Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[Earthborn]

Take the example I used - a gram of gold. A person will give up more to avoid losing that gold than they will give up to buy the gold in the first place. That is, the gold has greater value once they own it than it did before they owned it. Since gold has a specific value based on it's weight, one would have to guess that alterations in its value meant that its weight altered (if it has to be based on our values).

I think you conflating two different concepts of value:

1. The value something has to single person -- which depends on whether one tries to gain it, or whether one tries to avoid losing it.
2. The value something has on the market, which be have a specific value based on it's weight, and is more or less an average of the values individuals ascribe to it as they try to buy it, try to sell it and try to hold on to it.

The first is subjective, the second intersubjective. Objective science will never tell us what the correct value of gold is supposed to be.

 

[Dani]

Okay. So other than their physical location in the brain, happiness and misery are unconnected to any physical events.

It makes you wonder why jail is considered a punishment if misery is unconnected to imprisonment. Oh well.

Linda

I'm talking about the information we can obtain from the observation of the brain. I think I was being clear enough. I didn't even mention any other (external to the brain) physical events, which are irrelevant to my point , so I don't know how you reached that conclusion.

 

[fls]

I think you conflating two different concepts of value:

1. The value something has to single person -- which depends on whether one tries to gain it, or whether one tries to avoid losing it.
2. The value something has on the market, which be have a specific value based on it's weight, and is more or less an average of the values individuals ascribe to it as they try to buy it, try to sell it and try to hold on to it.

The first is subjective, the second intersubjective. Objective science will never tell us what the correct value of gold is supposed to be.

Silly me. What a person is willing to give up in order to gain something or avoid losing something is an entirely different concept from what two people are willing to give up in order to gain something or avoid losing something. Thank you for clearing that up.

Linda

 

[fls]

I'm talking about the information we can obtain from the observation of the brain. I think I was being clear enough. I didn't even mention any other (external to the brain) physical events, which are irrelevant to my point , so I don't know how you reached that conclusion.

When you said this:

Locating the physical substratum that causes happiness and misery doesn't give us any further information about these abstract concepts. That's because we've already established these concepts, and then found their physical correlate, not the other way around.

If the physical correlates which cause happiness and misery are acausal (since you deny that locating the physical substrate tells us anything about a cause, only a result), then it is decidedly odd for us to expect misery over something like imprisonment.

Linda

 

[Dani]

I'm talking about the brain. You must've missed this:

When we recognize these mind states, we can find a correlation between them and their physical substratum by observing the brain activity that is occurring at that moment.

Mind states and their physical correlation in the brain.

 

[JJM 777]

Just wondering, are the people _skeptics_ who expect "ought" morals to exist in the same way as blue colour exists?

It makes you wonder why jail is considered a punishment if misery is unconnected to imprisonment.

Imprisonment used to be misery decades ago. Nowadays it is a nice social place that you can get used to.

 

[Dragoonster]

Just wondering, are the people _skeptics_ who expect "ought" morals to exist in the same way as blue colour exists?

I think they do...after of course the is/ought problem has been ignored/dismissed/sidestepped by declaring "morality must be about the well-being of conscious creatures" as an objective truth.

Then anyone who holds morals which don't attend to the well-being of conscious creatures is objectively/scientifically "in error" as anyone who sees the sky as orange is "in error".

A sensible and rational claim would be "If most people believe morality must be about the well-being of conscious creatures, then..." and one could propose morality based on utilitarianism, absolutism, whatever, depending on how they quantify or value individual/group well-being, etc.

That wouldn't be making a factual claim about morality itself, just about the tendency of human belief. Of course, this is already obvious. What differs seems to be the blank in "Most people believe morality must be about ______"

In a Sharia society it might be "Allah's teachings", and it may be true that most people in that society believes this. In a Christian society "God's Law". In a society in a territory of constant war over not enough resources, "the well-being of our tribe", with that tribe having no problem massacring women and children of competing tribes.

Similarly perhaps a local society is color-blind or has a genetics that causes them to percieve blue as orange. Which they'd be perfectly right to believe is an objective truth, until a different and/or stronger society comes along who sees it as blue, and tells them they're "factually wrong".

Imprisonment used to be misery decades ago. Nowadays it is a nice social place that you can get used to.

And some seem to prefer imprisonment to free life, if Shawshank Redemption and other tales have any merit.

 

[Dragoonster]

That reminds me, how do Harris-type thinkers describe something like murder?

Is murder scientifically wrong?



Is seeing blue as orange scientifically wrong?



Is holding a minority belief/perception scientifically wrong?

Is holding any majority belief/perception scientifically correct?

 

[fls]

That reminds me, how do Harris-type thinkers describe something like murder?

Is murder scientifically wrong?

Is seeing blue as orange scientifically wrong?

Is holding a minority belief/perception scientifically wrong?

Is holding any majority belief/perception scientifically correct?

What characteristics of murder increase and/or reduce misery?

What characteristics lead someone to perceive an object as orange?

What are the effects of diversity in beliefs/perceptions on societal stability?

Linda

 

[AlBell]

I give up. What did you have in mind as answers?

 

[Paulhoff]

Is murder scientifically wrong?

You are kidding right? Science wouldn't come up with that, geezzzz.

Paul

 

[Dragoonster]

What characteristics of murder increase and/or reduce misery?

Not sure what you mean by characteristics. Cleary in the "well-being of conscious creatures" paradigm, if characteristics of a particular murder include rape, torture, amputation etc. but this increases the well-being of the murderer more than it decreases the well-being of the murdered, then in that case rape, torture and amputation would reduce misery. Right?

Or you can further explain Harris' definition of misery and well-being. Is it one person's vs one person's, one person's vs society's, societies' vs societies'...what? How is it calculated? How is it compared?

If you just mean the characteristic of murder is that one person is dead from the act and the other alive, so clearly the dead one has suffered more...there's the "Would you murder Hitler" retort.

Again, what do you call murder, scientifically?

What characteristics lead someone to perceive an object as orange?

One's belief that an object is "orange"; whether because their eyes percieve it thusly, or their society/themselves have labelled it as orange.

Science can demonstrate that different rods/cones whatever tend to respond to different wavelengths; science can never substitute itself for a human perception of these wavelengths to say which perception is "scientifically correct" and which is "scientifically wrong".

Again, is perceiving "blue" as "orange" scientifically wrong? Answering questions with questions is a poor tactic.

What are the effects of diversity in beliefs/perceptions on societal stability?

Linda

Huh? This sounds like a sociological question and answer. I'm interested in scientific answers to moral questions, which is Harris' claim.

Can science answer moral questions or not?

Why does this response of yours not simply end the debate forever because you show tons of scientific, indisputable answers to my questions?

 

[Dragoonster]

I give up. What did you have in mind as answers?

ditto

The onus sure is on Harris to spell things out very convincingly to those who are morally wrong. Or clarify just WTF he's actually claiming.

 

[fls]

Not sure what you mean by characteristics.

Stuff like whether murders are private affairs between individuals, or whether they are systematic and public against groups. Which groups it is directed at. Consequences. Stuff like that.

Cleary in the "well-being of conscious creatures" paradigm, if characteristics of a particular murder include rape, torture, amputation etc. but this increases the well-being of the murderer more than it decreases the well-being of the murdered, then in that case rape, torture and amputation would reduce misery. Right?

Or you can further explain Harris' definition of misery and well-being. Is it one person's vs one person's, one person's vs society's, societies' vs societies'...what? How is it calculated? How is it compared?

If you just mean the characteristic of murder is that one person is dead from the act and the other alive, so clearly the dead one has suffered more...there's the "Would you murder Hitler" retort.

I think you are describing a utilitarian perspective. I think I've mentioned already that I don't think this is a useful approach for these kinds of questions. For example, murder would be expected to have an impact beyond the individuals involved, such as an influence on societal stability and security, which wouldn't be amenable to totting up numbers.

Again, what do you call murder, scientifically?

Intentionally killing a human, although specifics may change depending upon the circumstances under study.

One's belief that an object is "orange"; whether because their eyes percieve it thusly, or their society/themselves have labelled it as orange.

Science can demonstrate that different rods/cones whatever tend to respond to different wavelengths; science can never substitute itself for a human perception of these wavelengths to say which perception is "scientifically correct" and which is "scientifically wrong".

Again, is perceiving "blue" as "orange" scientifically wrong?

Science doesn't do that. Instead it would discover what distinguishes someone who calls a colour "orange" from others who call it "blue" and thereby discover differences in colour receptors or a difference in processing pathways.

Answering questions with questions is a poor tactic.

Sorry. That wasn't my intention. You asked how science would see these questions. Science wouldn't come up with the kinds of questions you asked. I changed them to examples of the kinds of questions which are asked instead.

Huh? This sounds like a sociological question and answer. I'm interested in scientific answers to moral questions, which is Harris' claim.

Can science answer moral questions or not?

Why does this response of yours not simply end the debate forever because you show tons of scientific, indisputable answers to my questions?

The problem is that your questions are not valid, not that there aren't scientific answers to moral questions.

Linda

 

[JoelKatz]

I think you conflating two different concepts of value:

1. The value something has to single person -- which depends on whether one tries to gain it, or whether one tries to avoid losing it.
2. The value something has on the market, which be have a specific value based on it's weight, and is more or less an average of the values individuals ascribe to it as they try to buy it, try to sell it and try to hold on to it.

The first is subjective, the second intersubjective. Objective science will never tell us what the correct value of gold is supposed to be.

Just as objective science will never tell us what a person's height is. It can tell us the height of any particular person, it can tell us an average height, but there is no such thing as "a person's height" as an actual measurement independent of the person whose height is being measured.

As you are using the term "subjective", it is a type of objective measurement that differs from person to person such as height, weight, age, and so on.

 

[Dragoonster]

Stuff like whether murders are private affairs between individuals, or whether they are systematic and public against groups. Which groups it is directed at. Consequences. Stuff like that.

So some murder is scientifically fine (aka "reduces misery")? Still don't understand the distinction.

I think you are describing a utilitarian perspective. I think I've mentioned already that I don't think this is a useful approach for these kinds of questions. For example, murder would be expected to have an impact beyond the individuals involved, such as an influence on societal stability and security, which wouldn't be amenable to totting up numbers.

So what? "society stability and security"--sure sounds utilitarian to me.

Intentionally killing a human, although specifics may change depending upon the circumstances under study.

I'm asking for your defintion per Harris and Science Answers Moral Questions.

Is murder scientifically wrong? Right? Can science answer this or not?

Science doesn't do that. Instead it would discover what distinguishes someone who calls a colour "orange" from others who call it "blue" and thereby discover differences in colour receptors or a difference in processing pathways.

Well yeah. Science would do the same thing for people who view morality differently. That's my point.

Again though, are you differing with Harris here? I have no problem with science evaluating why particular humans see morals in their particular way. I have a HUGE problem with Harris insisting that his or the majority way is the right scientific (objective) way.

He's not making a small claim here. He's making a HUGE claim and should provide ovewhelming a) logical; b) scientific, c) moral, d) philosophical "proof". So far he hasn't come close to any of these.

Sorry. That wasn't my intention. You asked how science would see these questions. Science wouldn't come up with the kinds of questions you asked. I changed them to examples of the kinds of questions which are asked instead.

Science wouldn't come up with moral questions to definitively answer?

What in the hell does "science can answer moral questions" mean? Is it a baking recipe?

The problem is that your questions are not valid, not that there aren't scientific answers to moral questions.

Linda

I disagree...but for the sake of argument...

Present a single valid Moral Question that Science can Answer.

Show scientific proof of course, otherwise your reply will make no sense.

 

[fls]

So some murder is scientifically fine (aka "reduces misery")? Still don't understand the distinction.

It's not a particularly remarkable observation. Scenarios were someone was murdered because of an act of self-defense are distinguished from someone who was murdered to satisfy sadistic pleasures.

So what? "society stability and security"--sure sounds utilitarian to me.

I don't know why you hear that. Maybe the mention of consequences is confusing (since utilitarianism changes one or a few consequences into a metric)?

I'm asking for your defintion per Harris and Science Answers Moral Questions.

Yes, that's what my answer was directed at.

Is murder scientifically wrong? Right? Can science answer this or not?

If you ask a real world question about murder, rather than the sort of useless question you offer above.

Well yeah. Science would do the same thing for people who view morality differently. That's my point.

Like discovering that psychopaths lack empathy and in what ways it alters their responses to questions.

Again though, are you differing with Harris here? I have no problem with science evaluating why particular humans see morals in their particular way. I have a HUGE problem with Harris insisting that his or the majority way is the right scientific (objective) way.

He's not making a small claim here. He's making a HUGE claim and should provide ovewhelming a) logical; b) scientific, c) moral, d) philosophical "proof". So far he hasn't come close to any of these.

That's because Harris isn't making that claim.

Science wouldn't come up with moral questions to definitively answer?

What in the hell does "science can answer moral questions" mean? Is it a baking recipe?

More like, moral questions do not take the form that you presented.

I disagree...but for the sake of argument...

Present a single valid Moral Question that Science can Answer.

Show scientific proof of course, otherwise your reply will make no sense.

What characteristics distinguish scenarios in which the death penalty is used for egregious crimes from those in which it is not? If retribution/punishment, fear, cost-effectiveness, or deterence are those characteristics, are they satisfied by the use of the death penalty? What characteristics distinguish crime for which the death penalty is proposed from those where it is not? What socio-political characteristics are associated with the use of the death penalty? What socio-political characteristics are associated with access to resources, life expectancy, and the presence of positive experiences?

Linda

 

[Dragoonster]

It's not a particularly remarkable observation. Scenarios were someone was murdered because of an act of self-defense are distinguished from someone who was murdered to satisfy sadistic pleasures.

Okay, I'm not understanding your definition of "murder". In your example of self-defense, it wouldn't be "murder", at least according to Western legality.

Can you give any examples where non-selfdefensive murder would be good for human well-being? Oh...or do these not exist and any non-selfdefensive murder is morally/scientifically bad? Why?

I don't know why you hear that. Maybe the mention of consequences is confusing (since utilitarianism changes one or a few consequences into a metric)?

"Murder would be expected to have an impact beyond those involved". Maybe it's utilitarianism, or I was wrong and it's consequentalism, or some hybrid.

...or maybe my labels don't matter at all and you and Harris should simply say what science has calculated on the "murder" issue. And thus do away with all these silly philosophical/ethical labels. Waiting...

Yes, that's what my answer was directed at.

Okay. I would've preferred you answered with some actual science answering moral questions, since that's the topic.

If you ask a real world question about murder, rather than the sort of useless question you offer above.

WHAT THE ****.

What are you advocating for here? Science's ability to answer "real world questions" in which case I'D LIKE A SCIENTIFIC ANSWER.

Or are you advocating for Harris' claim of SCIENCE CAN ANSWER MORAL QUESTIONS in which case I'D LIKE A SCIENTIFIC ANSWER.

Is "is it okay to murder?" a moral question? YES/NO.

Can "science answer moral questions?" YES/NO.

Can "is it okay to murder?" be answered with science? YES/NO.

Like discovering that psychopaths lack empathy and in what ways it alters their responses to questions.

They "lack" what? "Empathy" is a revered scientific value? What is your scientific rationale for empathy mattering at all?

Are you saying "empathy" is as scientifically designated as "blue"? Please expand.

That's because Harris isn't making that claim.

...

"Science can answer moral questions"

YES/NO (?)

More like, moral questions do not take the form that you presented.

Okay, give me a moral question as you and Harris present it, and demonstrate why/how it's scientifically answered.

What characteristics distinguish scenarios in which the death penalty is used for egregious crimes from those in which it is not? If retribution/punishment, fear, cost-effectiveness, or deterence are those characteristics, are they satisfied by the use of the death penalty? What characteristics distinguish crime for which the death penalty is proposed from those where it is not? What socio-political characteristics are associated with the use of the death penalty? What socio-political characteristics are associated with access to resources, life expectancy, and the presence of positive experiences?

Linda

These questions are typically answered by a moral consideration, with input from sociology, religion, etc. They are not answered by science (except ancillarily as a tool for sociologists, and believe it or not theists).

Not that "typically" is a defense of the norm. But if one seeks to upend the norm, one should certainly bring a lot. What has Harris brung? What have you?

"Murder is right"

How are you going to scientifically going to tell me it's wrong? There are a literal world of religious, sociological, anthropological, legal, evolutionary, psychological reasons murder is not "right". And yet there's a smaller world of humans who thinks it is "right".

If you or Harris wants to join these various institutions/agents you certainly should substantively demonstrate whether, why, and how murder is right or wrong. And if you're going to hold your own view as the One True View, good grief, you REALLY need to bring it.

Obviously you should not cull from sociology or evolution for your stance. It should solely be from Science. Tall Order. Incredibly, Impossibly Tall.

Or you or Harris can admit that every argument you make is based on some axiom that's as arbitrary as the Ten Commandments. "Thou Shalt Not Deprive Another of Well-Being". With "well-being" just as undefined as multiple Biblical imperatives and phrases.

eta: or even if it's defined, still arbitrary and completely unconvincing

 

[JoelKatz]

Or you or Harris can admit that every argument you make is based on some axiom that's as arbitrary as the Ten Commandments. "Thou Shalt Not Deprive Another of Well-Being". With "well-being" just as undefined as multiple Biblical imperatives and phrases.

eta: or even if it's defined, still arbitrary and completely unconvincing

But this is a universal refutation of everything. Every argument a human being makes is based on his senses and perceptions. If you wish to call the result of these perceptions 'arbitrary' or 'axioms', then all input is arbitrary or an axiom. There is no output without input.

Our moral sense is just like our vision. We 'look' at the world and we 'see' aspects of it which we then become aware of and can process. That these senses are 'correct' is an axiom without which there is no science.

Note that these are necessarily correct in a very technical sense. Just as there are optical illusions, blind spots, colorblind people, and so on, our moral sense is almost certainly capable of similar defects and limitations. It is for science to find these defects and limitations, but the input is sacred. There is no science if you reject sensory input's inherent validity. (Of course, *what* it means is a scientific question.)

It is for science to explain why we see what we see. It is for science to explain what in the world accounts for what we see. But it is incoherent and unscientific to reject the input as arbitrary or unjustified. It's the input!

When you look at something, you see things. You put what you see into words. And you present those words to other people as the input from which you reasoned. Others can certainly question the validity of the process you used to put the input into words. And others can disbelieve your claim to have received a particular input.

If I say I saw the inside of a UFO with aliens, you can claim I'm lying. You can claim I'm hallucinating. You can claim I saw something but misinterpreted what I saw. But if I'm not lying, then some scientific explanation of why I saw what I saw must exist -- of course it need not involve UFOs or aliens. It does no good to tell me, again assuming I'm not lying, to say "That's just an axiom. You can't prove you saw it. It's arbitrary." The purpose of science is to explain and predict what we will sense. Dismissing it is the opposite of science.

I sense that torturing children for pleasure is wrong. You can call me and almost everyone else in the world liars, and imagine some vast conspiracy to misrepresent moral senses. But to dismiss it as arbitrary is nonsensical. (And you can reject any scientific conclusion by imagining a vast conspiracy to misrepresent results.)

 

[JoelKatz]

Harris is arguing: "Because a pencil half-submerged in a cup of water looks disjoint, it must actually be disjoint."

Dragoonster is countering: "Because you cannot prove a pencil half-submerged in a cup of water really is disjoint, it is unreasonable for you accept that it looks disjoint."

Both positions are wrong. That a pencil half-submerged in a cup of water looks disjoint is undeniable, unless you think everyone who has ever looked at such a thing is lying. And even if you look at one yourself and for some reason it doesn't appear disjoint to you, there's still the fact that it looks disjoint to everyone else. Whether or not this means the pencil actually *is* disjoint, however, is a purely scientific question. (Or even whether "is disjoint" is meaningful. Something scientific explains why it looks disjoint. We just have to figure out what.)