I found the performance by Harris to be, on the whole, embarrassing. In the segment from 36 - 47 minutes
In regards to this section (from 36 - 47 minutes) my own thoughts are, that they are both partly wrong as I see it. Will try to point out why as best as I can.
I think WLC is correct, that without God or some other higher power, there is not really any reasonable foundation for objective morality. And I think Sam Harris is wrong in assuming that there is such thing as objective morality in the first place, so when he tries to defend it, he falls in sort of the same "trap" as religious people does when trying to explain it. Because if there is no higher authority, where should objective morality come from?
On the other hand, WLC sort of dodges, what I think is really the important issue here, when he say that "If God exists then there is basis for objective morality" and then he sneak in all the positive characteristics he link to God, but ignore all the bad ones.
So if objective morality comes from God then one would also assume that God in fact, think that it is morally right, to kill gays, slam children against rocks.. and all the other things.
Psalms 137:8-9
8 Daughter of Babylon! You devastator! How blessed will be the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.
9 How blessed will be the one who seizes your young children and pulverizes them against the cliff!
(So much for turning the other chin I guess)
He gracefully avoid getting into that, which is the real issue, if one claim that objective moral comes from God.
Last I think WLC is wrong when he say that there is no moral duties in atheism, as he seem to base all of morality on there being a God, and honestly without actually saying it, I think he somewhat believe that the only reason atheists can be moral, is because he is convinced God exists.
But this, I think makes his view to narrow. Morality from a natural perspective do make a lot more sense, than if it came from God.
But rather than coming from a higher authority its a fundamental part of nature, but is just a lot more complex in humans than in other species. But ultimately its about survival and security as I see it. Pretty much no different than what we can observe in other animals. why doesn't animals eat their offspring? why doesn't a zebra just sacrifice their foal? or why do they even walk around in huge herds. All of this is about survival and security and each species having to trust each other to survive.
No different than it is with humans, we also look out for each other and since we do that, morality evolves as well. If we look at an early human society, it would not survive if it didn't have children. People get old and are no longer able to support the tribe, so in order to make sure that a new generation could replace them and those that died, there is a moral obligation for everyone to make sure that children survive or it will hurt themselves and those people they love.
Therefore it also becomes crucial that people within the tribe can trust each other, so while a hunter is out finding food, he need to be able to trust that his child is not eaten by the others for instance. If there was no such trust or moral standard in a tribe they would not survive.
However where I think both of them are wrong is in regards of claiming that objective morality even exist in the first place. Even if trust is needed within a tribe to survive, the morality changes based on the society. And therefore child sacrificing can over time be seen as beneficial to the tribe, if that is what they see as morally good for the groups survival.
Therefore the assumption that it is always wrong to kill children is false as I see it, but solely depend on what a specific group of humans have been convinced is morally right or wrong and therefore morality is not objective, but subjective and we judge other peoples actions based on our own moral standards.
In the coastal desert north of Lima, Peru, archaeologists have uncovered the skeletal remains of 227 children seemingly slain and buried hundreds of years ago in a massive ritual sacrifice. According to researchers who have been excavating the site for more than a year, this find represents the single largest child burial site on Earth, and the bodies discovered so far may just be the tip of the proverbial blade.
This is a passage from the book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari (Can highly recommend it). I have to translate it from Danish, so will probably contain a few errors:
The Aché people, that were hunter and gatherers and lived in the jungle of Paraguay until 1960, give a more sinister view of these types of societies. When a highly esteemed member of the tribe died, the Aché would kill a little girl and bury them together.... When an old aché-women became a burden for the rest of the tribe, one of the younger men would sneak up behind her and kill her with a blow to the head with an axe. One of the aché-men told the anthropologists about his life in the jungle. >>I often killed old women, I killed my aunts... the women were afraid of me... Now, when the white have come, I have become weak.<< Infants born without hair were considered underdeveloped and killed on the spot. A women explained that her first girl were killed, because the men in the tribe didn't want any more girls. At another occasion a man killed a little boy, because he were in a bad mood and the boy was crying. Another child was buried alive because it looked funny while the other kids laughed at it.
One have to be careful judging the aché to fast. The anthropologists that lived with them for years, tells that violence between adults were very rare. Both male and female could freely change their partner. They always smiled and laughed and didn't have any hierarchy with leaders and dominating figures. They were extremely generous with the few items they owned and the thought of riches and succes of no importance. What they valued most of all, were good social relationships and close friendships. Their view on killing children, old people and the sick were a lot like we view abortion and euthanasia today. Besides that, the aché were hunted and killed by relentless farmers from Paraguay. The need to flee from their enemies have most likely caused them to develop a very uncommon view on anyone that could be considered a burden for the tribe...
Now is what these people were doing morally wrong? In our eyes the answer is most likely, yes. But apparently not in their eyes. So if objective morality exists and comes from God, how does one explain these peoples morality?