Venerable vs. terrible

I thought Sam Harris argues for a form of science-based moral absolutism, doesn't he?

The word "venerable" is subjective. I suspect that the people in this culture don't share your opinion that this tradition is horrible or dark any more than we see our forms of justice as "horrible or dark".

You are looking at things through your own cultural bias that has everything to do with where and when you are born and how you were brought up. Some cultures will see this as horrible and dark. Other cultures will see it as an example of justice and fairness.

Obviously the writer brings up this particular example to be shocking to the people who will read his book. The word venerable is chosen to highlight this effect... this is an example where different cultures view an act in very different ways.

I don't consider this an example of "sarcasm". He is using a word to make his point in a strong manner... and the word made you react emotionally in the way the author intended.


I thought Sam Harris argues for a form of science-based moral absolutism, doesn't he?

1) Yes
2) Yes

Also, regarding the OP, "irony" might be a better choice of words than "sarcasm" to describe Harris' use of the word "venerable."

Charges of "scientism" cannot be long in coming. No doubt, there are still som people who will reject any description of human nature that was not first communicated in iambic pentameter. Many readers may also fear that the case I am making is vaguely, or even explicitly, utopian. It isn!ˉt,as should become clear in due course.

Iambic pentameter is a form of poetry

(2) Does "(some people who will) reject any description of human nature that was not first communicated in iambic pentameter" mean "only admit the description of human nature that was first communicated in iambic pentameter as true description, otherwise (that is, not in iambic pentameter), (they) reject"?

Of course, we will have to confront some ancient disagreements about the status of moral truth: people who draw their worldview from religion generally believe that moral truth exists, but only because God has woven it into the very fabric of reality; while those who lack such faith tend to think that notions of "good" and "evil" must be the products of evolutionary pressure and cultural invention. On the first account, to speak of "moral truth" is, of necessity, to invoke God; on the second, it is merely to give

Of course, we will have to confront some ancient disagreements about the status of moral truth: people who draw their worldview from religion generally believe that moral truth exists, but only because God has woven it into the very fabric of reality; while those who lack such faith tend to think that notions of "good" and "evil" must be the products of evolutionary pressure and cultural invention. On the first account, to speak of "moral truth" is, of necessity, to invoke God; on the second, it is merely to give voice to one's apish urges, cultural biases,and philosophical confusion. My purpose is to persuade you that both sides in this debate are wrong. The goal of this book is to begin a conversation about how moral truth can be understood in the context of science.
While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Consequently, there must be scientific truths to be known about it. A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging some to be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or less ethical. Clearly, such insights could help us to improve the quality of human life!aand this is where academic debate ends and choices affecting the lives of millions of people begin.

I think he just means old, or historical. I don't think any irony or sarcasm is intended here.

A good dictionary is always a great help. But sometimes people misuse words.

While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Consequently, there must be scientific truths to be known about it. A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging some to be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or less ethical. Clearly, such insights could help us to improve the quality of human life!aand this is where academic
debate ends and choices affecting the lives of millions of people begin.