Chapter Six (Amanda Brawner)

A Science of Good and Evil
"Sam Harris hits on some topics that I've thought much about myself in Chapter Six: A Science of Good and Evil. Having read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, among other philosophical works that touch upon the notion of good and evil and write versus wrong, and being an anthropology major myself, I've never really been able to find a logical conclusion myself. Harris makes a good point when he says, "truth seems to be one of the principal shortcomings of secularism". He goes on to mention that the idea that murder is wrong, for example, is pretty uncontroversial between atheists, monotheists, and polytheists alike, though there is no "reason" behind our mutual conclusions. He goes on to site an example of what we might call "ethics" in another primate. On page 172, Harris says, "Even monkeys will undergo extraordinary privations to avoid causing harm to another member of their species". This is interesting to me, as we've studied behaviors of non-human primates in relation to culture and found that certain species seem surprisingly human-like in their interactions with one another. This is just another example of how culture (and, as in this case, morals and ethics) may be just as much a part of our biology as our brown hair or long legs. I agree with Harris that we feel more ethical obligations towards things/people who seem most "conscious" like us (page 174). His example of page 176 about the Nazi who murders Jews and then returns home that evening to be a loving father and husband makes sense to me as well; the Nazi in the story held beliefs that "inured him to the natural human sympathies that might have otherwise prevented such behavior". In later pages, Harris hits upon the subject of love as it pertains to honor and the context of "tribal" practices (honor killings). He then surprises me with his claim that violence is sometimes an ethical necessity (page 199). He does, however, site Ghandi as the most influential pacifist and praises his work against Britain. However, he calls Ghandi's solution to the Holocaust (mass suicide) immoral. I do agree with him on these points, but Ghandi believed that the Jews would be reincarnated and that this current life was expendable. A mass suicide would have drawn attention to the Nazis. From Ghandi's point of view, I can see why this might have worked. I guess maybe this is exactly what Sam Harris is trying to point out; that our beliefs can destroy even those with the "best" of intentions and that "best" (or even right and wrong) may be relative.

Chapter Five

Harris starts off the chapter by criticizing proponents of a Jewish state, citing that they only want it because they believe it is one of the requirements for the second coming of Christ. Harris then launches a stark criticism over the ten commandment controversy in Alabama, which while I agree should not be in the courthouse; I think the whole controversy has been blown way out of proportion. Harris then goes on to quote Leviticus and Exodus, which say if you take the Lords name in vain or work on the Sabbath you will die; but once again I will remind Harris that these rules of the Old Testament cannot be applied to modern day Christians. He then goes on to speculate on what George Bush and is “secretive” Christian pressure group talk about behind the closed doors of their quarterly meetings. Then he criticizes Bush for appointing a pro-life to the food and drug administration providing no evidence that he has instated any change based on this stance, just the fact that that is his personal stance must be wrong? He then claims we are so close to living in a theocracy because a devout Catholic Supreme Court Justice made a speech to his disliking at Divinity School, its not as if she made it during a Supreme Court hearing or even at a public speech, is next he going to tell me Bush is breaking the establishment clause because he speaks at his church? Then he goes on to criticize Scalia some more on his speech and views on the death penalty, and then attacks the author of Leviticus calling him barbarous at the end; not really paying attention to the fact that it was written a few thousand years ago when standards, even Gods, were different, which is why we have a New and an Old testament now.
Next he talks about the war on sin, in which he categorizes drug use, prostitution, sodomy, and viewing of absence materials as “victimless crimes”. I was relieved however when he did cite how this can not be so in some cases, yet once again he blamed our laws against these on the fact that Christians think they are sins. Christians do, and this country was founded by them, so that is probably the core reason why we have laws against these things, but there are many other reasons to uphold these laws. Prostitution increases the spreading of STD’s, drugs pose major health risks to their users and can impose danger on those who are close to the user personally or even in the vicinity in general, and according to the CDC sodomy is the easiest sexual way to spread AIDS. As far as drugs go though, I will have to agree with Harris’ view on Marijuana because I don’t see the harm if used in controlled settings, especially when compared to alcohol.
Matthew Grabiak