Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

I believe Harris said somewhere in the book that the intermediate concept of morality may be excess baggage - his point is that what is important is maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures, period.

For those who still question that there is a meaningful, objective notion of well-being, Harris provides vivid examples of two people living lives near opposite ends of the goodness spectrum. He admits up front that those who do not perceive a difference in these two persons' degree of well-being are not going to be convinced by the arguments in his book. (Having read his examples, I find it scarcely credible that anyone not seriously unhinged could be indifferent between the two, or consider for a moment consigning a loved one to the bad life if the good one were also an option).

Expand full comment
srdiamond's avatar

Haven't read Harris but based on your summary, the problem is circularity: "well-being" is defined by moral terms.

Expand full comment
16 more comments...

No posts