Examining Sam Harris's View: Can Science Answer Moral Questions?

This essay critically examines the argument presented by Sam Harris, who posits that science, specifically neuroscience, can provide answers to moral questions. The essay explores the potential of using scientific methods to address ethical dilemmas, such as corporal punishment and gender issues, while acknowledging the limitations of relying solely on science for moral guidance. The author agrees with some aspects of Harris's view, particularly concerning the link between human well-being and societal choices, but also highlights the gap between philosophical and scientific approaches to morality, as well as the differences between religious and scientific perspectives. The essay argues that while science can contribute factual insights, moral issues often require discussions and considerations beyond scientific studies and empirical evidence. Therefore, the author concludes that science can only address moral questions within its factual boundaries, excluding experiences and scientific studies to provide a foundation for moral answers.

NAME 1
Name
Institution
Date
Science can answer Moral Questions - Sam Harris
The discussion on what really answers and caters for moral questions has been going for
quite some time among scientists, philosophers, and scholars. The discussion has always
revolved around answering what is evil and what is good. From days back, these moral questions
have been discussed and answered by religion, and philosophy. Science on the other hand has
always been pushed to the pending section since the two have been given the preferences of
solving moral issues. This has been because of the knowledge and historic laws that are naturally
attached to the two fields. Despite this, scientists over the years have stretched their
understanding of the same issue beyond the natural laws and knowledge that we have always
attached to the moral aspects. One of the people who have recently touched on this discussion is
Sam Harris. He is one of the people who are destined to changing the way this case has always
been. To summarize his TED talk, Sam Harris confirms that he thinks moral questions can be
answered by science.
In his argument he points out clearly that one of the sections of science, neuroscience to
be specific, can deal with all the moral problems we experience in our societies. He states that
this can be the case due to the fact that moral questions are raised and founded on aspects of
knowable facts. On the same note, he discusses that neuroscience can be used to answer these
questions due to the fact that it deals and provides highly objective and definitive answers that
can be used in the moral realm. To some extent, I agree with Harris on this. This is because the
aspects of neuroscience can be used correct answers on moral cases just like how corporal

NAME 2
punishment is administered in children or how gender issues are dealt with in the society.
Personally I think that Sam is presenting a discussion of another view that gives different but
considerable knowledge.
On this note, I think that he is not buying an aspect of relativism that is from a radical
position especially when we consider moral aspects. Besides the difference seen in his argument
and the one developed by post-modernist, the points raised by Sam Harris are considerable
especially when we think about the aspects he presents on in-principle. From this perspective, I
can agree with Sam Harris from evaluating his remarks on the link that exists between the
choices we make in the society and human wellbeing. From a science point of view, we can all
agree that the dynamics of human consciousness and the cognition associated with the same are
bound to what science can solve in terms of what is right and wrong.
There is however some aspects of the same argument that he makes that I do not conform
with. On some aspects, I think it would be of more trouble to rely on science as the answer to
moral questions. This is because the evaluation of Sam’s argument clearly shows a gap between
what can be resolved from a philosophical point of view and a science based discussion. There is
too some significant differences in what religion does to cover issues of morality and what
science can do in the same circumstances. Taking neurophysiology as the only means to
approach issues of morality therefore can come with a lot of issues especially on human
wellbeing and the progress of our societies. Besides monitoring the human health, I do not
perceive that neurophysiology can help solve morality issues since it does not present an aspect
of thought-policy and attributes of populace hookup which can stand up to implant and at the
same time monitor the moral issues we experience in the society.

NAME 3
The issues of immorality can only be solved through discussions and talking of what is
good or bad with considerations of a specific subject. Personally, I do not think that the moral
issues can be solved by establishing studies of experience or treating the same as subjects as
science does. This forms the major difference between science, religion, and philosophy. In
philosophy and religion, moral issues are treated as a discussion point of the society in which
cases of wrong doing are discussed and treated as experiences of the society and making of
formal structures that are based on bettering the society. Science on the other hand treats moral
issues as a subject that can be explored on different domains and which can be solved by
engaging literatures of science and provable aspects. In my own, science cannot be used to
answer moral questions except in the factual points that fall under science. The only way that
science can do so is when experiences and scientific studies are excluded from the discussion so
as to give a foundation of moral answers.

NAME 4
Work Cited
Sam Harris. Science can answer moral questions, TED2010. Retrieved From
https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en