Sam Harris' moral philosophy, particularly his merging of "is" and "ought," is irritatingly ignorant of advances in philosophy. Just as Sam takes care to differentiate between science and pseudoscience, I make the distinction between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy. The separation of "is" (descriptive) and "ought" (prescriptive) has been a widely accepted philosophical tenet since the 17th century, endorsed by British empiricists, including the eminent Hume. Hume's distinction posits that we cannot directly derive prescriptive, normative conclusions (what "ought" to be) from descriptive statements about the world (what "is"). This principle has been acknowledged by philosophers ever since. Yet, Sam Harris, a scientist with a modest background in philosophy, posits the contrary without offering an explanation. He asserts that morality can be determined based on the well-being of neurological systems.
hearkening-hobbit t1_jcky0n7 wrote
Reply to /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | March 13, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt
Sam Harris' moral philosophy, particularly his merging of "is" and "ought," is irritatingly ignorant of advances in philosophy. Just as Sam takes care to differentiate between science and pseudoscience, I make the distinction between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy. The separation of "is" (descriptive) and "ought" (prescriptive) has been a widely accepted philosophical tenet since the 17th century, endorsed by British empiricists, including the eminent Hume. Hume's distinction posits that we cannot directly derive prescriptive, normative conclusions (what "ought" to be) from descriptive statements about the world (what "is"). This principle has been acknowledged by philosophers ever since. Yet, Sam Harris, a scientist with a modest background in philosophy, posits the contrary without offering an explanation. He asserts that morality can be determined based on the well-being of neurological systems.