Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[Trent Wray]

We can define responses we consider 'good', same as we define what we consider 'red'. It only remains to get similar concurrence on the issue by the rest of humanity.

I wouldn't compare "good" to "red". I would compare "good" to "beautiful".

And the problem lies in getting the rest of humanity to concur, as you point out. The only way to do that, is by some kind of force or manipulation as far as I can tell.

Sadly, I think such a system might be an improvement over our current one.

Well, maybe they don't need Magic 8 Balls ... just Balls lol

Doesn´t sound good if "experts" (or even worse: laymen) decide what is "wrong" and then physically destroy anyone or anything that thinks otherwise.

Darth Vader anyone?

With the rest of humanity? Never. With majority of humanity? Possibly. But the cynical and ignorant majority is nearly always more wrong than some minorities.

Furthermore, "right" and "wrong" are essentially two sides of the same coin. A grey coin.

To be most effective, moral choices and enforcing consequences need to be based on circumstances I believe, capable of "evolving" like everything else ...

 

[Beth]

I wouldn't compare "good" to "red". I would compare "good" to "beautiful".

That is a better analogy. We're also getting better at understanding why something is judged 'beautiful'. There are scientists working on that problem.

And the problem lies in getting the rest of humanity to concur, as you point out. The only way to do that, is by some kind of force or manipulation as far as I can tell.

Yes, there is that issue. Insisting upon other people adhering to your particular ethical system is problematic to justify ethically. But plenty of religions have managed to justify just that for centuries.

Furthermore, "right" and "wrong" are essentially two sides of the same coin. A grey coin.

To be most effective, moral choices and enforcing consequences need to be based on circumstances I believe, capable of "evolving" like everything else ...

Yes. But it either needs to evolve slowly - crawling "up" the side of whatever 'peak' we are closest to - or it it needs to evolve simultaneously in many different directions, in which case, we have to be prepared to deal with a great many failures and dead ends.

 

[Dani]

I would also compare good to beautiful. In fact, that's a perfect analogy. Science can tell us that we have a tendency to find some things beautiful (for example, face symmetry) but won't tell us what's objectively beautiful.

I think the general idea is that science can measure what is wrong with people neurologically and then prescribe treatments to address moral deficiencies.

In order to measure what is wrong with people neurologically, you have to decide what is wrong with people in the first place. Observing neural activity isn't going to tell us anything about whether something is morally right or wrong. We can unscientifically decide what's right and wrong, and then observe it neurologically. We can't find moral values by observing neural connections. Try someday. They are not there to be found.

So when it can be shown that the person raped is not a happy camper anymore, science can't scentifically say this to be a bad thing.

No, it can't. But we can, and we do it. Trivial problem solved.

 

[JoelKatz]

I would also compare good to beautiful. In fact, that's a perfect analogy. Science can tell us that we have a tendency to find some things beautiful (for example, face symmetry) but won't tell us what's objectively beautiful.

I don't think that comparison works because we don't know that science can't ever tell us what's objectively beautiful. It simply hasn't yet.

Anything you can say about beauty was once true for redness. At one time, the only way to tell if something was red was to have someone look at it and ask them if it seemed red to them. And one person might think something was red while another person might think it was not red but orange. Yet science can today tell us that some things are objectively red and, more importantly, science has changed our understanding of what it means for something to "really be" red.

Unless you can demonstrate that science cannot ever understand beauty the way we now understand color, I'm not sure what this analogy buys you.

 

[Dragoonster]

I don't think that comparison works because we don't know that science can't ever tell us what's objectively beautiful. It simply hasn't yet.

Anything you can say about beauty was once true for redness. At one time, the only way to tell if something was red was to have someone look at it and ask them if it seemed red to them. And one person might think something was red while another person might think it was not red but orange. Yet science can today tell us that some things are objectively red and, more importantly, science has changed our understanding of what it means for something to "really be" red.

Unless you can demonstrate that science cannot ever understand beauty the way we now understand color, I'm not sure what this analogy buys you.

Some people think Thai women are hottest. Some think Russian women are hottest. Some think Brazilian women are hottest.

Does this really need explaining? If it does: Individuals have different takes on beauty.

Personally, I find Indian women the hottest, on average. How is science going to tell me that I'm wrong, in my own mind?

That is; obviously I'm probably "wrong" in finding Indian women the hottest, based on averages. What btw is the "right" hottest ehnicity? Since science--oh wait, nevermind the sentence, "it hasn't yet".

 

[JoelKatz]

Some people think Thai women are hottest. Some think Russian women are hottest. Some think Brazilian women are hottest.

Does this really need explaining? If it does: Individuals have different takes on beauty.

Of course. But this doesn't prove what you think it does.

Personally, I find Indian women the hottest, on average. How is science going to tell me that I'm wrong, in my own mind?

We don't know how. But let's not make an argument from personal incredulity.

Is it really impossible in principle that scientists could make a meter that measures precisely how much you like something you look at. So that scientists could tell you that you were wrong/lying when you said one woman looked hotter than another to you?

That is; obviously I'm probably "wrong" in finding Indian women the hottest, based on averages. What btw is the "right" hottest ehnicity? Since science--oh wait, nevermind the sentence, "it hasn't yet".

Well, let's separate two issues.

1) Whether you are right or wrong about claiming you find Indian women hot is potentially objectively testable. It's entirely possible we could invent some kind of brain reading machine that could determine how hot you find someone. We could then say that you were lying if you were in fact lying about how hot you found someone.

2) In terms of hotness itself, as in "Woman A is hotter than woman B", no amount of brain reading would determine this. Even if everyone we tested through woman A was hotter than woman B, that wouldn't really establish any kind of inherent 'hotter than' attribute. And, of course, it's entirely possible that even with the brain reading machine from my hypothetical, some people may find woman A hotter and some woman B hotter. But what does this tell us?

Consider the property "closest to my own height". Some people may find woman A to have this property more and some woman B. That doesn't establish that the property isn't an objective relationship.

Again, at one time in history the only way we could tell something was red was to have someone look at it and say "it seems red to me". And people could disagree over whether something was red or orange, and there was no objective referee. And people who were colorblind could insist that color was all made up and that there was no such real property and our minds just "painted the world" for our own entertainment or conceptual convenience. All of that would not only have been wrong but *absurd*, even before we understood what color really was.

 

[fls]

You appear to believe you've quit excusing religion, so the nonsense must be plain to you.

How about a list of the top 10 nonsenses?

Well, one could make a list about the silliness of bits of crackers and wine turning into human flesh and blood, or the idea that supernatural beings will interfere so that your favorite sweater doesn't get ruined but won't stop babies from getting AIDS. But what is of most relevance is the nonsense that religions are useful for their contribution to morality.

If our moral intuitions identify suffering as bad, then it is clear that religious prescriptions are not addressing the same thing that we are identifying as morality. It's clearly nonsense to think that an institution which finds the rape of children of less interest than having the wrong set of genitalia to preach the word of God, is an institution which is concerning itself with morals.

Linda

 

[fls]

I don't think that comparison works because we don't know that science can't ever tell us what's objectively beautiful. It simply hasn't yet.

I would disagree on this point. We already know some of the characteristics we are identifying when we refer to people or things as beautiful. Symmetry (specifically, mirror symmetry of faces) or a specific range of complexity (with respect to landscapes) are two examples.

Linda

 

[fls]

2) In terms of hotness itself, as in "Woman A is hotter than woman B", no amount of brain reading would determine this. Even if everyone we tested through woman A was hotter than woman B, that wouldn't really establish any kind of inherent 'hotter than' attribute. And, of course, it's entirely possible that even with the brain reading machine from my hypothetical, some people may find woman A hotter and some woman B hotter. But what does this tell us?

The "brain reading machine" could help tell us which characteristics we are identifying with our 'hotness' intuition. Whether or not those characteristics are present in woman A or B would be independent of individual opinion.

Linda

 

[fls]

Is he going to jail people who don't throw out their religious dogmatism (and that's worked awesome in past history!)? How does he design to get people to throw out their religious dogmatism?

DETAILS

I'm also not sure where the idea of force is coming from. Discovering what is good or bad is separate from the idea of forcing people to engage in or refrain from specific behaviors. For example, we can identify that sustained activity for 30 or more minutes per day is good for your health, but this discovery doesn't also impel the suggestion that everyone be forced to exercise. So why bring it up when we are discussing related types of 'good' and 'bad' actions?

Linda

 

[AlBell]

Well, one could make a list about the silliness of bits of crackers and wine turning into human flesh and blood, or the idea that supernatural beings will interfere so that your favorite sweater doesn't get ruined but won't stop babies from getting AIDS.

You believe those examples to be immoral? Mmmkay, we just bash religion.

But what is of most relevance is the nonsense that religions are useful for their contribution to morality.

Do you also contend that theolgians have contributed nothing "useful" on moral issues?

If our moral intuitions identify suffering as bad, then it is clear that religious prescriptions are not addressing the same thing that we are identifying as morality.

And why, again, is "suffering bad" a moral issue?

It's clearly nonsense to think that an institution which finds the rape of children of less interest than having the wrong set of genitalia to preach the word of God, is an institution which is concerning itself with morals.

Linda

If you think the Harris/fls Church of Moral Science will be any less a religious endeavor than previous efforts, good luck.

 

[JoelKatz]

I would disagree on this point. We already know some of the characteristics we are identifying when we refer to people or things as beautiful. Symmetry (specifically, mirror symmetry of faces) or a specific range of complexity (with respect to landscapes) are two examples.

I don't see how that disagrees with me. This is certainly true, but I don't think it has any consequences, and I think it's true for just about everything.

I would agree that science can identify some characteristics of things that one would expect would tend to make people thing it's beautiful. And we could also identify things that people tend to think make it ugly. But this could be completely incorrect since it would be based purely on correlation.

To give yet another color-vision analogy, without understanding color vision at all, scientists could notice that people describe strawberries generally as "red" and that people describe grass typically as "green". He could even make a machine that tested if something was a strawberry or grass and output "red" or "green" and pronounce this his objective color vision machine. He could add objects one-by-one to try to produce a 'perfect' color vision machine.

People would be impressed by your machine, it would seem to understand color vision. And it would get the right answer a lot of the time. But no color vision is actually taking place. The machine is getting the right answer by correlation without ever actually measuring any colors at all. And when the machine is wrong, who is to say that it's not the human that's wrong?

Trying to identify beauty by looking for the attributes people say make things beautiful to them might be making precisely the same mistake. You may be correlationally right, but you may not actually be perceiving or assessing beauty. You may get the right answer, but you may be totally missing the point.

 

[Beth]

Well, one could make a list about the silliness of bits of crackers and wine turning into human flesh and blood, or the idea that supernatural beings will interfere so that your favorite sweater doesn't get ruined but won't stop babies from getting AIDS. But what is of most relevance is the nonsense that religions are useful for their contribution to morality.

You don't think that religions are helpful in disseminating knowledge about and helping people adhere to their particular moral code?

If our moral intuitions identify suffering as bad, then it is clear that religious prescriptions are not addressing the same thing that we are identifying as morality. It's clearly nonsense to think that an institution which finds the rape of children of less interest than having the wrong set of genitalia to preach the word of God, is an institution which is concerning itself with morals.
Linda

It's nonsense only if you first define morality using Sam Harris's axiom regarding the well-being of conscious creatures. This is, I think, the point of contention that many have been arguing about.

 

[fls]

You believe those examples to be immoral?

You specifically asked for examples of nonsense. 'Immoral' and 'nonsense' and two different things.

Do you also contend that theolgians have contributed nothing "useful" on moral issues?

To the extent that theologians also happen to speak about moral issues, rather than religious issues.

And why, again, is "suffering bad" a moral issue?

It is one of the characteristics our moral intuitions are (imperfectly) identifying/referencing (ETA: moreso than 'well-being', I suspect).

Linda

 

[fls]

I don't see how that disagrees with me. This is certainly true, but I don't think it has any consequences, and I think it's true for just about everything.

I would agree that science can identify some characteristics of things that one would expect would tend to make people thing it's beautiful. And we could also identify things that people tend to think make it ugly. But this could be completely incorrect since it would be based purely on correlation.

To give yet another color-vision analogy, without understanding color vision at all, scientists could notice that people describe strawberries generally as "red" and that people describe grass typically as "green". He could even make a machine that tested if something was a strawberry or grass and output "red" or "green" and pronounce this his objective color vision machine. He could add objects one-by-one to try to produce a 'perfect' color vision machine.

People would be impressed by your machine, it would seem to understand color vision. And it would get the right answer a lot of the time. But no color vision is actually taking place. The machine is getting the right answer by correlation without ever actually measuring any colors at all. And when the machine is wrong, who is to say that it's not the human that's wrong?

Trying to identify beauty by looking for the attributes people say make things beautiful to them might be making precisely the same mistake. You may be correlationally right, but you may not actually be perceiving or assessing beauty. You may get the right answer, but you may be totally missing the point.

That wasn't my intention. That is, I wasn't trying to suggest that 'beauty' be got at through consensus. I was trying to suggest the same thing that you had described earlier with respect to colour. Noticing that people distinguish objects on the basis of colour led us to discover a property of objects related to electromagnetism. Noticing that people make distinctions on the basis of 'beauty' can lead us to discover properties related to symmetry and complexity.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

It [suffering] is one of the characteristics our moral intuitions are (imperfectly) identifying/referencing.

Linda

What are Muslims who are stoning and flogging adulterous women and homosexuals indentifying/referencing?

Are our moral intuitions* about such acts as universal as we wish they were?







*I'm assuming we feel roughly the same about these acts.

 

[AlBell]

You specifically asked for examples of nonsense. 'Immoral' and 'nonsense' and two different things.

I doubt you actually missed the point.

The topic is morality, not the idiocy of religious rites and rituals.

To the extent that theologians also happen to speak about moral issues, rather than religious issues.

An area of agreement!

It is one of the characteristics our moral intuitions are (imperfectly) identifying/referencing (ETA: moreso than 'well-being', I suspect).

Linda

"Imperfectly" indeed. Other than, as always, might makes right.

 

[fls]

What are Muslims who are stoning and flogging adulterous women and homosexuals indentifying/referencing?

Are our moral intuitions* about such acts as universal as we wish they were?

*I'm assuming we feel roughly the same about these acts.

Do you think that absent religious dogma indoctrinating them otherwise, Mid-Eastern people would have radically different intuitions about flogging and stoning individuals from you and I?

Linda

 

[JoelKatz]

What are Muslims who are stoning and flogging adulterous women and homosexuals indentifying/referencing?

Are our moral intuitions* about such acts as universal as we wish they were?

It's hard to know, but I don't think it matters. There is no reason the existence of colorblind people should make you doubt the accuracy of your color vision. Nothing about anyone else's moral intuitions casts any doubt on the validity of my own moral intuitions. They stand or fall on their own merits.

Even without an understanding of how color vision works and what it is, if someone else swears they cannot tell a blue ball from a green ball, we can be reasonably sure that they are lying or broken. It would be supremely irrational for us to say "if they can't tell a blue ball from a green ball, maybe there's something wrong with me distinguishing them on that basis".

 

[AlBell]

Do you think that absent religious dogma indoctrinating them otherwise, Mid-Eastern people would have radically different intuitions about flogging and stoning individuals from you and I?

Linda

Why do you think the religious dogma is not in place to amplify pre-existing social and moral doctrine based on radically different intuitions about flogging and stoning individuals?