Many listeners believe that when Harris claims to be able to bridge the is-ought divide in strictly scientific terms, he is referring to this "logical reasoning" point of view. Moral arguments must always include a "ought" symbol, but its use cannot be supported only on scientific grounds. Instead, it must be done from an ethical standpoint.
However, this is not what he means by bridging the divide. He means that we can understand why it is useful to think in terms of values even if we do not personally share those values. For example, we need to be able to distinguish friend from foe even if doing so does not lead us to judge that some people are worthy of our friendship or not. Values provide the framework within which to make such distinctions, even if we do not agree with every choice that has been made within that framework.
Harris makes it clear that he believes that ethics should be based on science, but not everyone who disagrees with him on other issues would say the same about their own position. As he notes in his book The End of Faith, even scientists who reject any value system outside of physics have no good reason for doing so. If science is all there is, then there is no excuse not to try to make decisions based on evidence rather than morals.
Harris makes a strong case for selective intolerance of severe moral systems. He makes his case through a type of moral realism tied to a utilitarian morality, but these, I suggest, aren't performing the main job. Even those who are skeptical about precisely objective morality can reach a similar result. They can conclude that we should accept other people's judgments about what actions are right or wrong, so long as they don't harm others.
This is because any system of morality will include some things that most people judge to be wrong. For example, it's easy to list atrocities that were committed in the name of various religions. So, if we're going to live together, we need some way to resolve differences about what acts are right or wrong.
The first thing to note is that this strategy allows us to avoid conflict by accepting other people's judgments about what is right and wrong. It doesn't require us to agree with them. In fact, it provides some protection against being offended by their views, since we can ignore them by assuming that whatever actions they condemn do not harm others.
However, this strategy has two problems. The first problem is that it puts us in a bad position if we want to change other people's minds about what acts are right or wrong. If we follow this strategy, then even if we are right, other people won't believe us.
According to Harris, the only feasible moral framework is one in which "morally good" actions are related to gains in the "well-being of conscious animals." The Moral Terrain
Richard Harris and his son, Jared Harris, are not related. He was nominated for the 2016 New Jersey Hall of Fame in the category of Performance Arts.
Harris has indicated that his childhood was fully secular and that his parents rarely mentioned religion, although he was not raised as an atheist. Harris began writing his first book, The End of Faith, immediately following the September 11th assaults. He claims this work transformed him from a non-believer to a devout agnostic.
His next book, Letters to a Christian Nation, was published in August 2006. In it, he argues against the belief that only faith in God can be meaningful and seeks to explain why people do evil things.
He has also written several articles for publications such as The New York Times Magazine and The Atlantic discussing subjects such as "Why I am not a Muslim", "The End of Christianity?", and "The Fault Lines of Faith".
In January 2014, Harris released an essay on Islam entitled "Underlying Causes of Violence in the Middle East: Religion or Politics?" He argued that there were similarities between Islamic extremism and other forms of violence, and that they could not simply be attributed to Islam.
In March 2015, Harris wrote an article for The New York Times titled "Can Muslims Be Moral without Being Religious?". The article discusses the different approaches to ethics within Islam and the role of religion in creating moral values.