Sam Harris and his book "The Moral Landscape" would never make it past the critical thinking going on at San Francisco State University. Let x be any concept that refers. Let P stand for premise (or reason) and C stand for conclusion (in case you need to brush up on your logic lingo). See Jime's comment here for background on Sam Harris' use of the word "objective".
***
P1: Every possible meaning of x is subject to change unless there is a being to which an unchanging definition of x corresponds.
P2: If every possible meaning of x is subject to change, x lacks meaning that is not subject to change.
P3: If x lacks meaning that is not subject to change, x has no objective meaning.
***
Let "GPWB" be Sam Harris' concept of objective moral truth (Greatest Possible Well Being).
P1a: Every possible meaning of GPWB is subject to change unless there is a being to which an unchanging definition of GPWB corresponds.
P1b: Harris denies the existence of a perfectly good/well being to which GPWB corresponds.
P1c: [P1a, P1b.] Every possible meaning of GPWB is subject to change.
P2a: If every possible meaning of GPWB is subject to change, GPWB lacks meaning that is not subject to change.
P2b: [P1c, P2a.] GPWB lacks meaning that is not subject to change.
P3: If GPWB lacks meaning that is not subject to change, GPWB has no objective meaning.
C: [P2b, P3.] GPWB has no objective meaning.
Comments