still many more "moral no brainers".
As with all sciences, various philosophical, religious and intuitive moral views will be validated (and others rejected) In Harris's view, it may be the case that a science of morality leads us to multiple "moral peaks", optimal ethical systems, and Harris believes this would be a success. To Harris, this would mean identifying the more obviously sub-optimal ethical systems (and conversely, any consistent components of a flourishing society). Harris acknowledges that various philosophical or religious intuitions will probably be vindicated by science, and that may happen whether or not the beliefs are held for "justified" reasons.
It will never work.
You want a rudimentary psychology of a an animal or a dead body.
That will put an end our natural evolution and replace it with machines.
Science does not separate from spirituality they are both complementary and necessary to our development.
We should at least try.
OK, this is getting a bit off topic, if you want to discuss the pros and cons of transhumanism or technological singularity, make another thread. Atheism, objective morality or humanism does not directly imply transhumanism. But as every technology or scientific advancement, it would have both pros and cons. Our moral duty is to ensure the good things from transhumanist technologies far outweight the bad effects in practice. Not cowardly running away from the inevitable. Using that logic we would still live in caves and eat raw food - even fire can be misused to do a lot of evil.