This will be a survey of contemporary moral theory and the scientific study of morality, with an aim to improving your own moral decision-making, and encouraging the same in others. Register now. It’s a one-month, online, do-at-your-own-pace course in which you can participate as much or as little as you want. Lots of people just lurk, do the readings, and read the ensuing discussions, and that’s totally fine. But there will also be challenging assignment questions each week that will help you grasp and benefit from the readings and discussions, for anyone who wants to take that additional step.
Subjects covered in this course will include:
- What the words “morals” and “morality” can variously mean and how to make use of that knowledge in public discourse.
- What we must mean when we argue others should share or adopt or agree with a moral opinion and how we can more effectively argue they should.
- How we can use science and philosophy to determine what our moral values are or should be, and how to reason from values to best actions.
- And what brain science and sociology tell us about the cognitive errors that impair sound moral decision-making and how to overcome them or control or compensate for them.
Unlike religious moral systems, atheist moral systems are evidence- and science-based, incorporate logic and reason in an informed way, and attend to the factual realities of human life and emotion. Completing this course will help improve your ability to become a better, more thoughtful and aware person, and provide you with information and techniques to help bring others to the same state of being.
The required course book is Personality, Identity, and Character (eds. Darcia Narvaez and Daniel Lapsley), available in print and kindle. Students must purchase their own copy (print or electronic) before course begins. Additional materials are provided electronically inside the online classroom at no cost to students.
Let me stop you there mate; why are you, a verifiable scientific illiterate, teaching anything related to science? If anyone should be teaching about neuroscience and morality, it was Sam Harris PhD (neuroscience). You know fuck all about science, let alone neuroscience.
I still remember that post of yours trying to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity; the physics department on my end launched their sides into orbit when I shared it. On a scale of 1 to rage, how ashamed of that are you? I mean, if you were going to embarrass yourself like that, why not at least start strong with trying to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics? You’re a joke mate. I might sign up to grab whatever you have to say about the brain and morality and forward it to Sam Harris for kicks.
Because I have a Ph.D. in the history of science and philosophy. And I am a philosopher with peer reviewed articles in the field–and philosophers must study and discuss science all the time. It is a requirement of the job.
I don’t challenge anything Harris says about neuroscience, unless it is with the published work of other neuroscientists. That’s how philosophy of mind works.
That you don’t know that is what you should be ashamed of.
Not sure what your obsession with Sam Harris has to do with anything. Indeed, Harris’s views on the science of morality are relevant, and well researched. However, that does not mean that no one else is in a position to teach people about the topic. If you had even bothered to read Sense and Goodness Without God, you would see a few parallels between Carrier’s ideas and Harris’s ideas (it must be a miracle). I myself have argued with people with PhDs in nutritional science (a qualification I lack in that field) and refuted their claims, and such occurrences are not even remotely uncommon. A PhD is not an immunisation for error-making or bias. A PhD is also not a divine permission slip that allows people to comment on certain subjects. A PhD tells you that the person knows his stuff, and has experience in the field, but a lack of a PhD tells you nothing. Making such judgements is testimony to how willingly you will accept arguments from authority, and how unwilling you are to accept arguments that do not come from an authority. Test arguments for their merit. Come back when you have something more substantive.
Richard:
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that “atheist moral systems ought to be evidence-and science-based…” ?
I look over at the other side of the Great Rifts, and it seems like some of them have beliefs that don’t appear to be part of a moral system that is evidence-and science-based.