Shermer vs. Pigliucci on Moral Science
Ophelia Benson summarized Michael Shermer’s latest foot-in-mouth in his row with Massimo Pigliucci over whether and to what degree moral philosophy should become a moral science instead. Reading their exchange, I find Shermer is more inclined toward ideological biases and superficial worldview declarations than actual, sound, self-critical, well-thought analyses in this matter.
As a result, Shermer is doing a really awful job of defending what I actually agree with: that it’s high time moral philosophy began to be folded into the sciences (the same way philosophy of mind became psychology and cognitive science, for example). And that’s annoying. It’s like when awful Jesus myth theorists make it harder for me to argue that Jesus might not have existed after all, by their constantly using terrible arguments that then get falsely imputed to me. My case then gets judged by their failures. I now worry the same will happen here. So let me try to nip that in the bud.
The General Point
Pigliucci already exposes Shermer’s lack of understanding in this latest matter generally, so I won’t rehash all that. You can follow along with that exchange on your own. Shermer opened with this (“The Is-Ought Fallacy of Science and Morality”) at The Edge, which was in spirit correct but somewhat inept in execution, and Pigliucci took him to task for its obvious omissions in a reply at Rationally Speaking. To which Shermer responded there. To which Pigliucci then replied again (possibly it’s still going on at this point, but that’s as much as I’ve so far read).
Shermer is getting owned in this debate. He is really not coming across well. In particular, not only is he out of his depth, once again he doesn’t seem capable of learning. He pretty much just circles the wagons around his original claims. He isn’t really listening to Pigliucci or answering his concerns. And the actual goal (to articulate an actionable scientific research program in moral science) is getting lost, even though it’s supposed to be what Shermer is arguing for. Badly.
Disclosure is warranted. Like I said, I agree with Shermer’s overall point: morality should become a science. And I have responded harshly to Pigliucci on this issue before (in a letter Pigliucci read but that has not yet been published). In a previous review, Pigliucci had horribly straw manned the case for a moral science made by Sam Harris (in his book The Moral Landscape), not only misrepresenting what Harris argued, but falsely equating Harris’ insufficient defense of the case with the indefensibility of the case altogether. Pigliucci carries that flawed theme forward in his critique of Shermer, but otherwise Pigliucci is spot on. Everything he says about the ineptitude of Shermer’s arguments is pretty much correct, and I agree with a lot else Pigliucci says in this exchange.
Page 1 of 7 | Next page