Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[Beth]

You are talking about studying art with science. It's just such an obvious and broadly-accepted aspect of science that it almost seems like something else.

When you use art to understand our world, you are doing nothing different from what you do when you read a scientific paper. The primary difference is that the emphasis is usually on the thought processes of the writer rather than quite so directly on the content. But this is merely a difference in emphasis.

I think we'll just have to disagree then.

Looking at what something has produced to understand both the producer and the raw materials on which it operated is a scientific process.

Yes. But that is not what is commonly referred to as art.

Art is just another thing we can look at.

Sure. And we can also look at the scientific process as an art. But that isn't what I was talking about. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

That's not what I said. You created this false dichotomy between science and art, not me.

I didn't create it, I observed it as a consequence of your position. I think both art and science qualify as tools we use to understand our world. I understand that you don't agree they are two tools, but consider art to be a subset of science. (Is that a correct paraphrase?)

Can you please explain what you talking about when you say

rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable....The stakes are high, as rejection of precisely these claims has been and continues to be responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths.

What do you think qualifies as explaining the world in a non-rational way if art does not? And how has that approach led to a "significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths"?

 

[JoelKatz]

What do you think qualifies as explaining the world in a non-rational way if art does not?

Any system based on beliefs that are not rationally justified.

And how has that approach led to a "significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths"?

You can start with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The hijackers were motivated by the belief that if you think god wants you to do something, you should do it.

 

[annnnoid]

Explain precisely and explicitly how art and the process of creating it are rationally justified.

 

[Beth]

Any system based on beliefs that are not rationally justified.

???? - That's all systems of belief. Every system of belief must begin with at least one axiom about the way the world is that cannot be rationally or empirically justified. You'll have to get a bit more specific than that. Perhaps you could explain how you delineate between rational tools, like art and science, and non-rational tools?

You can start with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The hijackers were motivated by the belief that if you think god wants you to do something, you should do it.

That's a good answer. I'll accept Islam as an example of a non-rational tool to understand our world. But Islam is also a tool with which we humans shape our world.
The U.S. determination to spread democracy has led to our involvement in a number of wars. Democracy isn't so much a tool for understanding our world as it is for shaping it. Perhaps that is what motivates men to kill others for the sake of their beliefs?

Now, given Islam as an example, how do you scientifically and rationally justify your belief that:

rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable....The stakes are high, as rejection of precisely these claims has been and continues to be responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths.

Giving an example of the misery and death like 9-11 no more justifies your belief than the nuclear crisis in Japan would justify someone making such a statement about science.

 

[JoelKatz]

???? - That's all systems of belief.

No, it's not.

Every system of belief must begin with at least one axiom about the way the world is that cannot be rationally or empirically justified.

You can start with any axioms you want. Axioms need not be justified because results are always conditional on the truth of the axiom.

There is nothing irrational about choosing axioms that are not true or cannot ever be true. For example, every mathematician who says "let X be a prime number" is beginning with an axiom that is not "true".

To put it another way, rationality specifically permits arbitrary axioms provided they are properly carried through. It's the same way "x=(x+1)-1" permits any arbitrary value for x.

You'll have to get a bit more specific than that. Perhaps you could explain how you delineate between rational tools, like art and science, and non-rational tools?

I don't think it's possible for you and I to have that kind of discussion when we have so many much more fundamental disagreements.

Giving an example of the misery and death like 9-11 no more justifies your belief than the nuclear crisis in Japan would justify someone making such a statement about science.

Oh, I agree, it doesn't do it by itself. I'm not claiming that I'm presenting the entire reasoning chain that leads to my conclusions. You and I are way too far apart on fundamental issues to do that.

In fact, though, the nuclear crisis in Japan does permit people to make many rational statements about science. For example, it's indisputable that science has given human beings the capability to do massive amounts of harm in addition to good. That is a rational lesson to take from the crisis in Japan (though it's certainly not anywhere near the best example of that lesson).

I'm not so much talking about the specific conclusions people reach from the specific bits of evidence. I'm arguing for the ground rules. If a person argues that the terrorist attack of 9/11 can be blamed on Islam or that the Japanese nuclear crisis means that deployment of nuclear power should be halted or anything else for that matter, the question is what the ground rules should be for analyzing that claims? What tools are legitimate to use?

 

[JoelKatz]

Explain precisely and explicitly how art and the process of creating it are rationally justified.

I don't believe that I said either of those things required any such justification. But seeing that question, it's obvious that you and I are too far apart on what rationality *is* to have that conversation.

But, to put it simply, if a person feels a need to express themselves, and art fulfills that need, that is a rational justification for creating art. One need not have a full scientific understanding of how or why something works to use the scientific observation that it does in fact work.

 

[fls]

Evasion --as usual-- noted.

I wasn't evading. I asked you to clarify your question. Asking when human life begins isn't a particularly useful question because the answer depends upon in what way it becomes relevant to a judgement.

Maybe an easier one for practice? What does Science tell us about the immorality of burkas?

I suspect that the immorality of a burqa would depend upon whether there was force or strong coercion behind its use, rather than the garment itself.

Linda

 

[AlBell]

Evasion --as usual-- noted.

I wasn't evading. I asked you to clarify your question. Asking when human life begins isn't a particularly useful question because the answer depends upon in what way it becomes relevant to a judgement.

I actually don't see the question needing any particular context for Science to answer it. Of course Science can't answer it in a way that suits everyone with or without context.

Maybe an easier one for practice? What does Science tell us about the immorality of burkas?

I suspect that the immorality of a burqa would depend upon whether there was force or strong coercion behind its use, rather than the garment itself.

Linda

I see. You and I are subject to rather significant coercion that we should appear in public 'appropriately dressed'. That must be immoral too.

 

[Paulhoff]

Of course Science can't answer it in a way that suits everyone with or without context.

If I understand this right, what moral idea does suits everyone now?

Paul

 

[AlBell]

He who has the gold makes the rules.

In modern society that buys the might to make it right.

 

[CapelDodger]

I wonder what a poll from the middle-east would say about the way Western women dress. Is there any scientific reason why we should draw conclusions from one poll and not the other?

No, and JJM 777 didn't sugget there would be. The subject in hand was the burka, immorality thereof.

I imagine there are polls available on the middle-eastern view of Western women's garb, and no doubt they're interesting. And whether one should draw conclusions from polls is an interesting question.

Science has provided statistics to evaluate polls. That's something it can do.

Since morality is the summed opinion of a group at some point in time, I'm not sure there's much more science can do. Sam Harris is full of it, in my opinion.

 

[CapelDodger]

I actually don't see the question needing any particular context for Science to answer it. Of course Science can't answer it in a way that suits everyone with or without context.

Science can answer the question in a context. For instance, science can tell us when a foetus is potentially independently viable. Not to the minute, nor day, even in a particular case, but certainly a fertilized egg-cell isn't it. A baby emerging from the birth-canal is.

No other system can do any better, and most can't even do that well.

 

[CapelDodger]

He who has the gold makes the rules.

In modern society that buys the might to make it right.

When bankers and billionaires swing from lamp-posts with the crowd cheering along, there will be a new modern morality.

The mutability of morality is what makes history such a fascinating subject. Imagine the history of an intelligent hive-species, where morality would never come up as a concept. Their scientists (chemists, biologists, statisticians) could actually explain the entire meaning of life and behaviour. Dull history though.

 

[CapelDodger]

You can start with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The hijackers were motivated by the belief that if you think god wants you to do something, you should do it.

I could argue that they were motivated by self-glorification, for whom a supreme being was merely an audience. It's a motivation which has long been exploited by old men sending young men to die for them. While they hide down holes, and ensure their own deaths are shrouded in mystery, and even doubt. Osama bin Laden, the first Sunni Hidden Imam.

Most people of belief are easily persuaded that their god wants them to do pretty much what they are doing day-to-day. Now that it's all going off in the Arab world, where are the jihadists? And who really cares?

 

[Paulhoff]

He who has the gold makes the rules.

In modern society that buys the might to make it right.

well than............

He who has the guns makes the rules.............


Paul

 

[CapelDodger]

The U.S. determination to spread democracy ...

There is not, and never has been, any US determination to spread democracy. Nor even defend it.

Democracy isn't so much a tool for understanding our world as it is for shaping it.

Of course.

Perhaps that is what motivates men to kill others for the sake of their beliefs?

If those beliefs are that they're killing to protect kith and kin, hearth and home, and their way of life, then beliefs have been a motivation for a very long time.

Going to war for profit and for self-glorification are of equally long standing.

 

[Beth]

No, it's not.

I'm afraid I must differ with you on that matter.

You can start with any axioms you want. Axioms need not be justified because results are always conditional on the truth of the axiom.

That is not what I mean by axioms. I mean statements that are assumed true because some such axiom is necessary in order to develop any type of explanatory system to explain how the world works.
Axioms such as "The universe is governed by consistent rules that humans can deduce through observation and experiment." or "The universe is governed by a capricious god that can send earthquakes and hurricanes to punish those he/she considers evil."

ALL such explanatory systems require at least one such axiom.

There is nothing irrational about choosing axioms that are not true or cannot ever be true.

Interesting. Why do you consider Islam an irrational tool then?

I don't think it's possible for you and I to have that kind of discussion when we have so many much more fundamental disagreements.

I think that how you are defining what is rational and what is not may be the fundamental disagreement.

For example, I've already discovered that while I see art as non-rational, you see art as rational.

Oh, I agree, it doesn't do it by itself. I'm not claiming that I'm presenting the entire reasoning chain that leads to my conclusions. You and I are way too far apart on fundamental issues to do that.

We don't need agreement for me to follow your logic. I just need to understand your fundamental definition of things like 'rational'.

I'm arguing for the ground rules. If a person argues that the terrorist attack of 9/11 can be blamed on Islam or that the Japanese nuclear crisis means that deployment of nuclear power should be halted or anything else for that matter, the question is what the ground rules should be for analyzing that claims? What tools are legitimate to use?

Very good questions indeed. And what do you think the answers are?

 

[Beth]

morality is the summed opinion of a group at some point in time

That's a nice concise definition of morality. I like it!

There is not, and never has been, any US determination to spread democracy. Nor even defend it.

I won't argue that, I can only say that is what I was taught in Junior High. I now suspect that much of what I was taught in those social studies classes bears little resemblance to reality as I perceive it today.

Of course.

If those beliefs are that they're killing to protect kith and kin, hearth and home, and their way of life, then beliefs have been a motivation for a very long time.

Going to war for profit and for self-glorification are of equally long standing.

Quite true. We seem to be mostly in agreement on this thread.

 

[Dragoonster]

I don't believe that I said either of those things required any such justification. But seeing that question, it's obvious that you and I are too far apart on what rationality *is* to have that conversation.

But, to put it simply, if a person feels a need to express themselves, and art fulfills that need, that is a rational justification for creating art. One need not have a full scientific understanding of how or why something works to use the scientific observation that it does in fact work.

So if a person feels a need to express themselves, and torture-murder fulfills that need, that is a rational justification for torture-murder?

You can start with any axioms you want. Axioms need not be justified because results are always conditional on the truth of the axiom.

There is nothing irrational about choosing axioms that are not true or cannot ever be true. For example, every mathematician who says "let X be a prime number" is beginning with an axiom that is not "true".

To put it another way, rationality specifically permits arbitrary axioms provided they are properly carried through. It's the same way "x=(x+1)-1" permits any arbitrary value for x.

I agree. So what is it about Harris' axioms that makes you think they are based on or can be validated by science, versus Dahmer's or Bundy's axioms?

Note, I'm not asking for a moral answer, ala "Harris' axiom gives more well-being to more conscious creatures than Dahmer/Bundy's axioms". I'm asking for how science distinguishes these axioms (and, apparently, says Harris' axiom is scientifically "right" whereas Dahmer/Bundy's axioms are scientifically "wrong").

This thread is kind of hilarious. Full of people pimping Harris and claiming science can answer moral questions, yet not offering a single (cogent) example of science answering a moral question.

In this context, people like me are people who maintain that rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable.

Uh, okay...Ted Bundy desired to rationally understand the Universe; he relied on sensory input; his sensory input noted women he wanted to rape and kill; his rational approach led to "rape and killing is good". Is his view inherently indisputable?

p.s. if you dispute this due to sensory input not equalling morality, then you may not be believing your own thesis. Where is morally derived? Sensory input? Brainstates?

Where else does one see women cover themselves completely for fear that men will not be able to control themselves but for religion. I don’t know how that idea would ever come about thru science to begin with let alone ask what science has to say about it.

Hrm? If it can't ever come about by "science", then your/Western morals/practices cannot ever come about by "science" either. Right? Wrong? Only the preferred culture is blessed with using "science" as a crutch?

"I don't know how women dressing in bikinis showing midriff and faces would ever come about thru science." ---Islamic Scientist Fundamentalist/Idiot.

 

[AlBell]

Only the preferred culture is blessed with using "science" as a crutch?

Nah. The gold -- and guns -- will be used to ensure preferred "Science" demonstrates a culture to be the preferred one.