Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

bluskool said:
The answer to them all is that it doesn't matter. Something is not objective when two people share the thought. Even if the entire human race agrees on what is moral, that doesn't make morality objective. So the question of "who got the label" is meaningless.
Click to expand...

But according to label purists, such as those who must label a thing either objective or subjective, not only is the question not meaningless, but essential.

Separately,

I don't believe I ever claimed morality to be objective even if the entire human race agrees on what is moral. I never claimed it, because I don't believe it. It doesn't even make sense.

Peace
 
Oystein said:
Such as? Do rocks really have these properties, or is that just make-believe and projection?

I (and, I would thinkm Sam Harris) do not deny that some people think it is moral to be nice to some rocks, but Harris argues that they are objectively wrong, because they would argue the morality of such behaviour with properties, that rocks do not in fact possess.
Click to expand...

But (and I'm likely getting some of these arguments of his wrong):

1. Human well-being is the highest priority and what makes a thing moral
2. That's tied to or can be evaluated by brain-states
3. Contentment increases well-being brain-states
4. Mountains make the most people more content than any possible replacement to mountains (or a particular mountain)
5. Preserving mountains is an objectively good moral decision

Does that make sense?
 
I think Harris is correct that science can answer moral questions. (Note his disclaimers at about 6:00, btw.)

What he's saying is that there are right and wrong answers about what makes us happy and what makes us flourish, and none of it is mystical, so it's all amenable to scientific inquiry.

Morality is simply a phenomenon of the activity of the brains of certain animals. That's all. There's no reason why it can't be approached and understood scientifically.

And for the critters that have those brains, understanding the biological basis of morality, happiness, and flourishing will tend to lead us to correct answers.
 
Or in other words "science can answer moral questions, if you make the right non-scientific presuppositions". What a shaft of insight.
 
I pose this question in all sincerity to anyone who can provide some insight for me regarding this notion of objectivity vs. subjectivity. Previously, it went unanswered when I asked someone else.

This I think, is why I have a deep respect and love, for language.

Let me ask you a philosophical question. If you'll indulge me?

When you were in your mother's womb, who got what label? Who was the subjective? Who was the objective? Did that change after you reached an age of consciousness? And before that, when you were partly in your mother, and your other part swam in lustfully, where - at what scientific measurement did you become your own idea of subjective/objective - apart and completely separate from your parents?

And when you feed the worms one day. Will you be doing so subjectively, or objectively?
Click to expand...
 
cienanos said:
I pose this question in all sincerity to anyone who can provide some insight for me regarding this notion of objectivity vs. subjectivity. Previously, it went unanswered when I asked someone else.

Quote:
This I think, is why I have a deep respect and love, for language.

Let me ask you a philosophical question. If you'll indulge me?

When you were in your mother's womb, who got what label? Who was the subjective? Who was the objective? Did that change after you reached an age of consciousness? And before that, when you were partly in your mother, and your other part swam in lustfully, where - at what scientific measurement did you become your own idea of subjective/objective - apart and completely separate from your parents?

And when you feed the worms one day. Will you be doing so subjectively, or objectively?
Click to expand...

Subjective is a label we use to refer to certain brain events and certain beliefs. The taste of mushrooms is a subjective brain event and the view that mushrooms taste nasty is a subjective belief.

Beliefs and brain events only exist (so far as we currently know) in the meaty brains between the ears of animals. So before you have a functioning brain you have no subjective brain events or beliefs. After you no longer have a functioning brain (i.e. you are worm food) then you also have no subjective brain events or beliefs.

Subjective and objective are not really opposites. The subjective is a subset of the objective, since the brains we use to have subjective thoughts with are part of the objective universe and are made out of objectively observable atoms.

However the subjective/objective distinction is still quite useful. For example we can say that whether or not mushrooms taste nice is a subjective matter about which different views are simultaneously true. They might taste nice to you and nasty to me, and both of us is right about what we taste. Whereas whether or not mushrooms are fungi is an objective matter about which only one view is true.

Does that answer your questions?
 
Dragoonster said:
But (and I'm likely getting some of these arguments of his wrong):

1. Human well-being is the highest priority and what makes a thing moral
2. That's tied to or can be evaluated by brain-states
3. Contentment increases well-being brain-states
4. Mountains make the most people more content than any possible replacement to mountains (or a particular mountain)
5. Preserving mountains is an objectively good moral decision

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely! Exactly my stance!
I'd even agree if you argued with the contentment of the mountain animals that live on that pile of rocks.

Nothing in your argument assigns the mountain itself any inherent properties that make it a valid object of moral considerations - it does not deserve to be preserved on its own accord, the moral value is fully derived from the conscient beings that behold it.

Should we encounter a mountain that is generally more disagreeable to most or all humans (and animals) than agreeable, then the objective moral stance would be to get rid of it.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
...
Beliefs and brain events only exist (so far as we currently know) in the meaty brains between the ears of animals. So before you have a functioning brain you have no subjective brain events or beliefs. After you no longer have a functioning brain (i.e. you are worm food) then you also have no subjective brain events or beliefs.
...
Click to expand...

I agree with most skeptics, that all subjectivity is dependent on the existence of a functioning "brain".

However, there are brains that function but do not bring forth consciousness. And there are brains that temporarily do not function at all, or at a level functionally indistinguishable from dead. So the question is valid: Can dead or nonfunctional brains be the object of moral considerations?

An example to illustrate this subtle point: In most jurisdictions, the death penalty is outlawed, following the realisation of many people, that subjecting a fellow human to the agony and pain of dying is immoral.

In some jurisdiction, like some states of the USA, certain methods of putting a convict to death have been ruled unconstitutional on the moral ground of "cruelty". In those states, it is mandatory to first put the convict into an unconscious state, and then kill him, to spare them the pain and some of the agony of dying.
So, apparently, constituents and courts in those states think that it is immoral to kill some fellow humans while they are awake, but o.k. to kill them when unconscious.
 
Having watched this, I think I would sum it up not so much as "science can answer moral questions", but "moral questions can be considered rationally, and science can inform that rational thinking".

Deep down, I'm not sure the two are actually different however.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Subjective is a label we use to refer to certain brain events and certain beliefs. The taste of mushrooms is a subjective brain event and the view that mushrooms taste nasty is a subjective belief.

Beliefs and brain events only exist (so far as we currently know) in the meaty brains between the ears of animals. So before you have a functioning brain you have no subjective brain events or beliefs. After you no longer have a functioning brain (i.e. you are worm food) then you also have no subjective brain events or beliefs.

Subjective and objective are not really opposites. The subjective is a subset of the objective, since the brains we use to have subjective thoughts with are part of the objective universe and are made out of objectively observable atoms.

However the subjective/objective distinction is still quite useful. For example we can say that whether or not mushrooms taste nice is a subjective matter about which different views are simultaneously true. They might taste nice to you and nasty to me, and both of us is right about what we taste. Whereas whether or not mushrooms are fungi is an objective matter about which only one view is true.

Does that answer your questions?
Click to expand...

Thanks Kevin. Not only did you answer my questions eloquently, you also answered my questions.

So then, if "the subjective is a subset of the objective", do we conclude that the subjective can only exist if the objective exists first?

More importantly, do we conclude that the objective can exist without the subjective?

Regards
 
dudalb said:
He is trying to apply the rules of Physical Science to Human Behavior..which is always a bad idea. They just don't apply.
Click to expand...
Soooooooooo, we are not physical, OK.

I quess the text in an old black book it what should be used, seems to be working out so well today.

Believe it or not, humans do not have an infinite range of responces to every situation, they can be quantified.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Paulhoff said:
Believe it or not, humans do not have an infinite range of responces to every situation, they can be quantified.
Click to expand...
And once subjective guidelines have been chosen, the responses can be sorted from best to worst.

Then you can sort the subjective guidelines from best to worst, once subjective guidelines have been chosen (to evaluate the previous subjective guidelines) .... etc.
 
edd said:
Having watched this, I think I would sum it up not so much as "science can answer moral questions", but "moral questions can be considered rationally, and science can inform that rational thinking".

Deep down, I'm not sure the two are actually different however.
Click to expand...

They're quite different. Science has two parts : logic and observations. Logic, in turn, has two parts : rules of inference and axioms. While observations are at least in theory public, both rules of inference and axioms need not be shared.

If you think (axiomatically) that suffering is bad, and someone else thinks that suffering is good, science can inform the question about which pain medication is most effective. Science can even explain the best way to reduce suffering. On the other hand, it can't convince someone who believes that suffering is good that reducing suffering is a desirable goal.
 
drkitten said:
They're quite different. Science has two parts : logic and observations. Logic, in turn, has two parts : rules of inference and axioms. While observations are at least in theory public, both rules of inference and axioms need not be shared.

If you think (axiomatically) that suffering is bad, and someone else thinks that suffering is good, science can inform the question about which pain medication is most effective. Science can even explain the best way to reduce suffering. On the other hand, it can't convince someone who believes that suffering is good that reducing suffering is a desirable goal.
Click to expand...

Quite agree.
 
edd said:
Harris responds to criticism: http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/

I still don't see that it excludes a need for some kind of initial moral axiom that gives us some way of evaluating good against evil though. I can't see a place when something like a God of Eth argument doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
I thought he clearly stated that his initial moral axiom is that "good" is that which is beneficial to sentient beings. While I googled "God of Eth", I found that I didn't want to read what looked like several pages of blurple to understand what is, so I'm not clear on what argument you think necessarily arises here. It doesn't seem to me that Harris' initial axiom is any more unreasonable than the others he cites (i.e., why is experimental evidence "better" than the lack of same?).
 
bokonon said:
I thought he clearly stated that his initial moral axiom is that "good" is that which is beneficial to sentient beings.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that's fairly clear too, but then it doesn't really make it a matter of science. Science is telling you how to optimise some function, not what that function is.

The God of Eth argument is that the problem of evil is rubbish on the basis that the 'problem of good' is at least as powerful an argument for an evil God.

I don't see here that you couldn't replace the axiom with one telling you to be evil and argue that science tells you to be completely vile. Only the fact that you personally wouldn't want to do that would push things from it. Or maybe that's Sam's point, in which case I think he's got a fair point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom