Thoughts on Sam Harris's TED Talk

Almost two months ago I read an article on CNN about Sam Harris. It linked to a talk he gave at a TED conference. He spoke about how science can answer the most important questions in life, moral questions, questions about human wellbeing and human suffering. Shockingly, I agreed with much of what he said.

If questions affect human wellbeing then they do have answers, whether or not we can find them. And just admitting this -- just admitting that there are right and wrong answers to the question of how humans flourish -- will change the way we talk about morality, and will change our expectations of human cooperation in the future. ...

Whenever we are talking about facts, certain opinions must be excluded. ... How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise, or moral talent, or moral genius even? How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count? How have we convinced ourselves that every culture has a point of view on these subjects worth considering? Does the Taliban have a point of view on physics that is worth considering? No. How is their ignorance any less obvious on the subject of human wellbeing?

So, this, I think, is what the world needs now. It needs people like ourselves to admit that there are right and wrong answers to questions of human flourishing, and morality relates to that domain of facts. It is possible for individuals, and even for whole cultures to care about the wrong things: Which is to say that it's possible for them to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead to needless human suffering. Just admitting this will transform our discourse about morality. ...

We live in a world filled with destructive technology, and this technology can not be uninvented, it will always be easier to break things than to fix them. It seems to me therefore, patently obvious that we can no more respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human wellbeing, than we can respect or tolerate vast differences in the notions about how disease spreads, or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes. We simply must converge on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life. And to do that, we have to admit that these questions have answers. Thank you very much.

I agree that questions of morality are some of “the most important questions in human life,” and that they do have answers. I also agree that moral expertise exists, and therefore certain opinions on morality are better than others. And I accept that science can provide the answers to some of these questions, but even Sam Harris admitted that science is not guaranteed to provide all of the answers. If a system of morality does exist, would it make sense for the source of knowledge on such a matter to be incomplete?

Sam Harris's spectrum of morality is based on human wellbeing and human suffering. The correct answers to moral questions promote wellbeing, and incorrect answers cause suffering. However, according to science, why do we care about the wellbeing of others? I do not mean to imply that I don't care, or that I see no reason to care, just that I don't know anyone who cares because science told them it was morally correct.