Overview
Hi! Form a reply to the following discussion: (Make sure it is at least 250 words or more)
Sam Harris makes some great points on the stance of objective ethics. Harris’s Point of View is that there are objective ways to understand moral dilemmas among different cultural views. The questions of Morality and the answers change among different cultures. He begins by saying that there is no moral value that is thought of that is not on a level of consciousness. Meaning that there is thought behind every question of morality, and it is not the same for everyone because not everyone thinks the same. This would defend his stance that moral values changed depending on whom you ask which is why no one has the authority to judge moral dilemmas. This also is extremely evident when you look at other cultures versus our westernized culture. Harris makes a comparison between Arabic women who wear Hijabs that do it because of social constructs and validation of the males in their culture, towards the end he makes a more specific statement that suggests women should have the freedom to do whatever they want regardless of their religious constraints and makes a sort of an ignorant statement that women who wear Burkas in the summertime would rather be wearing something else and that their word shouldn’t always be taken seriously, versus women who pose for magazines in suggestive clothing. There is truth to the point that he makes, some women may do it because they are told to and not because they want to but to assume so would be ignorant of another religion/stance.
This actually touches on The Natural Law theory because of emotion and ignorance humans tend to disregard what humans already know under the laws of God as what is morally right and wrong. It backs up Harris’s claim that Morality is based on facts, for example, he uses that children in 21 states of the United States are subjected to corporal punishment and that violence is used to promote good behavior, obviously, this is redundant and there is a clear moral dilemma. This is apparently in Proverbs 13,20, and 23 where it states, “not to spare the rod lest we spoil the child.” This poses the objective part of Harris’s argument, where this specific dilemma has a Morally correct answer.
The natural law theory for example shows us that morality is not based on the bible, religion, culture, etc., but it is based on our human instincts. We should go off of what feels morally right in our own being, there are obvious critiques to this theory such as why violence and arguments still exist, and Aquinas argues that human ignorance and emotion are to blame for those who go against “The Basic Goods”. This shows the level of human consciousness that follows every moral decision while not depending on the judgments that are created by the world around us.
I believe that there are objective ways to look at dilemmas and there are certain moral dilemmas that can be classified as wrong, Harris, for example, poses the statement, if a woman gets raped the father’s first impulse is to kill her, this is one example of how morally it is going against many of the basic goods that the Natural Law theory proposes, the preservation of life, Avoiding offense, and shunning ignorance. Now there are no true answers to how morality should work, but I do find myself agreeing with Harris’s argument, and the Natural Law theory actually proposes a pretty good outline of how I view morality.