Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape Challenge

[Sophronius]

(Post copied from another website)

Breach of rule 4 removed. Do not copy and paste material from elsewhere.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[mijopaalmc]

(Post copied from another website)

If you are going to quote from another website (even if the material is yours), it is best to quote the first couple paragraphs and then link to the rest, as I don't think that complete reproduction of material is covered under the fair use doctrine.

 

[Sophronius]

Hm, I somehow doubt anyone is going to sue me for copying and pasting my own post. If a mod says it is an issue I will change it, but I honestly don't see the need as it is.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Hm, I somehow doubt anyone is going to sue me for copying and pasting my own post. If a mod says it is an issue I will change it, but I honestly don't see the need as it is.

I meant it as a "for future reference" mention. Mods rarely address posts unless they are reported, and I didn't see the point in reporting it. I wasn't trying to chastize you, nonetheless.

 

[Sophronius]

Okay, cheers for the info.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Okay, cheers for the info.

I can report it, if you want a mod to weigh in.

 

[Reivax]

An update:

9. With you as the judge, how can we trust that the best attack on your thesis will see the light of day?

Having now fielded several accusations that this contest will be rigged—if not by design, then by my own ignorance and bias—I reached out to the philosopher Russell Blackford for help. Russell has been one of the most energetic critics of The Moral Landscape, and I am very happy to say that he has now agreed to judge the submissions, introduce the winning essay, and evaluate my response. I trust that everyone will consider this a promising development.
Of course, only I can judge whether I find the winning essay persuasive enough to trigger a change in my position (and the larger prize). But if I’m not persuaded, I’ll have to explain why, and Russell will be there to see that I do this without dodging any important issues.

See more at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge1#sthash.dEJZjteK.dpuf

 

[mijopaalmc]

As other posters here have pointed out, the most obvious "rigging" of the challenge is that the essay is supposed to be several orders of magnitude short than the book it is meant to critique. The stringency of the length limit would apparently allow Harris to dismiss any essay as having not "adequately" addressed any of his arguments, simply because of the length it takes to set up a intelligible critique.

 

[qayak]

Reading the arguments against Hairris' thesis it seems to me that people really haven't read his book. It also seems to me that they haven't read Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil," either.

In fact, science begins by putting arbitrary values on things and then proceeding from there. Temperature, hardness, time, speed, length, etc., it's all arbitrary.

That Harris does the same thing with morality is a natural extension of this. That others have identified universal morals seems to support his ideas. (You didn't really think "Thou shalt not murder" was a Christian concept did you?)

It seems pretty weird to me that people get their knickers in a knot over this and seems to be based on the old fashioned belief that morals are subjective.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

To be less pithy, I am guessing that if anyone attempts to point out the well documented problems with welfare utilitarianism he will say they aren't dealing with his supposed main point. That point being that we can determine welfare with science, and then use that to determine values... With welfare utilitarianism.

He likes to pretend his core point is to use "... science... to determine values..."

He also like to draw on "self evident" non sequiturs (world of maximum suffering) that highlight... Well, nothing at all really. I doubt he'll give these up and will instead appeal to personal incredulity.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Reading the arguments against Hairris' thesis it seems to me that people really haven't read his book. It also seems to me that they haven't read Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil," either.

In fact, science begins by putting arbitrary values on things and then proceeding from there. Temperature, hardness, time, speed, length, etc., it's all arbitrary.

That Harris does the same thing with morality is a natural extension of this. That others have identified universal morals seems to support his ideas. (You didn't really think "Thou shalt not murder" was a Christian concept did you?)

It seems pretty weird to me that people get their knickers in a knot over this and seems to be based on the old fashioned belief that morals are subjective.

There is a huge gap between universal morals and scientifically determined morals. And in what works is subjectivism the old fashioned belief?

And even then, look at murder. Everyone has the rule not to kill... Some people in some situations with extreme variation.

This is the problem with welfare based arguments. If you are talking about the welfare of a group that I am indifferent to or have animosity for, or if my or my groups welfare increases from their suffering... Who cares? There is zero value.

 

[383LQ4SS]

Reading the arguments against Hairris' thesis it seems to me that people really haven't read his book. It also seems to me that they haven't read Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil," either.

In fact, science begins by putting arbitrary values on things and then proceeding from there. Temperature, hardness, time, speed, length, etc., it's all arbitrary.

That Harris does the same thing with morality is a natural extension of this. That others have identified universal morals seems to support his ideas. (You didn't really think "Thou shalt not murder" was a Christian concept did you?)

It seems pretty weird to me that people get their knickers in a knot over this and seems to be based on the old fashioned belief that morals are subjective.

That doesn't seem correct. The unit of measure or language used to reference these quantities may be arbitrary...but the actual quantities are not. For instance, the speed of light, is as non arbitrary as you can get. Actually...any actual measured quantity is non-arbitrary. The unit that measurement is expressed may be arbitrary.

As for this contest...I will be interested to read the winning essay and Sams response. I actually like to read Sam, but remain unconvinced by his "air tight" argument on morality.

 

[qayak]

There is a huge gap between universal morals and scientifically determined morals. And in what works is subjectivism the old fashioned belief?

And even then, look at murder. Everyone has the rule not to kill... Some people in some situations with extreme variation.

This is the problem with welfare based arguments. If you are talking about the welfare of a group that I am indifferent to or have animosity for, or if my or my groups welfare increases from their suffering... Who cares? There is zero value.

You argument falls down immediately upon examination. If your argument was correct then you would agree that the actions of mass murderers, sexual offenders, thieves, etc, are moral because they are indifferent to the suffering of their victims.

Individuals don't decide morality, societies/populations do. The problem you point out is one that has been addressed many times as in-groups have grown. When clans gave way to tribes and then to cities, nations, and finally empires, moral viewpoints were forced to change.

Harris does nothing but extend this to the point that all humanity is the new in-group so it doesn't matter if you like a group or not, it only matters that they are a part of the group that morals apply to.

It was science that showed us humans are human. That there are no races, no difference between the people of the bear clan and the eagle clan, the Maori and the Zulu, Russians and Americans.

Harris extends this to say that based on this, science is the only way to remove bias when making moral decisions. Traditional methods, steeped in culture, are very prone to making poor moral judgements based more on what is beneficial to the in-group than what is right. Your argument is a perfect example for his case.

Harris also argues, as does Shermer, that it is time for people to start looking at this field from a scientific perspective. That science is the only proven system we have for deciding anything so why shouldn't it be applied to morality?

They both have a point in my view. We've seen what happens when you let a leader of a small in-group (religion) decide the moral issues of the day for a larger population. Harris' ideas can't be any worse than those results.

 

[qayak]

That doesn't seem correct. The unit of measure or language used to reference these quantities may be arbitrary...but the actual quantities are not. For instance, the speed of light, is as non arbitrary as you can get. Actually...any actual measured quantity is non-arbitrary. The unit that measurement is expressed may be arbitrary.

I agree. We just don't have a unit of measure for morality at this point.

Relativity demonstrated that the speed of light is constant despite our individual perspective. That can be applied to morality as well, ie.- murder is wrong despite our individual perspective. Therefore, it is just as wrong to kill someone I don't like/care about as it is to kill someone I do.

 

[angrysoba]

I agree. We just don't have a unit of measure for morality at this point.

Yes, we do. They are called hedons and dolors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus

Or posends and negends, if you like.

Relativity demonstrated that the speed of light is constant despite our individual perspective. That can be applied to morality as well, ie.- murder is wrong despite our individual perspective. Therefore, it is just as wrong to kill someone I don't like/care about as it is to kill someone I do.

What if some guy told you to shoot one person or he would shoot ten more people?

Or if he gave you the gun and you got the chance would it be ethical for you to kill the guy who told you to kill others?

 

[Dymanic]

Reminds me of creationist "challenges."

"Prove me wrong to my own satisfaction and I'll give you money!" Yeah....

Go a little easy on that. Remember where you are...

 

[Reivax]

I suspect Harris might be equivocating some terms or effectively redefining them in a way that allows him to make claims like, "science can answer moral questions" or "morality is objective" and so on. But has he given us good reason to accept the definitions he puts forward, especially if they are less commonly used?

 

[sgtbaker]

I like Sam Harris. I don't think he is a brilliant mind of our time, rather he rambles a lot and occasionally utters something I find to be incredibly insightful. I read The Moral Landscape and personally think that the difficulty with the challenge is actually finding a coherent argument to refute. I felt like I got nothing from that book and just hopped it was all my lack of understanding philosophy.

 

[tsig]

You argument falls down immediately upon examination. If your argument was correct then you would agree that the actions of mass murderers, sexual offenders, thieves, etc, are moral because they are indifferent to the suffering of their victims.

Individuals don't decide morality, societies/populations do. The problem you point out is one that has been addressed many times as in-groups have grown. When clans gave way to tribes and then to cities, nations, and finally empires, moral viewpoints were forced to change.

Harris does nothing but extend this to the point that all humanity is the new in-group so it doesn't matter if you like a group or not, it only matters that they are a part of the group that morals apply to.

It was science that showed us humans are human. That there are no races, no difference between the people of the bear clan and the eagle clan, the Maori and the Zulu, Russians and Americans.

Harris extends this to say that based on this, science is the only way to remove bias when making moral decisions. Traditional methods, steeped in culture, are very prone to making poor moral judgements based more on what is beneficial to the in-group than what is right. Your argument is a perfect example for his case.

Harris also argues, as does Shermer, that it is time for people to start looking at this field from a scientific perspective. That science is the only proven system we have for deciding anything so why shouldn't it be applied to morality?

They both have a point in my view. We've seen what happens when you let a leader of a small in-group (religion) decide the moral issues of the day for a larger population. Harris' ideas can't be any worse than those results.

Once you have your scientifically determined morals then anyone who disagrees with you is just being perverse and should be tortured til they see the light.

 

[tsig]

I like Sam Harris. I don't think he is a brilliant mind of our time, rather he rambles a lot and occasionally utters something I find to be incredibly insightful. I read The Moral Landscape and personally think that the difficulty with the challenge is actually finding a coherent argument to refute. I felt like I got nothing from that book and just hopped it was all my lack of understanding philosophy.

Anyone who manages to argue that torture is moral is not someone I'd take moral lessons from.