35277Y229 Sam Harris thinks that all humans share

A SINGLE
SUPREME VALUE -
minimizing suffering & maximizing happiness -
and therefore all ethical debates are factual arguments
concerning the most efficient way to maximize happiness?
Islamic fundamentalists want to reach 'heaven' in order 'to be happy',
liberals believe that 'increasing human liberty maximizes happiness', and
German nationalists think that everyone would be better off 'if Berlin were allowed to run the planet'!
According to SH, Islamists, liberals & nationalists have no ethical dispute; they have a factual disagreement
'about how best to realize their common goal'. Yet even if SH ìs rìght, and even if all humans cherish happiness,
in practice it would be extremely difficult to úse Thìs Ìnsight to decide ethical disputes, particularly because we
have nó scientific definition or measurement of happiness?!! Consider again the case of the Three Gorges Dam.
Even if we agree that the ultimate aim of the project ìs to máke the world a happier place, how can we tell
whether generating cheap electricity contributes móre to global happiness than protecting traditional
lifestyles or saving the rare Chinese river dolphin? As long as we haven't deciphered the mysteries of
consciousness, we cannot develop a universal measurement for happiness & suffering, and we don't know
how to compare the happiness and suffering of different individuals, let alone different species! How many
units of happiness are generated when a billion Chinese enjoy cheaper electricity? How many units of misery
are produced when an entire dolphin species becomes extinct? Indeed, are happiness and misery mathematical
entities that can be added or substracted in the first place? Eating ice cream is enjoyable; finding true love is more
enjoyable; do yóu thìnk that if you just eat enough ice cream, the accumulated pleasure could ever equal the
rapture of true love? Consequently, although science has much more to contribute to ethical debates than wé
commonly think, there ìs a line it cannot cross, at least not yet! Without the guiding hand of some religion,
it is impossible to maintain large-scale social orders. Even universities & laboratories nééd religious backing?
Religion provides the ethical justification for scientific research, and in exchange gets to influence the scientific
agenda & the uses of scientific discoveries! Hence you cannot understand the history of science
without taking religious beliefs into account?! Scientists seldom
dwell on this fact, but the Scientific
Revolution itself began in one
of the most dogmatic,
intolerant & religious
societies in
history.