Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

But then your statement is completely meaningless.

You say "everyone wants to avoid a bad life". How is bad defined? As those things that we want to avoid. So you are saying everyone wants to avoid those things they want to avoid. Well of course that's true, but it doesn't really tell us anything.

UNLESS your definition of bad involves some objective measure and as such badness doesn't purely depend on what that person feels is bad. But then you would have to tell me what this "objectively bad life" is that everyone wants to avoid.
 
well, if all you are saying is that humans generally have a will to live, then yes. But the way you put that "we value life over death" makes it seem like you are making a bolder claim.

I suppose what's more relevant is how such near-universal human traits as wanting to live would translate into a universal system of moral values.
 
Kuko 4000 said:
It has to do with what people value. Is your claim that a person who is suicidal would not want a better life if it were somehow magically possible? I'm talking about what people value, not what they see as realistic or possible in their current situations. The whole reason why they are committing a suicide is the avoidance of suffering, and I already wrote about that.
Click to expand...

Suicidal people "value" the end of life. aka--what exactly do you mean by "value"? And why do hypotheticals have any say in this, or any say in a scientific morality? Should we perhaps instead live in the real world?

Sure, a suicidee would want a magical better life. So would a heroin addict. So would a woman about to kill her two newborns because she thinks Jesus told her to do so. If magic is possible, we should all be blissfull all the time. Maigc isn't possible. Suffering exists. Ending suffering is sometimes such a priority that it means ending life itself.

But, maybe I'm misapprehending Harris' entire argument. Is he saying that in Magic-land, his theories make sense? Well, maybe they do. I haven't thought much about magic-land.

We, as in human beings. We want to avoid things that lead us to "bad life" (suffering, etc.) and we want to increase things that lead us to "good life" (pleasure, etc.). This is my understanding of human beings anyway, (1) I'd like to hear exceptions to this and (2) how it relates to the discussion of how we should build our moral guides.
Click to expand...

1) Masochists (not masochists who derive pleasure from masochism, but true masochists)

2) You use the word "we". That to me means "all of us". I think it's obvious all of us don't agree. Harris seems to also think "we/all of us" prefer a certain moral imperative. "Well-being of conscious creatures" or something. I too find this wrong in part because this isn't actually what "we/all of us" morally ascribe to.


Off the top of my head, to be more precise, there are no good reasons (that I know of) for believing that there is any kind of life after death so the question is easily answered.
Click to expand...

Wow. Well...a good reason for believing there is life after death is that it would be really swell. This would bring great comfort within life, and allow oneself to not worry about death and instead focus on life.

A good reason for a suicidee is even less--that even if "life" after death is utter void, it will be better than his current suffering.

Maybe I misapprended what "good reasons" mean, and you're only speaking of "scientific reasons"? If "good reasons" means "personal, religious, psychological reasons" it seems that yeah, there are plenty of "good reasons" to believe in life after death.


BUT, semantics aside, what you probably mean (again) is that for some people in some situations it's better off to be dead than alive, and in this case we're talking about the avoidance of suffering, which I wrote about in my previous posts.
Click to expand...

Sure. Mathematical theory:

Living in terrible distress = +6 suffering value. Magical wishes to end this = -100 suffering. Ending suffering = 0 suffering.

In the real world, can't you see why a suicidee (perhaps, who's wished for years that the magical would happen but it never has) would choose a 0 value rather than a +6 value?

Or is "life itself" assigned a default -x suffering value? Life, by itself, is non-suffering? Why? How? Give scientific proof?

Let's propose more humans today or in history live in a state of suffering against a zero value than those who live in a non-suffering state. Does this mean all humans should kill themselves, to avoid that positive value of suffering? I don't know how you're calculating any of your assertions.

I have to wonder why you bring this up again and again?
Click to expand...

Because you seem to think "to be alive" is a positive state of existence. That anyone considering suicide would just look and see "wow I'm alive!" and epiphany into believing being alive, just by itself, is worth something.

(also, because you haven't demonstrated any of your positions by SCIENCE CAN ANSWER MORAL QUESTIONS, which is why this thread exists. In other words--we're now discussing philosophy, when the point of the thread seemed to be that science could completely ignore philosophy).

They are two different things, the current situation, and what we really value. Sometimes it's better to be dead than to suffer, I have no objections to that. What the suicidal person achieves (or at least has good reasons to believe that he achieves) with the ending of his life is the avoidance of (his own) suffering, which is actually a good case for human beings not valuing "bad life". On the other hand, if the person really thinks that a better LIFE awaits him after death he probably has no convincing reasons to believe that, but I'd be very interested to hear them.
Click to expand...

to the bold: you seem to have a pathological objection to that. You seem to think it's wrong.

I utterly agree with your paragraph here. It's my position completely. I'm baffled then why you've continued to argue against it in 90% of your other paragraphs. Maybe I'm just dumb (not being sarcastic, sorry if I'm dumb).

What are these questions of yours that I don't want to engage with?
Click to expand...

Any question besides those revolving around "SCIENCE CAN ANSWER MORAL QUESTIONS".

I have already said that I'd rather discuss these things in real time over a chat system because I find writing stuff like this (and in a foreign language) is way more time consuming than I want it to be. For this reason my replies might take a long time to appear, but I'm more than willing to discuss my own moral ideas with you or anyone else, in the hope of learning something new, it just takes a lot more time than necessary. I have no expertise on this issue, nor have I really thought about these things in depth, but as you can see from my previous posts, I do have some serious first questions about the whole "is-ought" notion and its relevance to moral thinking.
Click to expand...

Me either. And I'm surprised English isn't your first language. I decline a chat system because I suffer from several anxiety disorders and cannot abide by most personal interaction. Sorry. Also sorry if I've molded your responses into a strawman. I'm just so aghast at Sam Harris that I'm looking for excuses to jump on anyone remotely resembling him. Plus, I've been drinking.
 
Sophronius said:
Well, the kind of philosophy where you sit in a room and declare "all is fire" without explaining what that is supposed to mean.... well yes, that kind of philosophy is utterly useless. Philosophy has to be logically sound. Bare assertions, or worse, meaningless babble, is irrelevant regardless of who it is made by.
Click to expand...

Well-being of Conscious Creatures = Good is a bare assertion. Either Harris lives by the sword, or dies by it. He can't stand off aloof from philosophy, while still claiming to solve it.

Or/and...if you imply that better/good-kind-of philosophers do couch their claims in scientific/scientific-method-for-philosophy bases, then even then, Harris doesn't seem to be among them.

Sam Harris has done no such thing. Sam Harris has ignored other philosophers because he felt that they hadn't much relevant to say on the subject. The fact is that the field of philosophy is plagued with endless discussions of utter non-issues, and I can understand why one would want to avoid those altogether. Now I'll admit, he'd have done well to address things like "you can't derive ought from is" more carefully in his book rather than just dismissing it altogether. But an long discussion of the underlying theory and existing research on the subject like one might do with a paper on economy? Not applicable here.
Click to expand...

How many pages did his book have? He couldn't be bothered to spend a dozen on ought-is?

If this is just fine, I may write my own moral treatise, and just avoid the past 5000 years of naysayers altogether. In other words, "now I'll admit" is basically the entire objection in this thread. "Now I'll admit, Sam Harris has nothing new and has no clue and his theories are useless"...BUT...

Yep, that's mostly meaningless. "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" is simply a very basic assertion for how one should live their life. It doesn't explain why one should obey this rule, or how how this is beneficial, or how one should treat situations where following this rule actually causes harm to others or yourself. Basically all it says is "empathy is good". As this doesn't really lead to any new insights, except for those who thought "empathy is bad" (although those won't be convinced otherwise, since no argument is made), I consider it "meaningless" in that regard.
Click to expand...

Okay. I agree inasmuch.

However, in this context, "morality is promoting the well-being of conscious creatures" is equally meaningless. It doesn't explain why one should agree with this, or situations where the well-being of a group is less than that of one, yet if only one of them should survive, the group should, or the definition of "well-being" or "conscious"...

Harris' particular choice of axiomatic morality doesn't lead to anything new.

The "new" can't be science. Science didn't tell us his well-being axiom.

Well obviously, it is his task to present a clear argument for why his idea works. I agree that he has mostly failed to do this, because he doesn't adress the obvious counterarguments and instead says "it doesn't matter". He should have begun by saying "This is what I am arguing in favour of" and followed with "this is why it works" and "this is why the obvious counterarguments fall apart". I agree that he has not done this. I do not agree, however, that his failure is not incorporating the current body of philosophical pondering of morality in his book. Simply presenting a solid case in and of itself would have been fine.
Click to expand...

Bold--so we can agree Harris has presented nothing persuasive to his position. Whether by science, philosophy, logic, etc.

non-bold--And he didn't do so, "in and of itself". "In and of itself" would be revolutionary, if it was rock-solid. Harris' failures are many. In drawing down from them--he's failed to scientifically justify his position (his mileau, so problem the first); but he's also failed to justify his position morally. Is it because he first starts at a non-philosophical position, that after he utterly fails at it, we can applaud him for not bothering with the philosophical position?

Morality is not necessarily meaningless, if you define it properly it is perfectly possible to have a sensible discussion about it.

His response to your point was that he doesn't claim to have any such proof. He is simply positing an axiom, but finds that this doesn't invalidate his argument as his axiom is completely obvious. I do not agree with him on this, of course. He should have explained why he chose this axiom, and why he feels that making use of an axiom is all right.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And this is a HUGE problem.


As I said, Harris' argument does not go like this. As I understand it, his argument goes as follows:

a) It is obvious that virtually everyone prefers well being to be maximised than for it to be minimised.
b) It is foolish to act as if a lack of objective moral truth in this regard means that the Taliban cannot be criticized, for example. Objective moral truth is a non-issue, and so is "can't derive ought from is".
c) If we assume that maximising well-being is our objective, we can use science to do X Y Z.

Of course, he does not state it like that, but this is what I get from reading between the lines. Like I said, his argument isn't very convincingly made.
Click to expand...

Also agreed. The a) b) c) isn't any kind of proof, logically, scientifically, philosophically. Just the error in a) (the massive problem with the use of "virtually", which if well-accounted for should require an a-z secondary points) invalidates the order as sophomoric.

Just the first counterproof to come to mind: a) It is obvious that virtually everyone prefers maximizing complaince to God's laws than noncompliance.

This statement/axiom is true in many societies. Doesn't make it persuasive, if the JREF's reason for existing is any indication. And many Christians have and do use Science to justify their position after the initial axiom, just as Harris does.
 
Last edited:
Dragoonster said:
Also sorry if I've molded your responses into a strawman. I'm just so aghast at Sam Harris that I'm looking for excuses to jump on anyone remotely resembling him. Plus, I've been drinking.
Click to expand...


Noted, and puzzled, I thought I was being clear in my posts, but it seems I wasn't. I'll try to be even more clear when I have time and interest to post again.
 
Kuko 4000 said:
Noted, and puzzled, I thought I was being clear in my posts, but it seems I wasn't. I'll try to be even more clear when I have time and interest to post again.
Click to expand...

You were clear in my mind; but I sometimes overfocus and drag on a single point, and also think some point of mine is clear when it's very unclear so get into a long mix-up series of posts.

Basically, my response was as clear as I'll ever get it, so if I've completely missed the point, no bother to keep trying to clue me in!

Anyway have a nice week :)
 
Dragoonster said:
Well-being of Conscious Creatures = Good is a bare assertion. Either Harris lives by the sword, or dies by it. He can't stand off aloof from philosophy, while still claiming to solve it.
Click to expand...

I agree that claiming that is a bare assertion, but I don't think Harris meant that this IS so, merely that it is a useful basis for a system of morality. Of course, considering the subject of the book he really should have made this more clear. And his response to the utility monster problem, that "obviously" it would be right to sacrifice ourselves if it made them happy, strikes me as odd as well.

How many pages did his book have? He couldn't be bothered to spend a dozen on ought-is?
Click to expand...

I rather imagine he chose not to do so because he felt it was a non-issue, and that spending a dozen pages on it would give the impression that it was an actual problem for what he was claiming.

In other words, "now I'll admit" is basically the entire objection in this thread. "Now I'll admit, Sam Harris has nothing new and has no clue and his theories are useless"...BUT...
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. Sam Harris raises a valid point in that science has long been silent on ethical dilemmas, where this doesn't necessarily make sense. I agree with him that some moral positions are simply incorrect, and that it makes no sense to pretend that all morality is equal and that science has nothing to say about this. He further claims that neuro science will eventually be able to discover our moral preferences better than we ourselves can, which would certainly be relevant. He raises relevant, though to some obvious, points.

However, in this context, "morality is promoting the well-being of conscious creatures" is equally meaningless. It doesn't explain why one should agree with this, or situations where the well-being of a group is less than that of one, yet if only one of them should survive, the group should, or the definition of "well-being" or "conscious"...
Click to expand...

I don't think he does, no (haven't finished the book, probably won't for a good while). I do however agree that a system of morality that doesn't at all concern the well being of conscious creatures (for example: follow the commands of a non-existent deity, or: don't wear blue socks on sunday) are arbitrary and offer no compelling reason to follow them. On the other hand, a convincing argument can be made that it is logically speaking sensible to care for the well being of your fellow men and women.

Bold--so we can agree Harris has presented nothing persuasive to his position. Whether by science, philosophy, logic, etc.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that I don't find his arguments very persuasive, but I agree with the general thrust behind his arguments. The notion that "science has nothing to say on how to live a good life" seems rooted in confusion. A morality that is not rooted in reality is meaningless.

I think the problem with the moral landscape is that people go into it expecting a revolutionary new system of morality that tells us what we should do and what we shouldn't do, which is proven by science and as such can't be argued against. I'll admit that from what I heard during the Ted talks, I was expecting somewhat more daring claims, myself.

Agreed. And this is a HUGE problem.
Click to expand...

Not that huge, I think. If neuro-science can indeed (in the future) tell us exactly what we care about, then science can indeed tell us what what we should do better than we can ourselves.

Edit: the points where I really disagree with Harris are elsewhere:
If, for instance, a preference for chocolate ice cream allowed for the most rewarding experience a human being could have, while a preference for vanilla did not, we would deem it morally important to help people overcome any defect in their sense of taste that caused them to prefer vanilla—in the same way that we currently treat people for curable forms of blindness.
Click to expand...

This DOES seem to imply that he thinks there are universal "correct" preferences. I do not see any way in which to defend this. How on earth could science say that one preference is better than another? Why would you consider a preference for vanilla a "defect"? If Harris really thinks that we should alter people into all having those preferences that makes them the most happy (or whatever he means by "rewarding") then I don't agree with that at all. If a person doesn't want to be happy, how can he or she be said to be wrong?
 
Last edited:
1 hour 17 minutes talk & interview Sam Harris May 4, 2011 on this topic

Some of you may have noticed it already, but on May 4th Harris gave a talk, followed by an interview by Dawkins, on the topic, and he certainly tries to answer some of the questions raised above. Its on youtubu's richarddawkinsdotnet.

I'm not sure I am allowed to post a url but, lets try:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk
 
ketten said:
Some of you may have noticed it already, but on May 4th Harris gave a talk, followed by an interview by Dawkins, on the topic, and he certainly tries to answer some of the questions raised above. Its on youtubu's richarddawkinsdotnet.

I'm not sure I am allowed to post a url but, lets try:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk
Click to expand...

BTW as expected, quite a few of the most pertinent questions come up at the end, at the Q&A.
 
Nice, thank you :)

Harris seems fairly sensible in that video. However, he again has that annoying habit of asking "what is good" instead of "what is good for these people" or "what is good for humanity on average". I think this is at the root of much of the confusion regarding what he says, as it seems as if he is arguing in favour of objective morality.

When he says "who could argue that the worst misery for everyone isn't the worst possible outcome, or that it could have so much as a silver lining?", he seems to ignore that indeed many people would consider the suffering of their enemies as a good thing, even if they weren't around to enjoy it. And even if we ignore that, eliminating suffering still wouldn't BE good, we would just consider it good, which I think is still a relevant distinction. Of course, he is right in that there is enough moral consensus among humanity that we can still move forward in a common direction, but he shouldn't pretend that his morality is universal.

He also says that things like justice and fairness are only relevant to the extent that they increase human well being. Well, I am no fan of justice or fairness, but many people certainly value them as a ding an sich. Again, I don't like how he ignores that.
 
Last edited:
A 'science of morality' may end up being an invention built on shaky ground, I don't know. But it's a better invention than 'because my god says so' as a basis for morality, IMO. What Harris and the other gnu atheists are trying to do is put forth an answer to the religionists who ask "Where else can we get our moral guidance except from (my) god?" It really doesn't matter if Harris can't ground morality in objective fact. What he proposes just has to be better than the religionists' alternative.
 
Last edited:
amused said:
A 'science of morality' may end up being an invention built on shaky ground, I don't know. But it's a better invention than 'because my god says so' as a basis for morality, IMO. What Harris and the other gnu atheists are trying to do is put forth an answer to the religionists who ask "Where else can we get our moral guidance except from (my) god?" It really doesn't matter if Harris can't ground morality in objective fact. What he proposes just has to be better than the religionists' alternative.
Click to expand...

Until it's corrupted by scientific clerics. Harris sure seems to want to be one, if not an early prophet, for an example.

This is the only True scientific morality

Reminds me of the Dawkins South Park episode.

(I agree it's a better invention at the moment. It's still flawed in the same ways though, and eventually will still become corrupt, since humans are not computers--we possess subjective, non-axiomatic opinions)
 
Kuko 4000 said:
Harris' latest response to his critics:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-matters-zero-sum/
Click to expand...

Thanks Kuko!

Well, I find myself disagreeing with Harris again:

When we focus on (A), we can make sense of the claim that some people are unable to want what they should, in fact, want; some people are cognitively and emotionally closed to ways of living that would make them happier than they are tending to be.
Click to expand...

This seems so strange. Again, Harris is saying that it is "better" for someone who has certain preferences to have different preferences if that would make them happier. Says who? I don't want someone to use brain surgery on me to modify my preferences in order to make me "happier". What makes Harris think that this should be our ideal? Harris still hasn't answered this, as far as I can tell.

He also seems to imply that selfish people are brain damaged. Nice.
 
Last edited:
Earthborn said:
For those who don't want to waste almost 4 minutes on an textumentary with annoying music: it is an off topic textumentary with annoying music.
Click to expand...

For those that can think, watch it, for others, try reading the whole bible and don't cherry pick.

Two, who said it was a music video.

Paul

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

Back
Top Bottom