Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[Ivor the Engineer]

To those who contend that concern with human wellbeing is an arbitrary standard, consider this thought experiment:

Suppose we figure out how the brain creates consciousness and we build a conscious machine. But not being the product of evolution, this machine doesn't care whether or not it continues to exist or if it is properly maintained.

To that machine, "killing" other similar machines or committing "suicide" by shutting itself down would be a task like any other. They would in fact be arbitrary actions.

But humans are the product of evolution, and evolution has built into us a very strong primal concern for our wellbeing. The evidence for this fact permeates human thoughts, actions, and cultures. And of course it could be no other way, because a conscious creature that doesn't care if it dies or suffers or slaughters its kin will not be successful in the long run.

The standard of human wellbeing is not arbitrary. It's rooted deeply in our biology.

That's not a basis for morality, that's a basis for selfishness. I can say with a very high level of confidence that I value my 'wellbeing' more than I value yours and the wellbeing of most of the other several billion people on the planet. Therefore my actions should always put my wellbeing ahead of the wellbeing of virtually everyone else.

 

[Piscivore]

That's not a basis for morality, that's a basis for selfishness. I can say with a very high level of confidence that I value my 'wellbeing' more than I value yours and the wellbeing of most of the other several billion people on the planet. Therefore my actions should always put my wellbeing ahead of the wellbeing of virtually everyone else.

That is the basis of my morality. And I don't see why it should be any other way. I also don't see why this is a "bad" thing, apart from the fact that other people put their own wellbeing ahead of the wellbeing of virtually everyone else (as one would expect) and expect that I should to.

 

[Piscivore]

It would be helpful to me if those claiming this represents utilitarianism to answer those questions proposed by Harris.

Why should logical coherence matter to us?
Why should historical veracity matter to us?
Why should experimental evidence matter to us?

There is no "should matter", except to the people to whom these things already matter.

Lots of people don't even know what logical coherence is, let alone seeing it as something important.

A signifigant number of people don't know history, or just believe whatever they hear, or disbelieve whatever they hear, or simply do not care about historical fact and thus have no concern as to their veracity.

And given the Creationist movement, do I even need to explain how little disregard some people have for experimental evidence?

Seriously, we don't even need to look any farther than this forum to find people like this.

These three factors do matter to some people because they have certain effects or produce results that those people value.

 

[Piscivore]

But humans are the product of evolution, and evolution has built into us a very strong primal concern for our wellbeing.

Did evolution "build this into us" because it (or the universe) cares about human wellbeing?

 

[Piggy]

That's not a basis for morality, that's a basis for selfishness.

It would be if we were not social animals, but we are.

 

[Piggy]

Did evolution "build this into us" because it (or the universe) cares about human wellbeing?

Aw, c'mon, my fishy friend... you already know the answer to that question.

It built it into us because those who tended to care more about their wellbeing, and the wellbeing of others who could help them survive, had more kiddies than those who didn't.

 

[Piggy]

I hope it's clear now how a bio-sci approach dispenses with these notions of intrinsic and instrumental good.

Which, btw, are rather puzzling notions to begin with. Intrinsic good is an absurdity (how can "good" inhere in things and actions, after all?) and instrumental good is a tautology.

 

[AlBell]

Here's a couple of ethical questions for you to use science to answer:

1) Should the cost of higher education be placed on students or the state?

2) Which state benefits should be universal and which should be means tested?

Doing so of course without relying on any "intrinsic good", unscientific, choices hidden (or blatently obvious) somewhere in the analyses.

Then, is the Death Penalty ok?
Abortion? First trimester? Third?

Piggy, you must have forgotten these questions.

Any thoughts?

 

[Piscivore]

It built it into us because those who tended to care more about their wellbeing, and the wellbeing of others who could help them survive, had more kiddies than those who didn't.

So that's arbitrary then. Humans care about humans. And you've gone and made it even more arbitrary- humans care about humans that are themselves, their progeny, and those that benefit them directly.

"Having more kiddies", "Those that help them survive"- how is that not an "instrumental good"?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

That is the basis of my morality. And I don't see why it should be any other way. I also don't see why this is a "bad" thing, apart from the fact that other people put their own wellbeing ahead of the wellbeing of virtually everyone else (as one would expect) and expect that I should to.

The problem I see with 'wellbeing' as the basis of one's morality is that apart from being rather wooly, it could be used to provide justification for social Darwinism and eugenics.

 

[fls]

There is no "should matter", except to the people to whom these things already matter.

Okay. So what is this 'ought' that we are told is our primary concern?

Linda

 

[AlBell]

Okay. So what is this 'ought' that we are told is our primary concern?

Linda

You could try answering the questions posed by myself and Ivor to Piggy that haven't been answered. That might clarify why your question can't be answered (other than by you, of course).

 

[Piscivore]

The problem I see with 'wellbeing' as the basis of one's morality is that apart from being rather wooly, it could be used to provide justification for social Darwinism and eugenics.

Of course. The very notion that "justification" applies at all is a big red flag that morality is subjective.

ETA: Drop in on the "immigration" threads sometime to see social Darwinism alive and well on this very forum- of course, they won't call it that, but how else are you going to describe trying to reserve jobs for "Americans" rather than letting someone else from another country do them? The job doesn't care who does it. Why are some people more entitled to the job because of accident of birth?

 

[Piscivore]

Okay. So what is this 'ought' that we are told is our primary concern?

Who told you that? I didn't.

Ask the person trying to prescribe this "ought" to you.

 

[fls]

Who told you that? I didn't.

Ask the person trying to prescribe this "ought" to you.

Sorry. I didn't realize that your weren't answering my question when you responded to my original query.

Linda

 

[fls]

You could try answering the questions posed by myself and Ivor to Piggy that haven't been answered. That might clarify why your question can't be answered (other than by you, of course).

I already don't know why my question can't be answered. If you don't have an answer, that's fine. I'm looking for someone who does so I can try to understand.

Linda

 

[Piscivore]

Sorry. I didn't realize that your weren't answering my question when you responded to my original query.

Linda

I don't follow. I explained why there was no "should", so you ask me What the "ought" is?

There isn't one. For either. What is your question?

Who is telling you there is "this 'ought' that we are told is our primary concern"?

 

[fls]

You could try answering the questions posed by myself and Ivor to Piggy that haven't been answered. That might clarify why your question can't be answered (other than by you, of course).

I also have to admit that I don't understand why Ivor's questions are being treated as unanswerable.

Linda

 

[fls]

I don't follow. I explained why there was no "should", so you ask me What the "ought" is?

There isn't one. For either. What is your question?

Who is telling you there is "this 'ought' that we are told is our primary concern"?

I am presuming that 'ought' and 'should' are being used synonymously (wouldn't it be easy if we could avoid this conundrum by changing our choice of word ).

I am referring to this:

"Doctors ought to inform test subjects of all relevant risks."

""It is thought that science can help us get what we value, but it can never tell us what we ought to value."

Linda

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, you must have forgotten these questions.

Any thoughts?

On the contrary, I've already asked Ivor why in the world he was asking me these questions, when neither I nor Harris nor Pinker has ever claimed that science will hand us the answers to all our moral questions, and Harris has explicitly said that it won't (and I've agreed). I even explained why this is so, using the "Should we bomb Iran?" example.