David Hume vs. Sam Harris

[memetherapy]

For Earthborn

I haven't. And since the main defender of the book in this thread has said that it is very badly written, I don't think I will.

Ok...I'd strongly advise to read it considering you're debating people who have. Sam is one of those authors that other "intellectuals" enjoy bashing... I've had to debate many people who didn't read The End of Faith and who assumed Sam Harris promoted the use of torture. It's not a long read...try reading at least the first chapter before deciding he's spouting nonsense.

The position is useful in understanding what one shouldn't waste one's time on.

You mean using facts to decide whether an action will have consequences on the subjective experience of other sentient beings? Or can you be more specific?

That's the whole point of the argument, isn't it? It doesn't help you to determine what IS moral, because questions of morality don't involve IS or IS NOT.

In the real world, we have to take people's personal assessment of what their subjective experience is as FACT...or at least we all treat it as if it were indicative of the TRUE subjective experience. Either way, that's all the information we got to make moral decisions...and by golly, shouldn't we use it? Don't you on a day to day basis?

I have no idea what you mean with this. Perhaps you can give an example.

OK. Me : Sir, maybe you should allow your daughter to choose who she'll spend the rest of her life with.
Father : Why?
Me : Because it is morally bankrupt to withhold that basic freedom from her?
Father : Who says what is moral and what is not? (****** version of the argument...but it's normally boiled down to someone crude like this)


Of course, the hypothetical father isn't consciously using Hume's argument...but many moral relativists happen to be educated liberals who are deliberately using Hume's argument to this same end.

Is it "dishonest" to point out the simple truth, that there are no moral "truths" ?

No...it is dishonest to try to halt an investigation into what actions most probably lead to a greater well-being and which ones do not.

It isn't dishonest to say physicists have no idea whats actually happening at the quantum level...that there is no quantum truth... but it is dishonest to stop other physicists from furthering our understanding of quantum mechanics simply because we know we'll never have a complete understanding of physical phenomena.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's where I think you're either being dishonest or simply not getting it? It's one thing to be able to consciously understand that your moral views aren't fully grounded...it's a whole other thing to practice what you believe...and I highly doubt you avoid calculating the probable consequences of your actions on others.

This is why talking to Harris acolytes is so painful. They have completely the wrong basic ideas yet they think they know all there is to know.

Of course I calculate the probable consequences of my actions on others. However to do so I necessarily have to have some prior moral axiom like "don't do things that bring about consequences for sentient beings that would not be willed by those beings if they were fully-informed and rational" (or whatever axiom floats your personal boat).

Anyone who is acting based on calculating the probable consequences of their actions on others does in fact have some underlying, non-evidence-based moral axiom informing their calculations. Harris and his acolytes deny this but they're just confused.

I assume you bypass Hume's argument when deliberating what to do.

You assume completely wrong because you have no education in moral philosophy except the miseducation you picked up from Harris.

Nobody can bypass Hume's argument. All you can do is either bite the bullet and accept that you are acting on one or more non-evidence-based axioms, or go into denial and act on one or more non-evidence-based axioms while claiming you are doing something different.

Comparing Sam Harris to Homeopaths...nice. Homeopaths' beliefs contradict everything we know about how chemistry works. Sam is simply asserting that Hume's argument is being misused. It's halting moral progress. Some people (like you, me and Sam) keep it in mind...but a lot of people (like you and moral relativists) use it to counter the inclusion of FACTS(seemingly defendable facts...of course) in a moral debate, forgetting all the while that we all arrive at OUGHTS in our minds that drive our actions.

Sam is just wrong. The is/ought distinction is not holding up moral progress in any way, shape or form. Otherwise we'd still be in the moral 18th century. Are you seriously so blinded by Harris' song and dance that you think there's been no moral progress since the 1700s?

The idea that people are using the is/ought distinction to exclude relevant facts from moral debate is pure, utter, unadulterated horse ****.

This is simply nonsense put about by Harris, who should and in fact does know better. He's setting up a straw man to pick a fight with, nothing more.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ok...I'd strongly advise to read it considering you're debating people who have. Sam is one of those authors that other "intellectuals" enjoy bashing... I've had to debate many people who didn't read The End of Faith and who assumed Sam Harris promoted the use of torture. It's not a long read...try reading at least the first chapter before deciding he's spouting nonsense.

So anyway, do you happen to have some personal link or other to Sam Harris?

No...it is dishonest to try to halt an investigation into what actions most probably lead to a greater well-being and which ones do not.

Moral philosophers like Peter Singer (to name probably the most famous) have been doing exactly that and bringing about notable social change as a direct result for the last forty years.

Harris' ideas are nothing new. He's just trying to repackage utilitarianism as a scientistic cult with himself as prophet. If he wanted to bring about positive social change he'd be doing what utilitarians like Peter Singer do, not flogging his book of incoherent scientism.

 

[memetherapy]

here here

Of course I calculate the probable consequences of my actions on others. However to do so I necessarily have to have some prior moral axiom like "don't do things that bring about consequences for sentient beings that would not be willed by those beings if they were fully-informed and rational" (or whatever axiom floats your personal boat).

Anyone who is acting based on calculating the probable consequences of their actions on others does in fact have some underlying, non-evidence-based moral axiom informing their calculations. Harris and his acolytes deny this but they're just confused.

You're not getting this are you...we, Harris and his bloody acolytes, do not deny this. We argue that facts come in only after some moral axioms... so if we can agree on some moral axioms, we can then use facts to make a case for what might lead to fulfilling the moral axiom.

Nobody can bypass Hume's argument. All you can do is either bite the bullet and accept that you are acting on one or more non-evidence-based axioms, or go into denial and act on one or more non-evidence-based axioms while claiming you are doing something different.

Yes we can bypass it. In philosophy, we may not be able to, but in a time constrained decision making world, we better. We are not questioning the validity...we are questioning the range of application and usefulness.

Sam is just wrong. The is/ought distinction is not holding up moral progress in any way, shape or form. Otherwise we'd still be in the moral 18th century. Are you seriously so blinded by Harris' song and dance that you think there's been no moral progress since the 1700s?

The idea that people are using the is/ought distinction to exclude relevant facts from moral debate is pure, utter, unadulterated horse ****.

This is simply nonsense put about by Harris, who should and in fact does know better. He's setting up a straw man to pick a fight with, nothing more.

We'd still be in the 18th century? What are you on? Who said this? Harris' song and dance? Who said there hasn't been moral progress?

The bold part...that's where we're disagreeing. Apologists for Islam?

So anyway, do you happen to have some personal link or other to Sam Harris?

No...but I happen to read a ******** of books and Sam Harris seems to be one of the few good popular non-fiction authors who gets his stuff distorted by people who haven't read his book. In the science-obsessed atheist online community, he seems to be one of the few writers who creates a divide. I think a lot of his bad rep stems from his perceived "racism" by liberal pussies who can't confront the problem of Islam with a clear head.

Harris' ideas are nothing new. He's just trying to repackage utilitarianism as a scientistic cult with himself as prophet. If he wanted to bring about positive social change he'd be doing what utilitarians like Peter Singer do, not flogging his book of incoherent scientism.

He's not trying to tell you what is moral...he's trying to tell you Hume's argument does not matter once moral debate is underway, which it is almost always in our minds. Whether we agree or disagree on which moral axioms to follow, facts about reality (what we considers ISs) will still influence how we choose to follow those axioms.

 

[angrysoba]

IF morality is understood as generating the greatest well-being for the greatest number (or some kind of fudging thereof) AND to further the greatest well-being for the greatest number (or some kind of fudging thereof) is what you OUGHT to do...

THEN what you OUGHT to do is to further the greatest well-being for the greatest number.

But this is question-begging, obviously. And yet this seems to be Sam Harris' argument. If I said, yes but what about the IF, he would state, "Well then I don't need to talk to you..."

 

[angrysoba]

Out of curiosity, who involved in this discussion has actually read The Moral Landscape?

Out of curiosity, have you read David Hume's Treatise of Human Nature Book III?

Because I have read both Harris and Hume on this subject.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is rather tiring to repeat.

To the extent that Harris is saying that we should use science to predict the outcomes of our actions and choose actions to maximise the net good, he's just rebranding welfare utilitarianism as a new idea. It is not a new idea.

To the extent that Harris is claiming to have solved the is/ought problem, and he has indeed made that specific claim, he is talking nonsense.

To the extent that Harris flipflops between claiming to have solved the is/ought problem and not having done so, he's inconsistent.

You're not getting this are you...we, Harris and his bloody acolytes, do not deny this. We argue that facts come in only after some moral axioms... so if we can agree on some moral axioms, we can then use facts to make a case for what might lead to fulfilling the moral axiom.

That's just welfare utilitarianism. If that's all he's doing there is absolutely nothing new in his approach.

Yes we can bypass it. In philosophy, we may not be able to, but in a time constrained decision making world, we better. We are not questioning the validity...we are questioning the range of application and usefulness.

This is just wrong. Harris is doing philosophy the same as anybody else, because his idea is just rebranded welfare utilitarianism. Any problems welfare utilitarianism has, his position has. If welfare utilitarianism is inapplicable or useless then so is Harris' position, and if Harris' position is applicable or useful then so is welfare utilitarianism.

We'd still be in the 18th century? What are you on? Who said this? Harris' song and dance? Who said there hasn't been moral progress?

You were the one saying that the is/ought distinction was holding up moral progress. Do you have any evidence at all for that? Because to me it sounds like hogwash Harris made up in order to make his false claim to have solved the is/ought problem seem more important.

The bold part...that's where we're disagreeing. Apologists for Islam?

What about them? Show us your evidence. Who are these people and what facts exactly have they excluded from which moral debates?

No...but I happen to read a ******** of books and Sam Harris seems to be one of the few good popular non-fiction authors who gets his stuff distorted by people who haven't read his book. In the science-obsessed atheist online community, he seems to be one of the few writers who creates a divide. I think a lot of his bad rep stems from his perceived "racism" by liberal pussies who can't confront the problem of Islam with a clear head.

"Liberal pussies"? Okay, I think we can see where you are coming from now.

I've never commented on his views about Islam and I'm quite happy to focus solely on his philosophical claims.

He's not trying to tell you what is moral...he's trying to tell you Hume's argument does not matter once moral debate is underway, which it is almost always in our minds. Whether we agree or disagree on which moral axioms to follow, facts about reality (what we considers ISs) will still influence how we choose to follow those axioms.

That's an idea that's well over two hundred years old and is taken for granted by anyone philosophically literate. It's not new and if Harris is taking credit for it then he's even further out of his tree than I thought.

 

[angrysoba]

memetherapy:

I've read his book, I own his book, now if you want to you can give it to me chapter and verse.

The question is this, has Sam Harris refuted David Hume's assertion that "ought"-statements don't logically follow from "is"-statements?

What's the answer?

Yes, explain.

No, don't bother.

 

[Wowbagger]

Perhaps it might be helpful to take a survey? Participants in this thread, please state how much of the book The Moral Landscape you have read:

angrysoba: Read it. Owns it. Etc.
Earthborn: Did not read it. Probably won't.
Wowbagger: Read the whole hardcover, twice, a year apart. Read new Afterword once.


(I'm not gonna bother with a table. Writing it out in plain lines is good enough.)

 

[sphenisc]

I've decided I ought not to read it since I haven't.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Out of curiosity, who involved in this discussion has actually read The Moral Landscape?

I'm asking this because there's seems to be a lot of false assumption as to what Sam's general message really is. I posted not long ago trying to distinguish Sam's position from the one his "opposition" assumes he has.

Sam isn't touching philosophy...he's side-stepping it. He makes clear there's no ONE absolute morality we'll discover...he simply insists that Hume's philosophical position isn't useful in any way, other than when philosophizing, because we all act out of personal moral intuitions/beliefs? ... He's not saying Hume is wrong...he's saying Hume's argument doesn't hold any water when trying to decide whats moral. Most often, it is used by cultural relativists as a way of ending inquiry of "immoral" actions or beliefs.

I'm aware Hume's argument undercuts my position as well...since my moral position on this matter is subjective...but so is anyone else's. No one ACTUALLY takes Hume's argument seriously when it comes to their own beliefs. Iss quickly turn into/influence Oughts in our own minds, therefore we have to come to terms with the fact that ISs are the most objective element that influence Oughts.

Read the book. He's not saying Hume is wrong...he's saying it's dishonest to act as if Hume's argument denies us a worthwhile pursuit of moral truths.

Philosophy works in absolutes...science works in probabilities. Moral thinking needs more of the latter.

I'm behind you basically and was going to type a much more positive response until I re-read the lines "he's saying it's dishonest to act as if Hume's argument denies us a worthwhile pursuit of moral truths."

Moral truths have generally been dealt with as moral absolutes. That is, in fact, what is under contention here in broad strokes. Hume's argument does undercut the real possibility of moral absolutes because we vary so very much. Morals always begin in emotion/motivation/feeling. Unfortunately, it is the case that emotion/motivation/feeling varies considerable amongst people; and every attempt we have made to level the playing field isn't complete. I think it isn't complete because we are stuck with too much variability, including two entirely different moral 'calculators' -- consequentialism and fairness.

Keep in mind, too, that Hume was a proto-utilitarian; and Sam is most akin to the utilitarians, though I think he has some sympathy for the deontologists as well.

I am perfectly willing to give him a break as a thinker because I still respect him, though I think he has his faults; and I still don't like his approval of torture at the end of the End of Faith.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Perhaps it might be helpful to take a survey? Participants in this thread, please state how much of the book The Moral Landscape you have read:

angrysoba: Read it. Owns it. Etc.
Earthborn: Did not read it. Probably won't.
Wowbagger: Read the whole hardcover, twice, a year apart. Read new Afterword once.

I haven't read it, and unless it turns out that the people here who have read it are totally misrepresenting it then I probably won't. I'd rather read actual neuroscience or actual philosophy than be annoyed by Harris' attempt to sell books by squishing the two together.

 

[westprog]

I haven't read it, and unless it turns out that the people here who have read it are totally misrepresenting it then I probably won't. I'd rather read actual neuroscience or actual philosophy than be annoyed by Harris' attempt to sell books by squishing the two together.

If someone puts forward an idea that seems, on the face of it, absurd and contradictory, then I feel less, not more inclined to read the book. There are only so many books that one can read in one's life.

If Harris' ideas are worth while, then it should have been possible to express them compactly at this stage, and to express whether they are worth developing.

 

[westprog]

Out of curiosity, have you read David Hume's Treatise of Human Nature Book III?

Because I have read both Harris and Hume on this subject.

It should be noted that it's not necessary to agree with Hume or Harris. If you think that absolute moral values exist, then Harris' views simply don't apply. Such a view isn't really consistent with materialism, but fits in with other philosophical views.

Harris seems to want the benefits of both philosophical viewpoints, by ignoring the logical inconsistencies.

 

[Paul2]

Bump

"Darius, a king of ancient Persia, was intrigued by the variety of cultures he met in his travels. He had found, for example, that the Callatians, who lived in India, ate the bodies of their dead fathers. The Greeks, of course, did not do that--the Greeks practiced cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the dead. Darius thought that a sophisticated outlook should appreciate the differences between cultures. One day, to teach this lesson, he summoned some Greeks who happened to be at his court and asked what it would take for them to eat the bodies of their dead fathers. They were shocked, as Darius knew they would be, and replied that no amount of money could persuade them to do such a thing. Then Darius called in some Callatians and, while the Greeks listened, asked them what it would take for them to burn their dead fathers' bodies. The Callatians were horrified and told Darius not to speak of such things.

From Herodotus' History, in "The Elements of Moral Philosophy," 6th ed. James Rachels.

 

[annnnoid]

…it ain’t pretty…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg

Sam Harris debates some guy by the name of William Lane Craig on the topic of his book (science and the moral landscape). Was hoping Harris would exhibit his usual wile and acumen (he’s at least entertaining)…but instead he gets hammered. He goes down in the first round and hardly rises to deliver anything beyond a feeble lob…then goes down again. The whole night he does little more than cower behind his laptop screen. It’s downright embarrassing. Craig, apparently, has a reputation as an ‘atheist killer’. Seems on this night he earned it. Harris just did not want to be there. He was mauled, bloodied, and humiliated (philosophically flayed...and he looked like he knew it). All he could muster was a weak appeal to ‘please like me’. Maybe ¼ of the four horsemen has finally lost his steed. Hitchens at least stood up to him (Craig)…though Craig seemed to have his way there as well. Dawkins is apparently just plain scared of the guy (begs off every debate with stupid excuses). Dennet has retreated back to the hallowed halls of academe (something about consciousness not actually being understood) …safe there I guess. Perhaps the atheist revolution is running out of steam.

Besides that………apologies to the atheist who I’m fond of…and far more.

 

[Dragoonster]

…it ain’t pretty…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg

Sam Harris debates some guy by the name of William Lane Craig on the topic of his book (science and the moral landscape). Was hoping Harris would exhibit his usual wile and acumen (he’s at least entertaining)…but instead he gets hammered. He goes down in the first round and hardly rises to deliver anything beyond a feeble lob…then goes down again. The whole night he does little more than cower behind his laptop screen. It’s downright embarrassing. Craig, apparently, has a reputation as an ‘atheist killer’. Seems on this night he earned it. Harris just did not want to be there. He was mauled, bloodied, and humiliated (philosophically flayed...and he looked like he knew it). All he could muster was a weak appeal to ‘please like me’. Maybe ¼ of the four horsemen has finally lost his steed. Hitchens at least stood up to him (Craig)…though Craig seemed to have his way there as well. Dawkins is apparently just plain scared of the guy (begs off every debate with stupid excuses). Dennet has retreated back to the hallowed halls of academe (something about consciousness not actually being understood) …safe there I guess. Perhaps the atheist revolution is running out of steam.

Besides that………apologies to the atheist who I’m fond of…and far more.

Isn't this debate many months old? Where do you grok the word "finally"? I don't recall any massive shift six months ago, when this actually took place.

Anyway, that a good though narrow apologist debater (Craig) embarasses idiotic unprepared lazy atheists (Harris) doesn't mean all atheists are as stupid and incapable of rousing damning objections to theism. If Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, etc. bow out or are overwhelmed, it doesn't mean atheism has no good objections. It would just mean that THESE particular atheists are terrible debaters.

 

[Wowbagger]

…it ain’t pretty…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg

I will watch the video, when I have more time, on some other day.

I have been formulating responses to other things in this thread. But, SkeptiCamp NYC and other things got in the way. So, y'all just have to wait a bit longer for me to finish them.

 

[westprog]

..

 

[annnnoid]

Isn't this debate many months old? Where do you grok the word "finally"? I don't recall any massive shift six months ago, when this actually took place.

Anyway, that a good though narrow apologist debater (Craig) embarasses idiotic unprepared lazy atheists (Harris) doesn't mean all atheists are as stupid and incapable of rousing damning objections to theism. If Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, etc. bow out or are overwhelmed, it doesn't mean atheism has no good objections. It would just mean that THESE particular atheists are terrible debaters.

….don’t take it so personally Drag…I was merely amping the pathos of the situation. I’ve watched a couple of Harris’ performances and he typically puts on a far better show. Typically, though, his opponents are mere xian minions…not anyone with Craig’s philosophical credentials. All Harris seemed capable of was resorting to the usual.. ‘ oh but religion is nasty and hypocritical and contradictory and psychotic and and and ‘. I mean…c’mon, I put up with that caliber of kindergarten drivel from juvenile JREFers. Is it too much to expect a little more from one of atheism's leading lights…especially a dude with a philosophy degree and a neuroscience degree who’s just written a book insisting that the entire foundation of human morality can now be re-written. Philosophically speaking, he got hit hard and he seemed to realize that he was behind right from the beginning. Rather lame. I guess I was simply hoping for a more substantial defense of his position…given all the objections that have been raised to it…and it not only did not appear, but his opponent provided a much better case for the counter position.

I will watch the video, when I have more time, on some other day.

I have been formulating responses to other things in this thread. But, SkeptiCamp NYC and other things got in the way. So, y'all just have to wait a bit longer for me to finish them.

If you are hoping for a defense of his book Wowbagger, I wouldn’t waste your time with it. As I said, this is the first time I’d found a video where Harris has to go head to head with someone who actually knows his philosophy….and he got whomped. Maybe he forgot to eat his cheerios that morning, If you want to find some support for your position you’ll find nothing but a few scraps scattered among Harris’ body parts. Probably would be better to look elsewhere. Might be a useful exercise in countering Craig’s arguments though (which, presumably, is Harris’ primary motive:…to provide a science-based morality to counter established religion-based morality)…since Harris did such a piss-poor job of it.