Pascal Boyer assesses what science has to say about morals.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boyer, P. Ethics: The good life. Nature 469, 297 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/469297a
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/469297a
This article is cited by
-
New in paperback
Nature (2011)
Larry Gilman
“To be persuaded that some actions are immoral because they diminish well-being, people need to accept that welfare is the most relevant criterion of morality, which may require a special education.”
No doubt a “special education” could instill acceptance of Harris’s claim that “welfare” is morality’s sole foundational criterion. So? A special education could do that for almost any claim. The problem is, this particular claim is a premiss, not an observation — no matter how long or expertly Harris tap-dances. It has no scientific content. Harrison’s effort to derive all “oughts” from some foundational “is” starts, like all such attempts, with a humungous “ought” (welfare-ought-to-be-promoted) and ends up as yet another demonstration of intellectual circular motion.
His apparent insistence on treating religion and his own brand of utilitarianism as exhaustive alternatives is one of the strangest things about this imbroglio. That Hume was right, and Ought cannot be derived from Is, does not obviously favor theism. A naked theological Is (God exists), even if affirmed, sheds no more light on the mystery of right and wrong than any purely material Is.
By the way, isn’t it clear that when it comes to religion, Harris, like Christopher Hitchens, radiates as much hatred, overweening pride, rage, and contempt for unbelievers as any of the religious grotesques that populate his own demonology?