What I find most shocking about Sam Harris’ ethical views is not his position on torture in the ticking time bomb scenario, which many people might agree with, or even his willingness to launch a preemptive nuclear war in order to prevent an imminent attack from a fanatical government, but his view on the famous “Fat Man” case, which goes like this.
Imagine that you see a trolley which is about to hit and kill five people. The only way to stop it is to push the fat man in front of you to block the trolley.
Nearly everyone, if you ask them, says it would be wrong to push the fat man. Dr. Harris would push the fat man onto the track. I have to say that I cannot understand how anyone could do that. Harris maintains that pushing an innocent man into the path of an oncoming train is OK, if it is necessary in order to save a greater number of human lives.
What’s missing from Dr. Harris’ equation? Atheist blogger Robephiles hits the nail on the head: Harris doesn’t regard human beings as “ends in themselves”, properly speaking:
He [Sam Harris] doesn’t see what else is important other than the maximizing of human welfare, so your religious rights don’t matter, your civil rights don’t matter, due process doesn’t matter. Kant claimed that every human being had intrinsic value and an inherent right to be free. Kant thought that it was better to let humans be free to make bad choices than to enslave them in the interest of their well-being. For the last few hundred years civilizations that have lived by these principles have done pretty well.
For Harris, while treating people as “ends in themselves” in everyday life might be a good way to safeguard human well-being in the majority of cases, in the end, overall “human well-being” is the supreme good, and human lives can be sacrificed to protect this greater good. I find that way of thinking deplorable.
This has been my experience too. I was only really introduced to Sam Harris in the last couple of years, mostly more recently when his podcast was recommended to me by a friend. To me, he’s got a lot more to say about politics than he does about religion, so that’s what I associate with him.
Exactly, me too. He skewers both the right and the left when their positions are weak or pandering. I’m pretty far to the left, but I still find his critique of the left just as important as the critique of the right. Even when I disagree with him (e.g., he rails too broadly against “identity politics” in my view), his critique often sharpens my own views and helps me avoid the temptation of bad arguments.
As am I. But this site seems to be heading that direction. I don’t think it’s helpful to point out that someone is a non-scientist, as if that disqualifies them from having a meaningful discussion here.
Of course non-scientists can have meaningful discussions. However, if someone uses their credentials as a scientist to back up their arguments, then it is fair to inspect those credentials.
I went back to take another look at what Harris is saying. This is a good short talk. I don’t see anything terrifying or earth-shattering there myself, in particular in the context of this conversation what he says about well-being, and I’m curious if anyone else would find it so.
