Gorski introduces the idea of ethical naturalism, that human beings flourish under certain conditions. (1). Science can help humans live well but not without the helps of morals, and there are some political and moral questions that cannot be answered such as “assisted suicide or just war, questions, in other words, that concern what is right rather than what is good.” (2) He argues that values can influence research such as through the choice of methods, but this impact does not necessarily affect the findings of research. (3) There are some aspects of life that humans and researchers cannot access.

On the other hand, Sam claims that the separation between science and human values is an illusion, and it is possible to definitively answer questions on human well-being and morality. (4) He deconstructs morality as truths of how communities can flourish, and because culture and morality affect human brains, researchers can study it and draw conclusions about it. (5) He acknowledges that religion is a great example of definitively distinguishing between right and wrong, but it is not a universal conception of reality but based on “a voice in a whirlwind.” (6)

August Compte outlines three conditions of philosophizing thoughts: theological, metaphysical, and positive where theological is fictitious and supernatural, metaphysical is abstract and transitional, and positive is scientific and reasoning. (7) Compte reinforces Harris’ claim because he indicates that there is no need for the theological or metaphysical philosophizing; instead, all questions can be answered through the positive lens and with science. (8) Both Harris and Compte differ from Gorski because Gorski limits the ability of social science to answer ethical questions.

As an interpretivist researcher, I believe that researchers co-construct their findings as they discover them, for researchers are part of the environment they are investigating. I am persuaded by Gorski’s assertion that values are fact-laden and facts are value-laden because people’s beliefs influence the conclusions they make, which is why reflexivity is necessary. Even though I agree with Gorski’s general argument, I truly side with Harris and Compte because I believe that research can determine human well-being. While I think research has the ability to answer normative questions, my personal research does not include a normative discovery. Instead, it is a critical challenge of the current burden-sharing discourse being used. I hope to use my research to make normative evaluations and recommendations on the use of language surrounding Syrian refugees, but my research does not inherently lead to normative discovery. I do not ask whether or not the use of burden-sharing discourse is good; I am asking how and why it is being used, not if it should be used.

 

(1) Philip S. Gorski, “Beyond the Fact/Value Distinction: Ethical Naturalism and the Social Sciences,” Symposium: Facts, Values, and Social Science (October 2013), 543.

(2) Ibid., 549-550.

(3) Ibid., 546.

(4) Justin Harris, “Science can answer moral questions,” TED (2010), https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right/transcript#t-133255.

(5) Ibid.

(6) Ibid.

(7) August Comte, “Account of the Aim of This Work; View of the Nature and Importance of the Positive Philosophy,” Course of Positive Philosophy (1830), 1-2.

(8) Ibid., 6.