Ethics Based on Science Alone?

Abstract

In 2010, Sam Harris published The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values in order to demonstrate that values, ethics, morality do not require more than an empirical basis. There is no need for any appeal to a transcendental God, prophets or holy books in order to establish a viable system of personal and social ethics. Moreover, by using the sciences � particularly physiology and neurosciences � as a basis for ethics, we would be able to develop a universal morality true for all humans by virtue of our common nature, and certain by virtue of its empirical foundations. My paper examines the tenability of basing ethics on science alone. We shall give a short introduction to the history of such efforts staring with Kant's "Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone" then proceed to analyze some of Harris's specific claims. For example, he tries � unsuccessfully � to bridge the gap between facts and values, i.e. the famous `is/ought' problem. I show how this problem does not exist in theistic systems. I also show how the use of brain scans cannot be a guide for ethics nor for the measurement of `well-being.' For Harris, `well-being' is the basis of ethics. Finally, this paper shows that Harris does not solve the twin questions of legitimacy and authority in ethics.