Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[Beth]

The rather large majority of humanity who profess to believe in god, and likely consider non-belief a moral deficiency, may decide Harris and other atheists need some chemical (or other) "fixing" so they believe in god too.

You think this is what Sam Harris had in mind?

 

[AlBell]

No, but one just never knows how others' "oughts" may or may not be implemented.

Buried in sand with head exposed as target for the rock throwers seems to be one method in current use.

ps. I continue to think Harris has nothing in mind for his believers other than book sales and speaking fees.

 

[JJM 777]

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

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

there have been experiments regarding drug regimens for convicted rapists. 'Chemical Castration'

Castration does not make a person "healthy". Unless you would agree that amputating or paralyzing the hands and legs of a violent person makes the person "healthy".

If I am understanding Harris correctly, that would be an example of science solving a moral problem.

Chemical castration and whatever they would do to thieves remove symptoms. Brushing the symptoms under the carpet, without addressing the actual source of symptoms, is not a good long-term strategy to heal any sickness. The reasons for criminality are at least to some extent social, some people turn to criminality only after first trying and failing in legal working life.

We can define responses we consider 'good' (...) it only remains to get similar concurrence on the issue by the rest of humanity.

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.

 

[The Man]

The rather large majority of humanity who profess to believe in god, and likely consider non-belief a moral deficiency, may decide Harris and other atheists need some chemical (or other) "fixing" so they believe in god too.

Actually some applied magnetic fields might be more suited to that endeavor.


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

 

[AlBell]

Agreed. Interesting study. Various psyco-active experiences might also suffice.

Once one has such an experience, would atheism still be one's choice? What would the evolutionary value of the needed circuitry be?

 

[The Man]

I like the color analogy. I disagree with it only in that it is considered an 'objective' property of objects. But I think that objectivity is an illusion anyway. Or more properly, that true objectivity is an unattainable perfection of measurement. Ithink of objective/subjective as two extremes of a continuous property of all measurements.

We can only go by what we can perceive and with instrumentality that ability has increased tremendously. However, the need for ascriptions still remain.

The big different I see is that color is measuring a property of material object. Sam Harris is proposing we scientifically attempt to measure an intangible property of material objects, namely us.

A property that we can perceive to some degree on our own but we still may not agree on what to ascribe those perceived properties, ‘red’ , ‘blue’ ‘good’ ‘bad’. Also (as you note) we have the capability of making such ascriptions based more on self perception than on any perceived property of a material object, or perhaps just conflate the two. Again it is one of the goals of science to objectify even the subjective.

If we accept that normal humans have an inborn propensity towards describing certain behaviors as 'good' or 'bad', then we should be able to construct better and more objective measures of such.

Exactly, as there appears to be no natural morality, that it is simply a construct of conscious beings or agents seems to be unavoidable. However, as you note the tendency to make such ascriptions does seem to be widespread so just that inherent drive to make such ascriptions may have some natural basis. Science has to start somewhere and generally is starts by defining terms and applications in some limited and to some degree idealized consideration. Once relationships become more apparent, theories developed and tested within those constraints the tendency is to move towards more generalized and less ideal considerations.

I think that this leads to a 'the majority is always sane' ethos. Consider this, the majority of humans in my society consider a sincere belief in some sort of religion or god a primary indicator of morality. Suppose we identify neurologically what is different about people people who do and don't believe in god. Who do you think that people in my society will consider 'broken' and in need of 'fixing'.

Sure to some degree, but we already consider people who lack empathy and have amoral behavior to be “broken” is some regard. The clinical term is (or at least was) Psychopathy .


Certainly I do take your point ‘let’s fix everyone to the same morality’, not a promising perspective. However, we can’t just let fear of misuse stand in the way of trying to learn more about ourselves.

 

[The Man]

Agreed. Interesting study. Various psyco-active experiences might also suffice.

Once one has such an experience, would atheism still be one's choice? What would the evolutionary value of the needed circuitry be?

Certainly if they knew the experience was deliberately induced and you will note the tendency to attribute the felt presence to, at times, just some conscious entity and not god or a god in particular. However, it might present an interesting experience for some atheist.

‘Take the God ride and feel what they feel’.

As to the “evolutionary value of the needed circuitry be” it might exploit sensory pattern recognition that would have helped alert us to some presence or danger, however in this case bypassing those sensory inputs.

 

[Beth]

No, but one just never knows how others' "oughts" may or may not be implemented.

Exactly my point!

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

I don't disagree with anything you've said.

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.

Back in the mid seventies when I took Intro to Sociology, the professor described the term "mores" as meaning a near universal ethical value. Things like "torturing small children for pleasure is bad". I think there may be some basic ground rules that the vast majority can agree on. Or maybe not. I think Sam is proposing that we start with that.

To go back to the color analogy, it's like being able to define black and white and using that knowledge to build up to discerning colors. I'm not sure if it's possible or not. You need an scale for an axis orthogonal to the black-white axis.

We can only go by what we can perceive and with instrumentality that ability has increased tremendously. However, the need for ascriptions still remain.

I think we are most in agreement too.

A property that we can perceive to some degree on our own but we still may not agree on what to ascribe those perceived properties, ‘red’ , ‘blue’ ‘good’ ‘bad’. Also (as you note) we have the capability of making such ascriptions based more on self perception than on any perceived property of a material object, or perhaps just conflate the two. Again it is one of the goals of science to objectify even the subjective.

Indeed. Measurement turns out to be the fundamental building block of the scientific method.

Sure to some degree, but we already consider people who lack empathy and have amoral behavior to be “broken” is some regard. The clinical term is (or at least was) Psychopathy .

Yes. And we try to find chemical "fixes" for their problem. In point of fact, I suffer from depression and find anti-depressants to make the difference between having a life and being able to get out of bed in morning. I am quite happy to be able to repair my mind so it isn't broken.

Certainly I do take your point ‘let’s fix everyone to the same morality’, not a promising perspective. However, we can’t just let fear of misuse stand in the way of trying to learn more about ourselves.

No, we can't let it stand in the way, but we can't ignore the potential ramifications of misuse. I'm afraid I'm pretty cynical in that regard. If we develop such technology, there will be people who will misuse it. That's what humans do.

 

[The Man]

To go back to the color analogy, it's like being able to define black and white and using that knowledge to build up to discerning colors. I'm not sure if it's possible or not. You need an scale for an axis orthogonal to the black-white axis.

I think Harris already notes (perhaps not in the OP interview) that “flourishing” may take on some stratification as the usage develops.

I think we are most in agreement too.

Indeed. Measurement turns out to be the fundamental building block of the scientific method.

It certainly is one, or more specifically science is quantitative. So assigning and dealing with values is right up the ol’ scientific alley.

Yes. And we try to find chemical "fixes" for their problem. In point of fact, I suffer from depression and find anti-depressants to make the difference between having a life and being able to get out of bed in morning. I am quite happy to be able to repair my mind so it isn't broken.

I can certianly empathize, my own affliction is psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Without treatments my immune system attacks my joints till they don’t work anymore. With treatments I’m able to continue in what is often a very physically demanding job. Unfortunately those treatments put me at other risks like infection or liver damage. So you take the good with the bad.

No, we can't let it stand in the way, but we can't ignore the potential ramifications of misuse. I'm afraid I'm pretty cynical in that regard. If we develop such technology, there will be people who will misuse it. That's what humans do.

That type of technology is a long way away if at all. Also we can look at our own chemical fixes as some examples. For myself I don’t see much potential for abuse. One a TNF inhibitor is just too darn expensive and all it is likely to do to any normal individual is too make it harder for them to fight an infection should they get one. The other Methotrexate is just too dang nasty. It makes you feel like you’re hung over. However, serotonin reuptake inhibitors (typically used as antidepressants) do find recreational uses and abuses. Still no one (that I know of) is administering them unilaterally to try to alter everyone’s behavior.

 

[fls]

"I think it starts with throwing out religious dogmatism"?

That quote is in the book?



And does that sentence fulfillingly and completely answer "Does Harris explain how we might get people to do the right thing once science has determined what that might be?"

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 think it goes...quit excusing religion and the nonsense will become plain.

Linda

 

[AlBell]

I think it goes...quit excusing religion and the nonsense will become plain.

Linda

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?

 

[Beth]

Still no one (that I know of) is administering them unilaterally to try to alter everyone’s behavior.

No. But I'm one of those people who is rather suspicious of the current trend of 'diagnosing' problems to the extent that a sizable minority of the children in the U.S., primarily boys, are prescribed psychoactive medications.

I don't see it as an overt attempt to control, but a trend that might lead to poor outcomes.

 

[AlBell]

No. But I'm one of those people who is rather suspicious of the current trend of 'diagnosing' problems to the extent that a sizable minority of the children in the U.S., primarily boys, are prescribed psychoactive medications.

I don't see it as an overt attempt to control, but a trend that might lead to poor outcomes.

Gee. I'd say you are an optimist if that's as scary as you find the implications of Science (which unfortunately requires scientists) defining morality.

 

[The Man]

No. But I'm one of those people who is rather suspicious of the current trend of 'diagnosing' problems to the extent that a sizable minority of the children in the U.S., primarily boys, are prescribed psychoactive medications.

I don't see it as an overt attempt to control, but a trend that might lead to poor outcomes.

Good point, the current attitude is too often to reach for the pill bottle or the prescription pad too readily. Just as MDMA (“acts as a releasing agent of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine”) is sometimes referred to a the trust drug, as it can result in feelings of closeness and trust (even with strangers), a similar morality drug is perhaps conceivable. Where it might increase or decrease one’s propensity to make decisions they feel to be moral or more or less comfortable in the consideration that the decisions they made were moral. I doubt it could induce any certain or particular set of moral norms. I suspect that would take a protracted period of behavioral conditioning even with the benefit of effective drugs. Of course just the former can have abuses ‘the guilt pill’, take it and you’ll feel nothing but remorse about everything you do. ‘The amoral pill’ take it and you won’t give a flying handshake about anyone or anything.

A Clockwork Orange, anyone?

 

[Beth]

Gee. I'd say you are an optimist if that's as scary as you find the implications of Science (which unfortunately requires scientists) defining morality.

No, that's not the scariest implication. I don't actually have any problem with science/scientists defining morality - after all, it something that we humans do - as long as we remain free to decide for ourselves whether or not we agree with their morality.

Good point, the current attitude is too often to reach for the pill bottle or the prescription pad too readily. Just as MDMA (“acts as a releasing agent of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine”) is sometimes referred to a the trust drug, as it can result in feelings of closeness and trust (even with strangers), a similar morality drug is perhaps conceivable. Where it might increase or decrease one’s propensity to make decisions they feel to be moral or more or less comfortable in the consideration that the decisions they made were moral. I doubt it could induce any certain or particular set of moral norms. I suspect that would take a protracted period of behavioral conditioning even with the benefit of effective drugs. Of course just the former can have abuses ‘the guilt pill’, take it and you’ll feel nothing but remorse about everything you do. ‘The amoral pill’ take it and you won’t give a flying handshake about anyone or anything.

A Clockwork Orange, anyone?

There's also "Brave New World" by Huxley. I think it is inevitable that our descendants will reshape their culture to suit them and not us. That we may disapprove of the direction they go doesn't really matter to them. They, no doubt, will disapprove of some things we do, like rampant pollution, much as we now disapprove of slavery.

 

[AlBell]

No, that's not the scariest implication. I don't actually have any problem with science/scientists defining morality - after all, it something that we humans do - as long as we remain free to decide for ourselves whether or not we agree with their morality.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of morality in that others are as free as you (and there are a lot more of 'em) to decide if your behaviors are moral.

 

[Beth]

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of morality in that others are as free as you (and there are a lot more of 'em) to decide if your behaviors are moral.

Yes. I'm not sure what you think I misunderstood, but I understand that.

 

[Dragoonster]

I think the general idea is that science can measure what is wrong

Uh...

with people neurologically and then prescribe treatments to address moral deficiencies. We are actually able to do such things in a very primitive way at the moment. IIRC, there have been experiments regarding drug regimens for convicted rapists. 'Chemical Castration' is a headline I recall, though I haven't heard anything more about it in years so that particular experiment may not have worked out.

If I am understanding Harris correctly, that would be an example of science solving a moral problem. If that isn't a good example, I'd appreciate hearing why and a different example provided.

The entire problem would be that science can't scentifically say "rape is wrong". Obviously if we already enter with "rape is wrong" science can give "answers". This is nothing new.

So anyway; okay, castration for mentally "wrong" rapists. What solution to mentally "wrong" ADD sufferers? Anxiety and depression sufferers? How do we forcibly fix them, without their consent?

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.

That's about the toughest "it only" I've ever seen. This is a utopian concept. No different than Christians thinking "it only remains to get everyone else to believe in Jesus".

Even if every single person held rationality, logic, and science in highest respect, they wouldn't/shouldn't be swayed by Harris, who hasn't established (read: proven) his claims by science at all.

 

[Paulhoff]

Uh...

The entire problem would be that science can't scentifically say "rape is wrong".

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.

Oh My.

Paul

 

[Beth]

Uh...

The entire problem would be that science can't scentifically say "rape is wrong".

Correct. Only we humans can say that 'rape is wrong' and we do based on our moral beliefs, not scientific evidence.

Obviously if we already enter with "rape is wrong" science can give "answers". This is nothing new.

I agree.

So anyway; okay, castration for mentally "wrong" rapists. What solution to mentally "wrong" ADD sufferers? Anxiety and depression sufferers? How do we forcibly fix them, without their consent?

The issue of forcing people to alter their brain state is crucial. I don't think people should be forcibly 'fixed' in such a way. In the experiment I referenced earlier, rapists were given the choice of participating or remaining in prison for the duration of the sentence, so no one was forced to endure the treatment against their will.

That's about the toughest "it only" I've ever seen. This is a utopian concept. No different than Christians thinking "it only remains to get everyone else to believe in Jesus".

Indeed, I was being slightly facetious with my choice of wording there.