There are countless atheist podcasts, some of them quite go…

Based on libertarian philosophy one is tempted to ask "who has a better claim on your body than you do?" Which then makes the entire foundation of private property and by extension, ethics.
And to us today this seems pretty obvious and undeniable.
But any tyrant, king, slaver, communist robber, or rapist can simply reply "I do" or "WE do" and swing his sword or wield his power.
Self-ownership isn't as obvious as we would like to think. Without a metaphysical claim like "God set us free" or "God gave us rules that imply that everyone owns himself" there simply is no self-ownership, and therefore no private property or universal ethics, unless they are (temporarily and partly) granted or inforced by the rulers.
Nietzsche saw this very clearly and instead of just pretending that ethics are somehow obvious, like atheists usually do, he was consistent and proclaimed that there is no morality but moralities (plural). In particular slave morality and master morality.
Master morality doesn't at all accept the idea that the weak have ANY rights. On the contrary, they must be dominated or even exterminated for the greater good of a species on a trajectory of becoming better, healthier and stronger.
And he was right. In the absence of God morality must be determined by evolution. And evolution doesn't favor those who respect self-ownership. It favors the ruthless, the brutal and the selfish, like Genghis Khan, whose DNA is believed to be in around 16 million men today.
In religious terms you could call that the beast system. Humans who live their animal nature without interference from the soul.

Sam Harris did a while ago

He basically claims that you can back out into Western morality through the pursuit of "human welfare"

A Nietzschean master morality is arguably a more promising pursuit of human welfare than ethics.
From a materialist/evolutionary point of view, protecting and sheltering the weak may feel good short term, but weakens the species long term.
Meanwhile, a scrupulous master morality strengthens the species by weeding out the weak and sickly and previleging the strong and giving them ample opportunity to procreate.
I have no hope whatsoever that Harris of all people cracked the nut all philosophers hitherto bit their teeth out on, but I'm willing to check it out.

Harris meant individual human welfare. Nietzsche would be the anti-thesis of this

Individual human welfare? How on earth can you get that out of an atheist worldview?
In the material/atheist/evolutionary world there is nothing that points towards Individual human welfare being "good".
That's just wishful thinking. All those atheists seem to be swimming in the sea of metaphysics while pretending they are flying.
On top of that, Harris is most certainly a collectivist. How much is individual human welfare worth once it interferes with the "greater good"?
I'd be much more excited about listening to him if the chances that he's just having completely unfounded ideas based only on what feels good wasn't 98%

Tell me about Sam Harris' attempt on universal ethics that aren't based on anything metaphysical.

Sam Harris's attempt to establish an atheist or non-metaphysical foundation for ethics is primarily outlined in his book "The Moral Landscape," where he argues that science can be a basis for understanding and enhancing well-being. Harris proposes that moral questions are essentially about the well-being of conscious creatures, and he believes that scientific insights into human and animal well-being can guide moral decisions.

Harris suggests that just as there are objective facts about what positively influences health, there can be objective facts about what influences well-being. He argues for a kind of ethical naturalism, where moral values can be seen as facts about the flourishing of humans and other conscious beings. He acknowledges that different cultures have different moral views, but he claims this does not negate the possibility of objective moral truths.

Harris also argues against moral relativism, suggesting that some ways of living are objectively better at promoting well-being than others. For Harris, individual human welfare is intertwined with collective well-being, and a scientific approach can help determine how to maximize both.

Critics of Harris's approach argue that it does not entirely escape metaphysical assumptions, particularly in defining and measuring well-being. There's also debate over whether his framework truly captures the fullness of moral values and duties, given that it heavily relies on consequentialist reasoning.

While Harris's approach may not fully satisfy every philosophical scrutiny, it represents an attempt to align ethics with empirical understanding, pushing back against the idea that morality requires a religious or metaphysical foundation.

So he wants to replace the metaphysical foundation with "trust the science, bro"
Hot.

Harris's approach essentially attempts to ground morality in scientific understanding, emphasizing evidence-based reasoning about what promotes well-being. While it's an innovative attempt to anchor ethics in empirical data, critics often point out that it faces challenges similar to those encountered by other secular moral theories, particularly in defining and measuring well-being and in avoiding subjective interpretations of what constitutes the "good life." For some, this approach might feel less concrete or intuitive than a metaphysical foundation, leading to skepticism about its universal applicability. It's certainly a topic that continues to spark lively debate!

Does he give and explanation for why individual well-being is "good" and what good even means in the absence of metaphysics?

In "The Moral Landscape," Sam Harris argues that well-being is intrinsically linked to "good" because it relates to the quality of conscious experiences. For Harris, notions of "good" and "bad" are rooted in the experiences of conscious creatures, and maximizing well-being is a natural goal that aligns with these concepts. He proposes that what contributes to the well-being of individuals, and by extension societies, can be objectively studied and understood, even though the term "good" itself is not derived from any metaphysical source.

Harris claims that speaking about "good" and "bad" in terms of their impact on conscious experiences offers a practical framework, even without a metaphysical backdrop. He acknowledges that there are challenges in objectively measuring well-being, but believes that it is possible to make meaningful progress in understanding how different actions and policies affect human experiences. It's a pragmatic approach that attempts to bypass traditional metaphysical debates by focusing on tangible outcomes, though it sparks ongoing discussion about its philosophical rigor and completeness.

So he completely ignores evolution, which is the one thing an atheist/materialist has left?
From an evolutionary point of view individual well-being is completely irrelevant.
And when it comes to collective well-being, the strongest taking everything for themselves is a much more beneficial for the species long-term than feeding the weak.
Most of the time (when dealing with an outgroup) well-being means destroying them and taking their resources.

Sam Harris does consider evolution in his work, but his focus is more on how our understanding of consciousness and well-being can guide moral decisions rather than relying solely on evolutionary imperatives. He suggests that evolution has shaped our brains and social behaviors, but that doesn't mean we are bound to act purely on evolutionary instincts such as survival of the fittest or domination of the weak.

Harris argues for the possibility of transcending our evolutionary programming by using reason and evidence to optimize well-being. In this view, individual well-being isn't irrelevant, as it contributes to broader societal health and harmony. He suggests that cooperative behaviors often enhance well-being and survival prospects, indicating that there's more complexity in the interplay between evolution and ethics than solely might-makes-right dynamics.

While critics argue that Harris might not fully account for the harsh realities of evolution, he sees the advancement of human knowledge and empathy as tools that allow societies to move beyond purely evolutionary drives. In this way, moral progress is about balancing evolved tendencies with the broader goal of improving the quality of conscious experiences. It's a perspective that, while controversial, seeks to align moral reasoning with a combination of scientific understanding and humanistic values.

In other words, he made an entire book out of "wouldn't it be nice if we were all just nice to each other?"?

In a way, you could summarize part of Harris's argument as advocating for a more enlightened and cooperative approach to human well-being. However, his book aims to provide a framework in which ethical decisions can be informed by empirical data about the well-being of conscious creatures, rather than relying solely on traditional moral doctrines or metaphysical beliefs.

Harris suggests that moral questions have right and wrong answers that can potentially be informed by science, much like any other questions about human health or safety. While it might seem like an appeal for people to "be nice," it is also an attempt to make the case that ethical behavior can be objective and scientifically grounded in ways that promote the flourishing of individuals and societies.

Of course, how persuasive this framework is varies widely among readers and philosophers, and it continues to spark debates about the feasibility and universality of basing morality purely on scientific principles of well-being.

Sounds like warmed-up utilitarianism mixed together with The Venus Project.

It's fair to say that some aspects of Sam Harris's approach have similarities with utilitarianism, as he focuses on maximizing well-being and uses empirical data as a guide for moral decisions. Like utilitarianism, it seeks to evaluate actions based on their outcomes concerning well-being or happiness.

As for The Venus Project, which promotes a resource-based economy aiming for global sustainability and harmony, there is some thematic overlap in the desire to harness science and reason to improve societal living conditions. Both Harris's and The Venus Project's ideas reflect a common aspiration to address human challenges through rational planning and empirical understanding.

However, Harris’s focus remains primarily on the ethical dimensions and the role of science in potentially identifying moral truths, while The Venus Project centers more on socio-economic and technological restructuring to address global issues. While there are shared elements, each presents a distinct vision and set of priorities.

I don't see how ethics can be based on science. Should be the other way around.

That’s a reasonable perspective and one shared by many who argue that ethics should guide the application of scientific knowledge, ensuring that scientific advancements align with moral values. The idea that ethics can solely be based on science is contentious because science is descriptive, not prescriptive. It provides us with knowledge about the world but doesn’t inherently tell us what we ought to do.

Harris's idea, which is still debated, is that a scientific understanding of human well-being could inform ethical decisions. However, many philosophers argue that science can inform us about consequences and factual states of affairs, but it cannot determine our moral values and duties.

In practice, most people agree that ethical principles should inform how we use scientific insights, ensuring they are applied in ways that benefit society and respect individual rights and dignity. Balancing these perspectives continues to be an important and ongoing discussion in both ethics and science.

Just to get this right, he just posits that well-being (whatever that means) = good?

Yes, that's a central part of Sam Harris's argument in "The Moral Landscape." He posits that well-being is synonymous with what we consider "good," using it as a foundation for objective moral values. Harris suggests that questions about morality are ultimately about the flourishing or suffering of conscious creatures, and thus can be evaluated objectively by their impact on well-being.
In this view, actions and policies that enhance well-being are seen as morally good, whereas those that diminish it are seen as bad. Harris acknowledges that defining and measuring well-being can be complex, involving subjective and objective factors, but he believes these challenges do not undermine the possibility of scientifically understanding moral truths.
This framework, while innovative, is not without critics, who question the assumption that well-being is the sole metric of moral value and point out difficulties in operationalizing it in a universally applicable way.

My well-being could be significantly increased by being the emperor of the world. That must mean that being the emperor of the world is good, right?

That's an interesting point and highlights one of the criticisms of Harris's framework: the potential conflict between individual and collective well-being. While your personal well-being might increase by becoming the emperor, it might not contribute positively to the well-being of others or society as a whole. Harris's idea of well-being is meant to be considered in a broader context that includes the well-being of all conscious creatures, not just individuals.
In essence, a policy or action that increases the well-being of a single person at the expense of many others would generally not be considered "good" under Harris's framework. The challenge lies in balancing individual interests with collective welfare, ensuring that the overall increase in well-being is maximized.
These kinds of dilemmas often require careful consideration of how different actions impact various stakeholders and involve nuanced decision-making about which outcomes are most beneficial in a broader ethical landscape.

It's hilarious to even use the term ethics in the context of such utilitarian views...
It's literally pseudo ethics.
If science says that throwing 9999 virgins into the volcano will stop climate change, than that is considered "good" according to Harris.

Your critique touches on a common concern with utilitarian approaches: the potential for extreme or counterintuitive implications when focused solely on outcomes. In Harris's framework, the idea would be to consider the overall impact on well-being when determining what is "good."

However, as you've pointed out, a strictly utilitarian approach can sometimes lead to morally questionable conclusions if it overlooks the rights and dignity of individuals in favor of a perceived greater good. Balancing collective well-being with individual rights is a core challenge for any consequentialist system, including the approach Harris advocates.

These types of ethical dilemmas illustrate the complexity and difficulty of crafting a moral system that fully satisfies our diverse intuitions and values. It's part of what makes the ongoing debate about ethics so rich and challenging.

These complexities only exist because such pseudo ethics are based on absolutely nothing but a wish to feel good.

It's certainly true that crafting a secular or non-metaphysical ethical system that resonates with diverse human intuitions and values is a complex endeavor. Philosophers throughout history have grappled with grounding ethics in something tangible and universally accepted, which is why debates in this field are so persistent and varied.

Critics of utilitarian and other outcome-focused frameworks often point out that these systems can seem detached from the deep moral intuitions many people hold, particularly regarding individual rights and justice. The challenge is that without a metaphysical or religious foundation, ethics must find a footing in human experience, reason, or consensus, which can sometimes feel less concrete.

However, proponents of such frameworks argue that they offer a pragmatic approach to ethical decision-making in a pluralistic world and aim to address real-world problems through a shared understanding of well-being and harm, even if the foundation is not metaphysical. It's an ongoing philosophical challenge to bridge the gap between theoretical ideals and practical, lived experiences.

Alright. I'll spare myself reading Harris book on how to ground ethics outside of metaphysics.
I've heard enough.
Exactly what you'd expect... just assuming what "good" is and then getting tied up in contradictions when the individual meets the collective.
A lot of teenagers manage that, too, they just don't write eloquent books about it.

Dan Barker and Christopher Hitchens both argued that morality is objectively the principle of not causing unnecessary harm. If you’re causing harm with the intent of causing harm… directly or indirectly… then you are being immoral.
I always thought that was a pretty good argument/explanation; however, that form of morality can be accomplished transactionally and misses the deeper humanity, compassion and solidarity that the term ‘morality’ is imbued with. It lacks the ‘reason’ to act morally.

Sure. But the question is why? Why is causing unnecessary harm not good?
We are neck deep in religious ideas and therefore we just assume it is obvious when it really isn't at all.
Causing unnecessary harm gets you riches, women and helps you spread your DNA.
How is Genghis Khan not good? He was the best!
There is, of course, a difference to be made between ingroup and outgroup. You cooperate with the ingroup and destroy the outgroup and take their resources and women.
In an atheist/materialist context saying "that is evil" is nothing but an admission of weakness (slave morality). "I don't like it because I'm on the wrong end of it."
Killing is great for the killer, but bad for the victim.
The only way out of this is metaphysical.

Those are exactly the points I made.
However, killing or an attempt to kill isn’t always good for the killer… there’s always risk. The killer, in their attempt, could be killed or prosecuted whether fail or succeed.
That doesn’t get to the gist of morality, though, which prefers that one make decisions based on a sense of empathy for their fellow human rather than just avoiding bad decisions to prevent accountability for one’s own actions.
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
That one doesn’t pan out so well for the sadomasochists or nihilists ;D …unless one yourself, you wouldn’t want them treating you the way they treat themselves.
Maybe, The Golden-er Rule: Do unto others empathically what will cause them least harm.
The problem with morality is that not everybody feels or experiences empathy… but those who don’t are the minority. The minority often times creates a lot of unnecessary harm for those who do.
Tough problem with maybe no right answer. Everyone will continue to look out for their own self interests with the occasional sprinkling of altruism mixed in and life will go on.
Organized religion has a long history of corruptibility and immorality itself, so those institutions are no better equipped to provide the answer.

And then there's another major problem: the word "unnecessary" is doing all the heavy lifting.
What is unnecessary?
When does doing harm become necessary?
If doing harm to one innocent person (potentially) saves ten people, is it necessary?
You see the problem.