While I am uncertain as to whether Gorski’s basic suggestion that social science can offer genuine insights into human-wellbeing was strongly persuasive to me or whether his suggestion just confirmed a belief I already held, it is fair to say that I do believe in his hypothesis that moral facts exist. Personally, I do not see a ton of differences between his ethical naturalism and however Sam Harris would identify his belief system. Gorski’s ethical naturalism is focused on human well-being achieved through means that are non-theistic.[1] Similarly, Sam Harris focuses on how to achieve human flourishing and, as I picked up on in his video and confirmed via a quick Google search, he certainly is no fan of religion.[2] While the reasoning each adopts to get to their respective conclusions might be slightly different, the conclusions themselves are not.
As an aside, while I agree with Sam Harris that there are right and wrong answers to the question of achieving human-wellbeing,[3] and that accepting the existence of a plurality of right answers is a key part of holding this belief, I think he’s far too certain about the universality of his own convictions. This is not to say that I accept the premise that all value claims are equal or that cultural differences never result in differences in the wellbeing of people. Far from it, I agree with Harris on both of those points. However, I think he is far to quick to discount value systems and conceptions of human well-being that are based on religion. He fails to understand that even if he does not see any value in religious beliefs that religion remains an important part of the lives of billions of people worldwide. To deride it as mere irrationality is the height of arrogance. Furthermore, while Gorski does not make any such negative claims about religion, his ethical naturalism is explicitly non-theistic. I feel this is also a mistake as, once again, religion remains an important part of the lives of billions of people and therefore the discourse on morality that has been built up over generations by adherents of all the world’s religions deserves to be part of any discussion of moral facts.
But I digress. With regards to my own research, I do not feel as if my research lends itself particularly well to normative discovery of this kind. The reason for this is simply that my research is not designed to ask such moral questions. While I am starting from a normative assumption that liberal democracy is overall a positive for human well-being, I am attempting to explore the causality of democratic decline rather than interrogating the validity of my preexisting normative assumption. Perhaps I will come across something in my research that will force me to reevaluate my beliefs, but that is not the intent of my research.
[1] Philip S. Gorski, “Beyond the Fact/Value Distinction: Ethical Naturalism and the Social Sciences,” Society 50, no. 6 (December 1, 2013): 543–553.
[2] Sam Harris, Science Can Answer Moral Questions, n.d., accessed February 13, 2018, https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.
[3] Ibid.