The Irrational Harris.

Vox Day observes:

Harris: Good means maximizing human well-being for the largest number of people. Religion is not necessary for a “universal” morality. Religion is a bad foundation for “universal” morality.


As I pointed out in my column last November in which I reviewed The Moral Landscape, "Harris simply ignores the way in which his case falls completely apart when it is answered in the negative. No, we cannot simply accept that "moral" can reasonably be considered "well-being" because it is not true to say that which is "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong" is more than remotely synonymous with "that which fosters well-being in one or more human beings." One might as reasonably substitute "wealth" or "physical attractiveness" for "well-being".

So, all things being equal, what is the transcendental point that allows someone to argue against a person who preaches that people should be miserable and suffering so long as they look good?