Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

Piscivore said:
So that's arbitrary then. Humans care about humans. And you've gone and made it even more arbitrary- humans care about humans that are themselves, their progeny, and those that benefit them directly.

"Having more kiddies", "Those that help them survive"- how is that not an "instrumental good"?
Click to expand...

What????

Um... I suppose you could say that evolution is, in a sense, arbitrary, but I don't see what that has to do with the question at hand.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
The problem I see with 'wellbeing' as the basis of one's morality is that apart from being rather wooly, it could be used to provide justification for social Darwinism and eugenics.
Click to expand...

Actually, a bio approach argues against those approaches, because (a) morals don't apply to a species, but to people and (b) biology tells us that human nature is, for all intents and purposes, uniform.
 
Piggy said:
What????

Um... I suppose you could say that evolution is, in a sense, arbitrary, but I don't see what that has to do with the question at hand.
Click to expand...

Well, if evolution is arbitrary, and:
Piggy said:
But humans are the product of evolution, and evolution has built into us a very strong primal concern for our wellbeing.
Click to expand...

Where does the "non-arbitrary-ness" enter into it to counter "concern with human wellbeing is an arbitrary standard"
 
fls said:
I am presuming that 'ought' and 'should' are being used synonymously.
Click to expand...
No argument there.

I am referring to this:

"Doctors ought to inform test subjects of all relevant risks."
Click to expand...
The doctor might think there are good reasons to withhold the information. The test subject might not agree, third parties might not agree, and they may try to impose pressure on the doctor to get him to comply with their values, but it's ultimately the doctor's call- and he will judge based on his values.

"It is thought that science can help us get what we value, but it can never tell us what we ought to value."
Click to expand...
I agree with this.
 
Piggy said:
On the contrary, I've already asked Ivor why in the world he was asking me these questions, when neither I nor Harris nor Pinker has ever claimed that science will hand us the answers to all our moral questions, and Harris has explicitly said that it won't (and I've agreed). I even explained why this is so, using the "Should we bomb Iran?" example.
Click to expand...

Okay, rather than me think of questions, why don't you give some examples of moral questions science can provide objective answers to.

For example, if you believe science provides an objective answer to why women should not be required to wear burkas, please explain the evidence and your reasoning why this is the case.
 
Piggy said:
Actually, a bio approach argues against those approaches, because (a) morals don't apply to a species, but to people and (b) biology tells us that human nature is, for all intents and purposes, uniform.
Click to expand...

The wellbeing of humanity will be improved if we restrict the breeding potential of those with genes which are related to low intelligence.

Agree? Disagree?

Why?
 
Piscivore said:
Well, if evolution is arbitrary, and:


Where does the "non-arbitrary-ness" enter into it to counter "concern with human wellbeing is an arbitrary standard"
Click to expand...

You're in two entirely different frames of reference.

If evolution is arbitrary or not, doesn't matter.

The fact is, our biology is what it is. The fact of our biology is a non-arbitrary standard because we are our biology, regardless of the arbitrariness or purposefulness of the processes that formed it.
 
Piscivore said:
What's that? Specifically? Because I find it curious that most people that use that term curiously seem to think that "human nature" is synonomus with their own behaviour patterns and value systems.
Click to expand...

Here's a good place to start:

Human Universals

Of course, "avoiding suffering" is the Mother of all Universals that Harris was using as his baseline.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Okay, rather than me think of questions, why don't you give some examples of moral questions science can provide objective answers to.

For example, if you believe science provides an objective answer to why women should not be required to wear burkas, please explain the evidence and your reasoning why this is the case.
Click to expand...

Been done upthread.

When men force women to wear burkas, they are giving themselves power and freedom not granted to women, and they are constraining their liberty in a very basic way, and indirectly removing a great deal of control over their reproductive choices.

Science tells us that human beings don't much care for unequal power arrangements maintained by force, don't enjoy having their freedom restricted, don't enjoy being forced into a lower social status, and that women especially want to have control over their reproductive choices.

The Old Book says that this arrangement is justified.

A scientifically-informed morality finds no justification for it.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
The wellbeing of humanity will be improved if we restrict the breeding potential of those with genes which are related to low intelligence.

Agree? Disagree?

Why?
Click to expand...

Disagree, primarily because (in the real world) granting any group that much power is not likely to end well. Experiments in hard-core social engineering include Stalinism, Nazism, and the Khmer Rouge. Results were less than stellar.

Besides that (as if it weren't enough) you'd first have to show that folks with low intelligence are of no benefit to anyone.

Finally, even despite all that, we have to consider the suffering caused by restricting people's freedom in that way, and balance it against any potential benefits.
 
Piggy said:
Which, btw, are rather puzzling notions to begin with. Intrinsic good is an absurdity (how can "good" inhere in things and actions, after all?) and instrumental good is a tautology.
Click to expand...

Btw, I have since concluded that this is incorrect.
 
Piggy said:
Piggy said:
Which, btw, are rather puzzling notions to begin with. Intrinsic good is an absurdity (how can "good" inhere in things and actions, after all?) and instrumental good is a tautology.
Click to expand...

Btw, I have since concluded that this is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Congratulations.

Now, about those questions.
 
Piggy said:
Here's a good place to start:

Human Universals
Click to expand...
What a ridiculous list. It is filled with:
  • terms that are vague enough to have a different (and therefore non-Universal) meaning to different people. (pride, envy...)
  • terms that don't have clear meaning ("intention", "mental maps", "mentalese", "senses unified"...)
  • concepts that across cultures are displayed in such vastly different ways that it is ridiculous to claim that they constitute "universals" ("aesthetics", "jokes", "etiquette", "taboos"...)
  • things that are only true in large groups, because there are so darn many exceptions to the "universal" rule. (males engage in more coalitional violence, males more aggressive, males more prone to lethal violence, males more prone to theft, males, on average, travel greater distances over lifetime... and other damaging stereotypes.)
  • "universal" things that many people live without. ("snakes, wariness around", "recognition of individuals by face", "marriage"...)
  • things for which it is not hard to find groups who do not have it ("sex (gender) terminology is fundamentally binary" is not true of genderqueer subcultures)
  • examples where the non-universality is explicitly mentioned ("husband older than wife on average", "males, on average, travel greater distances over lifetime", "biological mother and social mother normally the same person", "copulation normally conducted in privacy")
  • terms that are there to pad the list, and are already included in other terms ("spear" is a "weapon" or a "tool")
  • examples that show that there is no such thing as "human nature" seperable from "human culture" ("tools patterned culturally", "cultural variability", "culture"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom