Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

AlBell said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can you give me an example where an action would be distinguished on the basis of the presence of human life? For example, would you distinguish between the theft of human embryos and the theft of human eggs from a cold storage unit? Or would you distinguish between the theft of human embryos and a failure to select human embryos for implantation?

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

Well, it turns out that my daughter does not get beaten if she happens to wear something which doesn't conform to her school's dress code. And if a fire starts in my house while I'm in the shower, I'm not obliged to burn down with my house, rather than escaping to the street, because I happen to be naked.

Linda
 
fls said:
Can you give me an example where an action would be distinguished on the basis of the presence of human life? For example, would you distinguish between the theft of human embryos and the theft of human eggs from a cold storage unit? Or would you distinguish between the theft of human embryos and a failure to select human embryos for implantation?
Click to expand...
Good questions. An even better one is the morality of possessing human embryos not in a womb.


Well, it turns out that my daughter does not get beaten if she happens to wear something which doesn't conform to her school's dress code.
Click to expand...
Yet if inappropriate adherence to dress code becomes a habit, the school may well expel her.

And if a fire starts in my house while I'm in the shower, I'm not obliged to burn down with my house, rather than escaping to the street, because I happen to be naked.

Linda
Click to expand...
Yeah, I did mention "appropriate" which to most implies situation dependent.
 
Dragoonster said:
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?
Click to expand...
Why is it so hard for you to get by this simple idea, Sam Harris never ever said that science was the only way to come to morals.

Did you know that a tool-box doesn't just have hammers in it.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
fls said:
In what way would that be seen as immoral?
Click to expand...
You suggest this moral / immoral question can be answered by Science? I suspect not.

We distinguish between ways in which reproduction is achieved?
Click to expand...
Some appear to: At least that's my interpretation of the current state of world-wide opinion.


Apparently not.
Click to expand...
It doesn't require Science for most who are not strict wahhabists to agree that was both immoral, and should be illegal.

Feel free to start a thread bashing radical Islam; Science won't be needed to detect the immoralities-by-acclaim therein.
 
Paulhoff said:
Why is it so hard for you to get by this simple idea, Sam Harris never ever said that science was the only way to come to morals.

Did you know that a tool-box doesn't just have hammers in it.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

Isn't Harris implying that when he thinks science has answered a moral question that the answer it provides should trump answers provided by any other methods which result in behaviours that he believes are not supported by science?
 
Beth said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's not an axiom. That's the same misuse of the term 'axiom' I was talking about earlier in this thread.

Axioms such as "The universe is governed by consistent rules that humans can deduce through observation and experiment."
Click to expand...
That's not an axiom. That's a conclusion. It's one that's very well validated. But it's one for which contrary evidence could, theoretically, arise in which case science would have to reject it.

or "The universe is governed by a capricious god that can send earthquakes and hurricanes to punish those he/she considers evil."
Click to expand...
That was an assumption made at one time and scientific evidence has helped us to reject it.

ALL such explanatory systems require at least one such axiom.
Click to expand...
No, that's false. There is no requirement for 'axioms' of that type, and that is not what people ordinarily mean by an 'axiom'.

I think that how you are defining what is rational and what is not may be the fundamental disagreement.
Click to expand...
Something is rational if its belief is justified by a reasoning chain ultimately linked to perception.

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

We don't need agreement for me to follow your logic. I just need to understand your fundamental definition of things like 'rational'.
Click to expand...
Actually, you're quite right. But it's not about definition, it's about how things actually work. You think that scientific systems are built upon assumptions whose truth is outside of question.

And it's true that any particular scientific experiment is based on certain assumptions. For example, if we measure the effect of penicillin on the growth of a bacterium, we might assume that it doesn't matter what day of the week we start the experiment. Or we might assume that labeling the petri dishes in marker on the outside won't have any effect on the growth.

But, and this is the important part, we fully recognize that the conclusions of this experiment are valid if, and only if, those assumptions are factually correct.

Science involves no 'assumptions' or 'axioms' of the type you are referring. That the universe is regular and predictable is a scientific conclusion, not an axiom. (And see my earlier post upthread for the proper use of axioms.)
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Isn't Harris implying that when he thinks science has answered a moral question that the answer it provides should trump answers provided by any other methods which result in behaviours that he believes are not supported by science?
Click to expand...
It seems you like many that read the bible have a filter, I have not in anyway read or heard him say that science was the only way to find morals. Please point to a quote by him that says what you think it says that science is the only way.

Please.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
JoelKatz said:
That's not an axiom. That's the same misuse of the term 'axiom' I was talking about earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a misuse of the term, but I'm not interested in debating that. Whatever you wish to call it, some such assumption is needed in any system that attempts to explain the world.
The universe is governed by consistent rules that humans can deduce through observation and experiment.
Click to expand...
That's not an axiom. That's a conclusion. It's one that's very well validated. But it's one for which contrary evidence could, theoretically, arise in which case science would have to reject it.
Click to expand...
We'll simply have to disagree again. Calling the statement a conclusion is just wrong IMO. How could such a statement ever be proven false?

If a statement can't be proven false under any circumstances, how can it be considered a scientific conclusion?
That was an assumption made at one time and scientific evidence has helped us to reject it.
Click to expand...
Certainly scientific evidence has helped many people in modern society to reject that axiom. However, there are still humans who hold it to be true. Further, like the first axiom (BTW I don't mind using another term rather than axiom if you like, but I can't call it 'conclusion' without feeling like a liar), it cannot be proven to be true or false. At least not without some rather rigorous definitions for things like 'gods' and 'evil' that are notoriously slippery to get specifics on.
No, that's false. There is no requirement for 'axioms' of that type, and that is not what people ordinarily mean by an 'axiom'.
Click to expand...
Yet, apparently I'm not the only person who has used axiom in that manner. And apparently professional philosophers would beg to differ with you regarding the requirement of some sort of starting assumption. After all, that's why Harris is getting all that flack about getting an ought from an is.
Something is rational if its belief is justified by a reasoning chain ultimately linked to perception.
Click to expand...
So you would agree that belief in ghosts and bigfoot is justified by those who have perceived them? Is that correct? Or did you mean something else by that statement?
Actually, you're quite right. But it's not about definition, it's about how things actually work. You think that scientific systems are built upon assumptions whose truth is outside of question.
Click to expand...
That's not quite what I think because I don't consider any assumptions as outside of question. I just think it's important to be aware of what the assumptions and conditions are. If you are unaware of them, you won't think to question them.

BTW, I can't help but notice you've failed to provide the logical argument that was requested to support your original statement.
Science involves no 'assumptions' or 'axioms' of the type you are referring.
Click to expand...

No thanks. This thread is far too long to go searching for some previous post of that nature. I'll simply think you are pedantic about the use of certain terms and simply agree to disagree about whether some such assumption underlies the system of thought that we term "science".
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
Isn't Harris implying that when he thinks science has answered a moral question that the answer it provides should trump answers provided by any other methods which result in behaviours that he believes are not supported by science?
Click to expand...

Not unless he explicitly sets his "scientific" method above others, such as philosophy, or gut-feeling, or the "eeeeeew!" factor.
 
CapelDodger said:
Not unless he explicitly sets his "scientific" method above others, such as philosophy, or gut-feeling, or the "eeeeeew!" factor.
Click to expand...


...does he? I would suspect that would be his goal...implicitly or explicitly? Methinks he wants an objective morality...something that renders 'religion' obsolete. If his science-based morality claims that ability, then trumping mere philosophy, gut-feeling, or personal opinion is child's play.


Recently read Scott Atrans review of Harris book: http://nationalinterest.org/bookreview/sam-harriss-guide-nearly-everything-4893

…one of the better quotes:

You can bet the bank that Harris’s committee of moral experts would not come down on the side of the French or Mark Twain. (“The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don’t want, drink what you don’t like, and do what you’d rather not.”)

Another interesting quote was this (for those who so enjoy accusing religion of being responsible for so many wars throughout history…doubtless one of the motivations for Joel’s crusade to rid the world of something he regards as "responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of deaths".......I guess you got that one wrong Joel):

In the Encyclopedia of Wars, Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod surveyed nearly one thousand eight hundred violent conflicts throughout history, and less than 10 percent were religious. Religious motives accounted for few of the more than 100–150 million deaths in twentieth-century wars (mostly caused by World Wars I and II, Russia’s and China’s civil wars, along with Stalin’s and Mao’s purges).
 
annnnoid said:
...does he? I would suspect that would be his goal...implicitly or explicitly?
Click to expand...

When we get to what's implicit we hit the swamp.

Methinks he wants an objective morality...something that renders 'religion' obsolete.
Click to expand...

This may well be the case. He certainly seems to want attention.

If his science-based morality claims that ability, then trumping mere philosophy, gut-feeling, or personal opinion is child's play.
Click to expand...

You've not taken on many hardball philosophers, I suspect. They've been creaming Sam Harris for decades now. I think he enjoys it, frankly.
 
Paulhoff said:
It seems you like many that read the bible have a filter, I have not in anyway read or heard him say that science was the only way to find morals. Please point to a quote by him that says what you think it says that science is the only way.

Please.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

So these following statements DON'T imply that their answers are priviledged over any other sort of answer (?):

"Islam can answer moral questions"

"Christianity can answer moral questions"

"Hedonism can answer moral questions"

If they don't, then what sort of moral answers that are not-science would Harris accept as trumping science's take on morality? What examples of this does he cite in his book or TED speech? (well, okay, he does have a fetish for Buddhism, so you may be right)

But would Harris have been better served/understood if he'd said "Science can answer moral questions, except when other moral systems answer them better." You really think he believes this and isn't trying to put Science in the sole driver's seat re: morality question-answering?
 
I don't. Why do you?

And of course your statement implicitly suggests that if Science (in your case case medical science) can do something of course it must be moral.
 
Last edited:
Dragoonster said:
So these following statements DON'T imply that their answers are priviledged over any other sort of answer (?):

"Islam can answer moral questions"

"Christianity can answer moral questions"

"Hedonism can answer moral questions"

If they don't, then what sort of moral answers that are not-science would Harris accept as trumping science's take on morality? What examples of this does he cite in his book or TED speech? (well, okay, he does have a fetish for Buddhism, so you may be right)

But would Harris have been better served/understood if he'd said "Science can answer moral questions, except when other moral systems answer them better." You really think he believes this and isn't trying to put Science in the sole driver's seat re: morality question-answering?
Click to expand...
Fetish for Buddhism, that is funny.

Please tell me where you morals come from?

And of course we all know that Science is all inflexible and never ever changes when new information is learned, unlike the above religions.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom