Is Sam Harris successful at rationally grounding objective moral values and duties?

I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery
I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery

I just wanted to put out a few snips from this layperson-level article on the Reasonable Faith web site. The article is about atheist scholar Sam Harris, and his attempt to provide a basis for morality on atheism.

Here’s the Harris project:

The question then is, what is the best foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties? What grounds them? What makes certain actions good or evil, right or wrong? Traditionally, God has been the highest Good (summum bonum) and His commandments constitutive of our moral duties. But if God does not exist, what foundation remains for objective moral values and duties?

Dr. Craig is able to show why Harris’ attempt to ground the objective moral value of humans in “human flourishing” fails in the first part of his article, but I want to focus on the second part. Can Sam Harris’ atheism rationally ground his claim that human can make genuine moral choices?

Dr. Craig writes:

Does atheism provide a sound foundation for objective moral duties? Duty has to do with moral obligation and prohibition, what I ought or ought not to do. Here reviewers of The Moral Landscape have been merciless in pounding Harris’ attempt to provide a naturalistic account of moral obligation. Two problems stand out.

First: Natural science tells us only what is, not what ought to be, the case. As philosopher Jerry Fodor has written, “Science is about facts, not norms; it might tell us how we are, but it wouldn’t tell us what is wrong with how we are.” In particular it cannot tell us that we have a moral obligation to take actions that are conducive to human flourishing.

So if there is no God, what foundation remains for objective moral duties? On the naturalistic view, human beings are just animals, and animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a lion kills a zebra, it kills the zebra, but it does not murder the zebra. When a great white shark forcibly copulates with a female, it forcibly copulates with her but it does not rape her — for there is no moral dimension to these actions. They are neither prohibited nor obligatory.

So if God does not exist, why think we have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes these moral duties on us? Where do they come from? It is hard to see why they would be anything more than a subjective impression ingrained into us by societal and parental conditioning.

So we might feel morally obligated to do something, maybe what our herd expects of us in this time and place we live in. But on atheism those feelings are arbitrary. After all, societies have evolved where feelings of obligation are felt by people to perform suicide bombings against civilians. On atheism, those feelings are as valid and grounded as any other “duties” because they emerge from the same process in other times and places. Obligations change between time and place – they are not objectively real. But that means that our moral duties are not objective, they are arbitrary – if atheism is true. The same “socio-biological evolution” is generating opposite moral duties in different times and places. This is not “objective”.

And the second objection is even more lethal:

Second: “ought” implies “can.” A person is not morally responsible for an action he is unable to avoid. For example, if somebody shoves you into another person, you are not to blame for bumping into this person. You had no choice. But Harris believes that all of our actions are causally determined and that there is no free will. Harris rejects not only libertarian accounts of freedom but also compatibilistic accounts of freedom. But if there is no free will, no one is morally responsible for anything. In the end, Harris admits this, though it’s tucked away in his endnotes. Moral responsibility, he says, “is a social construct,” not an objective reality: “in neuroscientific terms no person is more or less responsible than any other” for the actions they perform. His thoroughgoing determinism spells the end of any hope or possibility of objective moral duties on his worldview because we have no control over what we do.

Harris recognizes that “determinism really does threaten free will and responsibility as we intuitively understand them.” But not to worry! “The illusion of free will is itself an illusion.” The point, I take it, is that we do not really have the illusion of free will. Not only is such a claim patently false phenomenologically, as any of us can attest, but it is also irrelevant. The fact remains that whether we experience the illusion of free will or not, on Harris’ view we are thoroughly determined in all that we think and do and can therefore have no moral responsibilities.

On Harris’ view, human beings are computers made out of meat. But if you cannot freely make moral choices, then you cannot choose to perform moral duties or not. What is amazing to me is why he wants to deny free will in the first place. He is surely very well aware of his own experience of free will, and his own consciousness, for that matter. Before we even start to look at scientific evidences against atheism like the origin of the universe, the cosmic fine-tuning, the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, etc. we already have evidence within ourselves that naturalism is false.

Just in passing, my friend Micah sent me this article about Sam Harris’ academic credentials. Although Harris has a PhD in neuroscience, the underlying reality is a bit more complicated. When I watched him debate William Lane Craig, he seemed to be ignorant of simple problems with his utilitarian moral views, and his inability to ground libertarian free will. The problems with utilitarianism have been known for hundreds of years. You can watch the debate yourself and see if you think he was prepared or not.

8 thoughts on “Is Sam Harris successful at rationally grounding objective moral values and duties?”

  1. The almost universal consensus among those who watched the Harris/Craig debate (internet atheists included):
    Harris got slaughtered.
    And rightly so. He says there’s no free will? Okay. His argument can be restated thusly:
    “I have FREELY come to the REASONED, LOGICAL conclusion that there is no freedom, no reason, no logic, and therefore no conclusions.”
    “I am a robot with no free will, completely controlled by the Big Bang. We robots must all act in a certain way in order to flourish, although we have no control over our actions, and I have no idea why it is important that we flourish and not other things around us.
    “Maybe someday the Big Bang will tell us.”
    “Everything is an illusion. Except what I just said. Truth can’t be known. I know this is true. The Big Bang makes us say and do everything everyone says and does. Except me. So listen to me and believe what I say.”
    Why does anyone give this clown the time of day?
    Oh, right, I forgot. The Big Bang is making us do it.


    1. Since I posted above, I’ve been learning a lot about Calvinism (don’t know about Luther), and I have be come to the following conclusion:
      Many atheists today were probably Calvinists yesterday.

      Just some of the (unbelievable) things Calvin apparently believed:

      God doesn’t love the whole world, only the elect (take that, Jesus and John 3:16!)

      God picks the elect on a whim

      God sends everyone else to hell

      There is no free will

      Yet we’re still guilty when we sin

      Even though God is making us sin

      And has predestined some of us for hell

      And there’s nothing we can do about it

      And we are not to question God

      Because He can do what He likes with his human puppets

      Bottom line for me: SUCH A GOD IS NOT WORTHY OF WORSHIP.

      Thank God that He IS worthy of worship, He Who loves ALL people, and desires ALL to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). No, we can’t save ourselves, but we CAN let Him save us, as He wishes to. We have libertarian free will, which is why we ARE accountable, to receive His gift of salvation, or to continue to say no.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Martin Luther wrote “On the Bondage of the Will” where he argued we have no free will with respect to whether we are saved. He argued with Erasmus who was also critical of the Catholic Church but remained Catholic and argued for the Catholic position that we have a free will.

        I think that if we have no free will then God is judging himself not us. I think Scripture is clear that God will judge us not himself therefore we have free will.

        I think most Lutherans now do believe in Free Will at some level. But there is no doubt that his rejection of free will substantially divided Martin Luther and the Catholic Church.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s