Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[Kuko 4000]

From my brain and experiences. They trump any science, religion, and any other attempt to tell me my brain and experiences are somehow (objectively) faulty.

What does your brain and your experiences say about this picture without applying any scientific inquiry?

Here's the url in case the picture doesn't show up:

http://www.eyetricks.com/3401.jpg

If science can't actually answer moral questions once and for all, but instead is just another random, ignorant system changing every week/year, why should it be respected any more than any other "solution" that doesn't actually solve anything?

Really?

 

[cyborg]

We can understand the input objectively, we can understand the process objectively, we can understand the output objectively. What is left that we can't understand scientifically? There is nothing beyond the input, the processing, and the output.

Well, what is left is the only question of relevance in a discussion that asserts science can answer moral questions.

Being able to understand the process of why someone prefers an ice cream flavour or a moral decision doesn't answer the question of why someone should prefer it.

There's no way science can answer a question like "should I kill that man?" because there is nothing in science that could fundamentally care one way or the other whether or not that man is alive or dead. You have to invent moral systems for that.

 

[JoelKatz]

There's no way science can answer a question like "should I kill that man?" because there is nothing in science that could fundamentally care one way or the other whether or not that man is alive or dead. You have to invent moral systems for that.

In other words your argument is not that morality is subjective or has any general property that makes it so that science can't understand it. Your argument is that morality alone is special in some way that uniquely makes it, and only it, somehow exempt from scientific analysis. The entire rest of the universe is open to scientific understanding, but human morality is somehow different.

In any event, the flaw in your argument is that you think that caring is fundamentally needed to reach moral conclusions. But I can reach moral conclusions about what you should do even if I don't give a damn about you. Caring about yourself is how you make moral decisions for yourself. But there's no reason to think it wouldn't be possible to objectively make moral decisions for others without any caring. It's like arguing that computers can't add because they have no concept of a number. We add with number concepts. Computers add without them.

The crux is simply to understand precisely what is going on when humans make moral decisions. We can then track the input through the process to the output, and then replicate the process. If we discover limitations from the way humans do it, there's no reason to think we couldn't remove those limitations. Human moral decisionmaking is no different in principle from human mathematical problem solving. We just don't know the problems that are being solved. And we're occasionally confounded by the errors people make.

To put it simply, we have to understand the precise question that is being asked, and then how to get the right answer will come. Just as once you understand what 'addition' is, you can replicate a human doing addition problems, build a computer to do the same thing, and even catch the human in a mistake or two. But you have to understand the question, and we don't understand that yet. We don't yet know what 'should' really means.

But to argue that science can never get the "right" answers to moral questions because there is no scientific notion of "right" would also argue that computers can't get the "right" answers to addition problems. There is nothing special about moral questions compared to mathematical questions. (Except we know precisely what is being asked when someone asks for a 'sum' or 'product'.)

 

[JJM 777]

Science can study human behaviour.
Science can study human decision-making.
Science can study human emotions.
Science can study human moral behaviour, feelings, and decision-making.

This was post #1864 (Still in square #1 though)

 

[cyborg]

Your argument is that morality alone is special in some way that uniquely makes it, and only it, somehow exempt from scientific analysis.

I fail to see how you could possibly infer that from an argument that analogises from ice cream flavour preference.

You are reading a lot of stuff I haven't written.

In any event, the flaw in your argument is that you think that caring is fundamentally needed to reach moral conclusions.

Fundamentally you need to prefer the state of the universe to be one way or the other and fundamentally science is not a method of inquiry designed to make assertions about how the universe should be but about how the universe is.

Science doesn't and can't answer the question as to whether or not I should exist in the universe.

It's like arguing that computers can't add because they have no concept of a number.

No it isn't.

It's arguing that just because computers can add doesn't mean that they can know what to add.

The crux is simply to understand precisely what is going on when humans make moral decisions. We can then track the input through the process to the output, and then replicate the process.

Understanding the moral program doesn't tell you whether or not the moral program is "right".

If your moral program says murder is "wrong" and my moral program says murder is "right" via this analysis where are you left? You are left appealing to something that isn't part of either system.

Human moral decisionmaking is no different in principle from human mathematical problem solving.

No, it isn't - the fact that you understand this makes your argument even more perplexing.

But to argue that science can never get the "right" answers to moral questions because there is no scientific notion of "right" would also argue that computers can't get the "right" answers to addition problems.

No it isn't for the reasons outlined above.

The questions are not being asked about the same type of thing.

One is a simple question of whether or not an operation is possible.

The other is a question of whether or not an operation is applicable.

There is nothing special about moral questions compared to mathematical questions. (Except we know precisely what is being asked when someone asks for a 'sum' or 'product'.)

But do you know when to use a sum or a product?

Mathematical precision doesn't help if you use a plus when you wanted a minus.

As it is with moral reasoning.

 

[Paulhoff]

Religions do change with the times/social bent, believe it or not. Sure, they suck and are completely irrational. But Harris sucks and is completely irrational.

I know religions have changed, but it was from outside pressure, and that was many times came from science understanding. It was posted before that religion pigeons holes people, and science has shown that humans are very much the same throughout the world, and more so than a clan of chimps are to each other.

But to say Harris sucks and is irrational is way over the top and only shows me that you don't have a so-called open mind. I can't see anything at all that was said by him that makes him this. I wonder if it is just people hearing that science can't do something and believing it because it makes them feel better and so-called more than they seem to be. Many think that science is only cut and dry and it can be at first, but anytime it is applied it only shows how deep, how un-dry and uncut the world really is. Religion had humankind as the center of the universe, that sounds sweet at first but it is very limiting to ones knowledge, where science has shown that everywhere is the center of the universe and is mind opening.

Science has and will make mistakes, but those mistakes can help to come up new ways of thinking about a problem, and it seems many here don’t understand that.

Paul

 

[annnnoid]

Actually, science can tell us everything there is to know about things that are subjective.
.

As Wolfgang Pauli put it….’NOT EVEN WRONG’. This is so stupid it’s hard to believe anyone with a brain could believe it, let alone commit it to a public forum. I’ll have to conclude you made a typo otherwise you’ve lost all of whatever little credibility you had left.

Tell me anything useful about ice cream preferences that science cannot (in principle, we may not have figured it out yet) tell us.
.

…aaah…here we have a minor qualification. “…in principle…”. And what ‘principle’ would that be Joel? That science can figure out everything? Please identify where this axiom has been established.

I’ll wait.

Perhaps a little reminder from Robin on the limitations of science:

What methods do we have of investigating the metaphysical/ontological questions that science cannot ask?

I would say that we have none.

What you do not seem to comprehend Joel, is that there exist questions that science cannot ask. Perhaps you should apply some of your scientific zeal to understanding why Scott Atran concluded that based on ALL evidence and reason life is fundamentally irrational. He’s an atheist and one of the most highly respected cognitive scientists in the world….and he very likely understands the issue infinitely better than you do.

Science can figure out what happens when different people taste ice cream
.

Wrong….again. Seriously Joel. This is blatant pseudo-science. Science can figure out SOME things to SOME degrees. You are becoming a parody, which is regrettable, because you’re obviously not stupid. You sound far more like some religious disciple (of, in this particular case, science) than a sensible atheist.

They can assess ice cream preferences in the population.
.

…big deal.

They may find correlations between ice cream preferences and mental states. They may be able to measure how much pleasure different people experience when they try different ice creams and tell us why some people like vanilla more than chocolate.
.

….and then we’ll have scientists telling us we’d better eat vanilla if we want to be happier? Again….a steaming pile of rampant speculation. IOW...science-FICTION!

They may be able to scan my brain and craft the ultimate ice cream flavor for me or tell me why and how much I will and won't like all flavors.
.

….I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. How can anyone think such nonsense. ‘They may be able to…’. Why not just plug yourself in and let ‘them’ live your life for you since you seem to have completely forgotten what it means to have one. And how do we decide whether or not what 'they' may be able to do is appropriate or not? Oh yeah, we plug ourselves in and 'they' will tell us....after 'they' plug themselves in to determine if 'they' are accurately adjudicating their conditions. And who's going to be adjudicating the adjudicators....omniscient scientists guided by his holiness Pope Harris the first.


Joel….no offence but your entire argument seems to boil down to “…science can figure some things out….so it must be possible for science to figure everything out…” Talk about flagrant scientism! Your argument is nothing but epileptic hand waving and epic wishful thinking.

Sorry, but your explanations are vague, often nonsensical, and…sometimes…downright worrisome. Your rational utopia would not only be utterly unworkable and blatantly immoral (ever heard of the fundamental morality of free will?....why do you suppose free will / personal responsibility has been recognized as the most fundamental moral imperative?)…it would be a fascist nightmare. Ever heard of the Borg? I’ll take religious uncertainty any day.

What is left that we can't understand scientifically? There is nothing beyond the input, the processing, and the output.

I’d suggest you take some anti-rational pills Joel. If that’s all a human being is to you then you seriously need to get out more.



Perhaps a few credible reminders from some actual scientists of what the state of things actually is and will likely be for quite some time.

Professor Geraint Rees, Director… Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London

“ Brain reading will be restricted to simple cases with a fixed number of alternatives...for all of which training date are available....because of the all but infinite number of cognitive states and necessarily limited training categories. “

And Noam Chomsky:

" It should be obvious to everyone that by and large science reaches deep explanatory theories to the extent that it narrows its gaze. If a problem is too hard for physicists, they hand it over to chemists, and so on down the line until it ends with people who try to deal somehow with human affairs, where scientific understanding is very thin, and is likely to remain so, except in a few areas that can be abstracted for special studies.

On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world. "

It was posted before that religion pigeons holes people, and science has shown that humans are very much the same throughout the world, and more so than a clan of chimps are to each other.

….who was that guy who tried to use science to argue that entire categories of human beings deserved to die….Hitler I think was his name. Wonderful dude. A credit to science and atheism. The world definitely needs more like him.

 

[Beth]

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?

It's hard to reply seriously to you when you say something like that. I would agree that something must explain those perceptions, I do not agree that the explanation is ghosts or bigfoot. I did not say that *every* reasoning chain that has perceptions at its root is necessarily valid. I just said that's a key requirement for being valid.

This seems more like an excuse for not responding to my post than a legitimate gripe. I was serious about the point here, as I was about the others I made in that post.

It’s a fair point that perceptions are a necessary but not sufficient justification for belief. Personally, I think that a belief of that nature can be justified by such perceptions. That doesn’t make them correct, but it is quite possible to construct a valid chain of reasoning based on the perception. My question was not regarding your opinion of the accuracy of their belief, but whether you think they are justified in their belief. Based on your previous post, it would seem the answer should be yes. Based on this post, it would seem the answer is no. So what is your opinion?

Actually, science can tell us everything there is to know about things that are subjective. For example, ice cream preferences are purely subjective. Tell me anything useful about ice cream preferences that science cannot (in principle, we may not have figured it out yet) tell us.

Okay, it’s that in principle part that relates back to the axiom we were discussing.

The universe is governed by consistent rules that humans can deduce through observation and experiment.

If you accept this axiom, then your statement is correct. But this axiom cannot be proven true or false. Do you still claim that it is a conclusion rather than an axiom?

In other words your argument is not that morality is subjective or has any general property that makes it so that science can't understand it. Your argument is that morality alone is special in some way that uniquely makes it, and only it, somehow exempt from scientific analysis. The entire rest of the universe is open to scientific understanding, but human morality is somehow different.

No, that isn’t the argument that has been made. People in this thread are not arguing that science cannot assist humans in making the correct choices to adhere to an ethical system. The argument relates to whether science can do so without requiring some fundamental axiom that the moral system will be built upon. To define ethical as increasing or maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures is an example of such an axiom.

But to argue that science can never get the "right" answers to moral questions because there is no scientific notion of "right" would also argue that computers can't get the "right" answers to addition problems. There is nothing special about moral questions compared to mathematical questions. (Except we know precisely what is being asked when someone asks for a 'sum' or 'product'.)

Well, yes. But there are different systems of mathematics whereby a ‘sum’ or ‘product’ may be defined differently. We have to specify to the computer what the mathematical system is that a problem must be solved within. Likewise, for science to help us humans make moral choices, we will have to define what ethical system to use. That is the ‘ought’ that must be defined prior to being able to make use of science to solve ethical dilemmas.

 

[Dani]

But to argue that science can never get the "right" answers to moral questions because there is no scientific notion of "right" would also argue that computers can't get the "right" answers to addition problems. There is nothing special about moral questions compared to mathematical questions. (Except we know precisely what is being asked when someone asks for a 'sum' or 'product'.)

This is an equivocation.

Morally right doesn't mean factually right. They are different concepts.

 

[AlBell]

At least no one has blurted out "category error"!

Oops. I just did.

 

[Paulhoff]

….who was that guy who tried to use science to argue that entire categories of human beings deserved to die….Hitler I think was his name. Wonderful dude. A credit to science and atheism. The world definitely needs more like him.

Geezzz, it has gotten how to Hitler. His is Christian no less, and not an atheist. He misuse science, and of course that is the fault of science, not the men misusing and using religion as their back up for morals.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Adolph Hitler

Paul

 

[fls]

Clear to you, Paul, and Harris at least.

And again, although The Rules may be subsumed with religious veneer they were formulated by men; likely very intelligent men.

Does that matter? They didn't do a good job of it.

We are?

Yes, we are. We are offered the excuses that at least religion offers us a way to package morals, that morals are the purview of religion since science cannot address them, that there would not be morals without religion, etc.

Yes I notice you've been unable so far to formulate any question for Science to address that actually addresses hot-button topics involving "moral" choices.

You haven't actually brought up substantial moral choices, though. The questions of prohibiting human embryos outside the womb or forceable burqa use are trivially easy for science to answer - they needlessly increase suffering and are unjustified.

Thanks for your usual non-answer off-on-a-tangent (in fact belonging in some other thread) response.

Don't blame me. It was your idea to treat actions which depend on new technology as somehow exempt from consideration, which I disagreed with.

Linda

 

[Egg]

The questions of prohibiting human embryos outside the womb or forceable burqa use are trivially easy for science to answer - they needlessly increase suffering and are unjustified.

This is true. However, for the purposes of what we're discussing in this thread, the kind of questions we'd be concerned with might be something like:

Can science tell us that needlessly increasing suffering should be generally considered as ethical priority number 1?

Can science give us a basis for ranking which persons or creatures we should assign more importance to reducing needless suffering, in cases where we need to make a choice?

How does science tell us what classifies as "needless"?

 

[JoelKatz]

This is an equivocation.

Morally right doesn't mean factually right. They are different concepts.

I can't figure out how to parse this. If someone says "X is morally right", they're arguing that it is a fact that X is morally right. They're asserting that action X in fact has a particular property.

 

[AlBell]

Does that matter? They didn't do a good job of it.

What specific evidence do you have this is a widespread, citizens rioting in the street, problem? Or a problem at all for that matter -- except to Harris and you?

Yes, we are. We are offered the excuses that at least religion offers us a way to package morals, that morals are the purview of religion since science cannot address them, that there would not be morals without religion, etc.

Be darned. Here I thought secular humanists have come up with moral systems. Agreed all ignore them.

You haven't actually brought up substantial moral choices, though. The questions of prohibiting human embryos outside the womb or forceable burqa use are trivially easy for science to answer - they needlessly increase suffering and are unjustified.

Who gets their needless suffering increased, and why should you or I care if it does?

And exactly what are the Answers via scientists using Science to evaluate these questions? How did they arrive at all that increased, needless, suffering?

And I remain curious; which is worse, stealing embryos or eggs?

Don't blame me. It was your idea to treat actions which depend on new technology as somehow exempt from consideration, which I disagreed with.

Linda

Your comprehension comes & goes, doesn't it? The discussion concerns technology that raises moral issues in its use.

 

[Dani]

I can't figure out how to parse this. If someone says "X is morally right", they're arguing that it is a fact that X is morally right. They're asserting that action X in fact has a particular property.

Take any dictionary, and you'll see the two different meanings I'm referring to. It's either an equivocation, or a particular semantic view. It's either a fallacy or misleading.

 

[annnnoid]

I should apologize Joel…I think I was a bit harsh in my last post. Sorry…but your conclusions just annoy me somehow.

I can't figure out how to parse this. If someone says "X is morally right", they're arguing that it is a fact that X is morally right. They're asserting that action X in fact has a particular property.

…the property of compelling a conclusion of moral veracity / certainty. The property of being factual.

But….no, they’re asserting that they believe action X has a particular property (there are degrees of interpretation involved). You are assuming that there is some definitive (and scientifically intelligible) normative process by which that conclusion is arrived at. The fact is that how anyone achieves any conclusion about anything is an utter mystery (I think Hegel tried to comprehensively illuminate the human landscape in The Science of Logic but who understands Hegel???...and Shopenhauer thought he was an idiot anyway) …and not only that, but people often reach similar conclusions in different, sometimes vastly different, ways (like Atran said, life is irrational). And then…whatever condition of ‘moral certainty’ is achieved itself varies according to a wide range of issues ….most of which are in no way scientifically quantifiable.

You’re expecting this ‘property’ to be not only consistent and rational but also somehow scientifically intelligible. I don’t think this in any way shape or form reflects the reality of subjective experience and the infinite variety of ways individuals achieve identity.

Thus the moral condition of dude A who ‘feels’ squashing frogs is wrong may bear little resemblance to the moral condition of dude B who ‘feels’ the same thing. Geraint Rees (the cognitive scientist I’ve quoted a bunch of times) has referred to this when he says that reverse inferencing is an extremely dubious process. Reverse inferencing is the process of taking a previously adjudicated neural process (for example: fMRI state X is equivalent to Sally saying hallo to a large orange cat) and assuming that the same ‘readings’ can be applied to Jennifer (IOW….if a similar fMRI reading is achieved with Jennifer does it mean she is also saying hallo to a large orange cat?....the answer is no). Actually, he’s established that the same readings cannot often even be applied to the same person at a later date, let alone to anyone else.

IMO….you are extrapolating that there should be some intelligible / quantifiable process involved based on an over-rationalization of human nature and a wildly optimistic extrapolation of science’s ability to adjudicate neural correlates.

 

[fls]

This is true. However, for the purposes of what we're discussing in this thread, the kind of questions we'd be concerned with might be something like:

Can science tell us that needlessly increasing suffering should be generally considered as ethical priority number 1?

I think we would identify those properties which have the greatest import, like for health where quality adjusted life years give us more relevant information than just mortality.

Can science give us a basis for ranking which persons or creatures we should assign more importance to reducing needless suffering, in cases where we need to make a choice?

This seems to relate to the extent to which we think various creatures can have experiences similar to those that are important to us - pain, pleasure, sorrow, etc. This is reflected in the ethical guidelines for the treatment of animals in research, where we are careless about undergraduate labs using fruit flies, but have stricter requirements for the use of rats and very rigid criteria for primates. Persons are generally treated as indistinguishable.

How does science tell us what classifies as "needless"?

No benefit is derived or benefit could be obtained without the suffering.

Linda

 

[fls]

What specific evidence do you have this is a widespread, citizens rioting in the street, problem? Or a problem at all for that matter -- except to Harris and you?

Be darned. Here I thought secular humanists have come up with moral systems. Agreed all ignore them.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm just pointing out very common arguments which take place in the public arena and here to some extent. If you have not encountered them, I'm surprised and a bit envious. However, it doesn't really matter - just like the presence of quack medicine does not serve to make medicine any more or less useful.

Who gets their needless suffering increased, and why should you or I care if it does?

Couples with the strong desire to have a child who need the help medical advances provide. Woman killed or maimed for not wearing a burqa. We don't have to care, just like I don't have to care whether you die from a heart attack in order for an aspirin a day to effectively prevent that heart attack.

And exactly what are the Answers via scientists using Science to evaluate these questions? How did they arrive at all that increased, needless, suffering?

One good indicator is the value of the resources couples will put towards fertility technologies.

And I remain curious; which is worse, stealing embryos or eggs?

I don't know if that question has been posed in a study. I wanted you to think on it a bit and to hear some other opinions. My guess is that most people wouldn't make much of a distinction between them.

Your comprehension comes & goes, doesn't it? The discussion concerns technology that raises moral issues in its use.

Right...but it doesn't alter those properties we are looking for - suffering, pleasure, autonomy, etc. It's not like it's suddenly okay for people to die because we can perform liver transplants.

Linda

 

[CapelDodger]

I know religions have changed, but it was from outside pressure ...

More usually through internal pressure and schism, often accompanied by violence. The only thing an outside force can do to a religion is suppress it. I'm working on an app for that.

... and that was many times came from science understanding.

Nope. Luther did not nail 95 Equations to a cathedral door, and as I understand it there weren't even any diagrams in his Theses.

It was posted before that religion pigeons holes people, and science has shown that humans are very much the same throughout the world, and more so than a clan of chimps are to each other.

People (and chimps) naturally like there to be an in-crowd and an out-crowd. It's not an instinct we've come close to shedding, even after thousands of years of civilisaton. Religion is just another way to delineate the ins and the outs.

But to say Harris sucks and is irrational is way over the top and only shows me that you don't have a so-called open mind.

I've looked at it, and he's rubbish. Just consider the trite "Great Questions" he introduces, with the implication that these are the sort of questions science can ... ummm ... something someday.

"Values are facts". Puhleease. Values are subjective, individual, consciously or unconsciously held concepts, and that's a fact. Pick Harris's verbiage apart and it all turns to smoke.

Presentable guy, great hair, strides about stage spouting profound inanities to a rapt audience. Seen it before.

I can't see anything at all that was said by him that makes him this.

He is a less than profound thinker.