Sam Harris is an extremely successful 'public intellectual'. He is the author of several books which present broadly philosophical ideas in a remarkably accessible way. He hosts a stimulating podcast with interesting guests. He also tends to harbour quite progressive opinions. He has spoken to large audiences and has a likeable witty persona.
So why do many people seem to hate him? Not everyone of course. With all the above achievements to his credit, it is hardly surprising that he has fans, some of them very dedicated. But it is the haters I want to concentrate on here. I want to try and figure out what exactly it is about him that some people despise with such intensity.
One obvious answer is his manner. I said above that he has a likeable witty persona. But I think some people would rather describe him as 'smug'. 'Each to his own taste' is the right response to that, I think. In any case there are also more substantive reasons that people have for disliking Harris. I will set aside here disagreements related to his atheism. He has of course been a staunch opponent of organised religion, a kind of twenty-first century Bertrand Russell in his eloquence and trenchancy. But interestingly, the most heated opposition to his work has come on the whole not from religious people, but rather from left-wingers who are not religious fundamentalists.
One issue which has attracted their ire is his attitude to Islam. In his book The End of Faith, Harris considers what the West's response should be if an Islamist regime were to acquire long-range nuclear weapons. He says on page 129: "in such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own … We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers [in 9/11] may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."
This passage has led to the accusation that Harris wants America to launch a first nuclear strike against Islamist regimes. But a careful reading of the above extract shows that this is not the case. What Harris says is that if an Islamist regime were to get hold of long-range nuclear weapons, then the only way the West could ensure its survival would be by mounting such an attack. (Incidentally, the reason he gives for this, which is not included in this extract, is that Islamists cannot be deterred by the mere threat of nuclear attack, as their beliefs enable them to face the prospect of death with equanimity.) Harris also says here that in order to prevent such a terrible thing becoming necessary, steps should be taken to prevent Islamist nations from acquiring long-range nuclear weapons, though he is not optimistic that this is possible. Only in the event that this is seen to have failed would we be forced to take the extreme option of a first strike, in Harris' view. Now I must admit that I do not find even this position reasonable. I believe that were an Islamist to get hold of such weapons, it could be some time before it was tempted to use them, quite possibly time enough for a combination of military pressure and diplomacy to bring about a process of disarmament. (Such measures are not guaranteed to be useless even with Islamists – the eventual release of the U.S. Hostages in Iran is a case in point.) But the key thing is that Harris does not say what his critics allege he said. He is not arguing that as a matter of urgency, we should use nuclear weapons to attack countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Another highly problematic topic for Harris' critics is his stance on torture, also covered in The End of Faith (pp. 192-9). Harris draws an analogy between torturing a terrorist suspect in order to elicit from him information which might prevent a terrorist atrocity and 'collateral damage' in war. He argues that contrary to most people's intuitions, the latter should appear more morally problematic than the former, since it involves the killing and maiming of innocent people, often including children, whereas in the torture case, the suspect is assumed to be guilty at least of being a member of a terrorist organisation if not of being an actual terrorist. In fact Harris goes even further and endorses (albeit uncomfortably) the idea that torturing such a person is morally acceptable. Needless to say, this view has outraged many, particularly on the Left.
Any conscientious ethicist would struggle with this problem and I don't propose to discuss it in detail here. But what Harris' critics actually seem to be saying is that the issue should not even be raised, that to do so is to show an unconscionable failing in moral sensitivity. They could draw on some distinguished (albeit relatively obscure) support for this notion in the views of the philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe, who likewise thought that the mere discussion of such violations of 'common sense' morality should be beyond the pale. But Anscombe was a staunch Catholic, whereas I would assume most of these critics of Harris are not. They should be more aware of the need for no-holds-barred free enquiry as a means of reaching the truth on any given issue.
And this is really the point. Harris' first degree was in philosophy, a discipline which thrives on thought experiments and thinking the unthinkable. His left-wing critics, though a few of them might have some awareness of philosophy, tend on the whole to be more in thrall to their own particular ideological priorities and anxious to defend them against perceived attacks, particularly any that might be portrayed as 'right wing'. They need to be more open-minded both in fairness to Sam Harris and in support of free enquiry.