Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Thanks -at last I have heard it. I think he confuses “Well-being” with “morally good”. That link he makes between the two cannot be logically nor scientifically demonstrated. So he makes the very common error of thinking you can get an “OUGHT” from an “IS” which makes me groan. I think most of what he says is logically flawed but I agree with his implicit suggestion that religion is not required to be 'moral' .
It's kind of interesting how you didn't listen to it but expressed your preconceived idea of what he might have said - which was, as Proper Knob commented, wide the mark on your part. You then listened to it, found he'd said something else, but stuck with your preconceived idea anyway.
Science, according to Harris, could reshape morality. The split between facts and values is a myth. He argues that questions of right and wrong and good and evil have to relate to questions of human and animal well being. And to talk about human "well being" is to talk about genetics, neurobiology, psychology, sociology, economics and so on. These are facts that science can analyze; this is a domain of right and wrong answers. Harris specifically points out that he is not making the simplistic argument that we are genetically programmed therefore what our genes tell us to do is good.
For you to claim he "confuses 'Well-being' with 'morally good'" is intriguing. He is absolutely clear about what he sees as the link between them. What confusion in his mind do you see? You say that the link he makes between the two "cannot be logically nor scientifically demonstrated". He discussed how they can. Are you simply going to contradict him and leave it at that?