Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[Beth]

I just said in my previous post that the suffering or happiness that follows from actions could be used as an objective indicator of how good or evil the actions are. Still it remains unanswered how good or evil people should be allowed to be, that is not a question that science would answer, any more than it would answer how wide my television should be, even if it does tell us what "width" means generally, and how wide something exactly is.

I think that when Harris claims to have solved the is/ought problem, it is akin to claiming that science will be able to answer how wide your television should be. That is what is being objected to in this thread.

Seems to me if Sam Harris is establishing a new scientific morality, he should establish legal punishments for those who oppose or flaunt it.

I don't think this follows. It seems to me that establishing legal punishments is an entirely different matter from establishing a morality. The ten commandments establishes a morality, but it doesn't establish penalties for failure to adhere to that morality.

 

[Paulhoff]

I find it funny how nowhere did Sam Harris talk as if science would be the only source to morals, but it seems others talk as if he did.

Paul

 

[Dragoonster]

I find it funny how nowhere did Sam Harris talk as if science would be the only source to morals, but it seems others talk as if he did.

Paul

"Science can answer moral questions"

Gee, and we talk as if he said something like this.

I don't think this follows. It seems to me that establishing legal punishments is an entirely different matter from establishing a morality. The ten commandments establishes a morality, but it doesn't establish penalties for failure to adhere to that morality.

So what is Harris' point? Is his morality a suggestion; a command; a scientific truth...what?

How does he usurp the current legal/ethical consensus? Laws aren't morals, but they are pretty important for forcing morals on others. Let's say Harris' scientific morality shows that forcing women to wear burkas is wrong. And Sayid still forces his wife to wear a burka. How is Harris' Scienctific Morality going to deal with this?

 

[fls]

Obviously, as I said, from a memory of a reference to Sam Harris advocating a chemical solution to the problem of those who don't adhere to his morals.

Of course I could be wrong and my memory does suck.

Anyway, people already force moral behaviors upon others. Murderers and rapists are jailed, etc. This is the standard social/legal/anthropological punisment for "wrong" behavior. Child rapists are forced to not engage in child rape because they're put into confinement by the government.

Seems to me if Sam Harris is establishing a new scientific morality, he should establish legal punishments for those who oppose or flaunt it. After all, his new Scientific Morality is apparently objective and the Truth of the Universe. If so, it's certainly the very best way to legally judge those who don't abide by it. Much better than current wrong/rights per the Judicial System. Harris' moral quantification is perfect.

But in the real world, if he or you decide to make the Scientific Morality the law of the land, just what force/persuasion do you reckon you'll have?

This isn't a side issue: Current state morals and laws have been built on millenia of legal and philosophical thought, and attending to particular regions. If Sam Harris has a revolutionary new moral philosophy here, he needs to either a) easily convince everyone in the world, because it's so obviously true, or b) force his moral philosophy on others using whatever forces he has at command.

I think your memory is off.

Harris doesn't advocate using force, chemical or otherwise. It seems to be more like what I mentioned earlier - removing impediments to good behaviors, like providing good information and getting rid of bad advice (religion precepts which pretend to be about morality but which serve to act against it).

Laws don't really seem to represent codified morals anyway, so I'm not sure why you are drawing this connection.

Linda

 

[Dragoonster]

I think your memory is off.

Very likely.

Harris doesn't advocate using force, chemical or otherwise. It seems to be more like what I mentioned earlier - removing impediments to good behaviors, like providing good information and getting rid of bad advice (religion precepts which pretend to be about morality but which serve to act against it).

Sounds like an AA meeting. Or a sweat lodge.

Laws don't really seem to represent codified morals anyway, so I'm not sure why you are drawing this connection.

Linda

IMO laws do represent morals. I don't see how anyone could disagree with this.

Murder is bad because it's considered by society immoral to kill an innocent human; embezzlement is bad because it's immoral to steal from an innocent human; and so on.

What (non-trivial) laws do you have in mind that are not based on morality?

 

[Paulhoff]

"Science can answer moral questions"

Gee, and we talk as if he said something like this.

Gee, I didn't know a talk was only one sentence, go figure.

Paul

 

[fls]

IMO laws do represent morals. I don't see how anyone could disagree with this.

Murder is bad because it's considered by society immoral to kill an innocent human; embezzlement is bad because it's immoral to steal from an innocent human; and so on.

What (non-trivial) laws do you have in mind that are not based on morality?

Laws seem to be about protecting social/economic/political systems. It's not illegal to lie, cheat and steal. It's illegal to do so in situations where it would interfere with economic stability.

Anyways, it doesn't seem to have much to do with the topic of this thread. Nobody is suggesting a set of laws codifying those actions which encourage well-being.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Laws seem to be about protecting social/economic/political systems. It's not illegal to lie, cheat and steal. It's illegal to do so in situations where it would interfere with economic stability.

Anyways, it doesn't seem to have much to do with the topic of this thread. Nobody is suggesting a set of laws codifying those actions which encourage well-being.

Linda

In that case I'm puzzled as to what Harris hopes to achieve.

For example, followers of Islam don't seem to give two hoots what anyone else and especially atheists think about their cultural and religious practices.

What things in society do you think would change because of morality being studied scientifically?

 

[Paulhoff]

For example, followers of Islam don't seem to give two hoots what anyone else and especially atheists think about their cultural and religious practices.

So, when should we stop science and learning?

Paul

 

[JJM 777]

Picking a scale is not remotely the same thing as adopting out of thin air a philosophical axiom. The first is part of science, the second most definitely is not.

Unnecessary playing with words.

So don´t call it a philosophy, just call it a scale. And don´t name the ends of the scale as Good and Evil, we can name them as Braun and Yello.

See, imaginary problems solved.

if the best way to maximise human pleasure and minimise human suffering was to spend all of our non-working hours shooting up heroin and staring at a wall, that would be the most moral possible activity.

If that is a fact, which I doubt, then it should be reported as a fact.

Why I doubt its factuality, is because heroinists are not usually described as the happiest people on the planet.

if a science of morality determines behaviour A is “better” than behaviour B, why are the people who disagree and think behaviour B is better going to change what they’re doing? Will they just suddenly see the light

Many Jehovah´s Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are harmful or evil. But some are convinced by the evidence that points to the contrary. Several such public opinions have collapsed in recent decades and centuries, people have seen the light of facts vs. unfounded claims. But not all people, and not immediately.

Scientific or anyway sceptical voices in public moral debate give people the facts and thinking patterns that they might independently not discover, or not have the social courage to express publicly.

 

[Earthborn]

In this case, science would define a creature´s emotional state as the thing to measure.

You make it sound so easy. All that remains to do to establish scientific moral standards is...

• ... decide which creatures' emotional states to measure. One would get a different standard of morality if one decides to measure the well-being of a lion than if one decides to measure that of an antilope.
• ... decides which behaviours or brain states constitute well-being or suffering, and quantify the well-being and suffering in comparable quantities.
• ... decide how long one has to measure. Too short a measurement of well-being that is too short will make sticking wires into conscious creatures' pleasure centers appear the most moral thing to do as it produces the greatest amount of pleasure in the short term. Too long a measurement, and primitive technophobic cultures with lots of child mortality will appear better in the long run then our own resource intensive way of life because while they may not produce the greatest well-being, they can keep their level of well-being up the longest.
• ... standardise the units of morality by putting a platinum KiloHarris in a vault.
• ... have some institute in Paris dictate this moral standard to the whole world.

Sounds simple enough. Of course it doesn't quite work that way; when scientists define a unit of measurement they try to make sure it is based on something that stays the same for a long time, not something like the emotional state of a living thing that is constantly changing. They also try to make sure the size of the unit is as arbitrary as possible: if the unit were greater or smaller all their formulas and calculations still have to work.

It is entirely falsifiable. For example, if moral judgments appeared completely random and people didn't ever agree on them to better than chance, that would falsify my theory.

Only if you have managed to quantify morality could you determine how much agreement there would be if moral judgements were completely random. If you were to find that moral judgements were not completely random, you'd still have to show that people didn't communicate their moral ideas with eachother to falsify your theory.

It's pretty simple. For example, demonstrating that people agree on which ball "looks a different color" at rates better than chance among balls otherwise the same would be sufficient.

You'd first have to make sure the people you are testing understand what is meant by "colour" in the same way. That would be difficult to do if you had no prior scientific understanding of colour.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

So, when should we stop science and learning?

Paul

14:28 tomorrow?

 

[AlBell]

You make it sound so easy. All that remains to do to establish scientific moral standards is...

• ... decide which creatures' emotional states to measure. One would get a different standard of morality if one decides to measure the well-being of a lion than if one decides to measure that of an antilope.
• ... decides which behaviours or brain states constitute well-being or suffering, and quantify the well-being and suffering in comparable quantities.
• ... decide how long one has to measure. Too short a measurement of well-being that is too short will make sticking wires into conscious creatures' pleasure centers appear the most moral thing to do as it produces the greatest amount of pleasure in the short term. Too long a measurement, and primitive technophobic cultures with lots of child mortality will appear better in the long run then our own resource intensive way of life because while they may not produce the greatest well-being, they can keep their level of well-being up the longest.
• ... standardise the units of morality by putting a platinum KiloHarris in a vault.
• ... have some institute in Paris dictate this moral standard to the whole world.

Sure are a lot of unscientific "oughts" needed there before we 'science it all out'.

Who woulda guessed?

 

[Beth]

So what is Harris' point? Is his morality a suggestion; a command; a scientific truth...what?

He is claiming that we can scientifically discover moral truths. It's not a claim I'm in agreement with, but I think that is what he is claiming.

How does he usurp the current legal/ethical consensus? Laws aren't morals, but they are pretty important for forcing morals on others. Let's say Harris' scientific morality shows that forcing women to wear burkas is wrong. And Sayid still forces his wife to wear a burka. How is Harris' Scienctific Morality going to deal with this?

I don't know. Personally, I don't think he has given a great deal of thought to implementation of his ideas. He certainly hasn't communicated anything along those lines.

 

[fls]

In that case I'm puzzled as to what Harris hopes to achieve.

For example, followers of Islam don't seem to give two hoots what anyone else and especially atheists think about their cultural and religious practices.

What things in society do you think would change because of morality being studied scientifically?

I don't understand what you're getting at. We don't pass laws dictating the treatment of heart disease as a way to see improvements in morbidity and mortality.

Linda

 

[AlBell]

I don't understand what you're getting at. We don't pass laws dictating the treatment of heart disease as a way to see improvements in morbidity and mortality.

Linda

Some would try to if Scientific Results actually demonstrated what the "100% proper" treatment was.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't understand what you're getting at. We don't pass laws dictating the treatment of heart disease as a way to see improvements in morbidity and mortality.

Linda

I'm presuming that Harris has written his book and is giving talks about his ideas because he thinks doing so will increase the wellbeing of conscious creatures.

So what I'm puzzled by is how exactly he sees the wellbeing of conscious creatures increasing because of his idea.

For example, what will change if we find the brain circuit which makes most people sad and/or angry when they see children being tortured, except when the torture is at the hands of a mohel or physician and it's the children's genitals being trimmed away?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Unnecessary playing with words.

So don´t call it a philosophy, just call it a scale. And don´t name the ends of the scale as Good and Evil, we can name them as Braun and Yello.

See, imaginary problems solved.

You can call them whatever you like, it's still not a legitimate scientific move.

In science you can make up a unit to measure something like length, to be sure. However you can't then say "if I can divide the space between two points up into a unit of my own choosing, then I must also be able to say that what is moral is to have forearms that are as close as possible to 30cm long". The first is merely a choice of units to express a physical fact that would be true whatever units you used, and the second it a moral ought claim. They are two different beasts and that is not an arbitrary semantic difference, it's a fundamental epistemological difference.

In exactly the same way, even if you could make some kind of pain-o-meter that objectively measured suffering, it's an additional philosophical assumption to move from "I can measure suffering" to "morally we ought to reduce suffering".

If that is a fact, which I doubt, then it should be reported as a fact.

Why I doubt its factuality, is because heroinists are not usually described as the happiest people on the planet.

What if it's not a fact, but merely an unwanted consequence of an ill-chosen philosophical axiom?

After all instead of choosing pleasure and suffering as your metric you could have used "higher pleasures" like art and learning (J.S. Mill), fulfilled and unfulfilled preferences, or fulfilled and unfulfilled second-order preferences (preferences about our preferences), or the preferences that entities would have if they were fully-informed and rational, or Quality Adjusted Life Years, or something else entirely.

 

[JoelKatz]

I can tell you what prescriptive moral ideas are: they're claims to the effect that people should behave in certain ways. They are purely value judgments, and they have no truth value. Science cannot prove them to be correct or incorrect because they are just the wrong kind of thing for science to engage with.

This doesn't help, because you've used the word "should". When I ask what prescriptive morality actually is, what I want do know is what it means when we say someone "should" do something.

And it also doesn't help to say it best achieves some goal or purpose. Committing suicide best achieves the goal or purpose of ending your life. The question of "should" is the question of what it means to say a particular goal is the "best" one or the most appropriate one. For something to be "best" it has to be best at something.

I think you are side-stepping the fact that we really do not understand what it means for something to "be right" or "be best" precisely as we once did not understand what it means for something to "be blue". (Because we always had to reduce it to it seeming so to us.)

That is, the is/ought problem or the descriptive/proscriptive dichotomy are all artifacts of the fact that we do not understand what making moral judgments actually is, much as we once didn't understand what seeing in color actually was. Once we do understand that, there will be no dichotomy. It will be what it will be, and we will know what it is.

As a hypothetical, imagine if science had discovered that the physical universe and everything in it obeys strict, hard physical determinism. That is, given a particular state of the universe, there is only one possible set of succeeding states of the universe. Had such a scientific discovery been made, the entire concept of prescriptive ethics would, I think, become meaningless. If there is only ever one thing it is physically possible for a person to do, what does it mean to talk about what a person should do? If men are basically just complicated hammers, then there is no prescriptive morality. No sane person wonders what a hammer should do. (The notion of 'should' only applies to entities for which more than one course of action is physically possible.)

We don't yet even understand how people implement choices. If they don't, then there is no prescriptive ethics, and science can answer all meaningful moral question. If they do, then science can explain how they implement choices. Can you seriously argue that understanding how people choose and how they physically implement their decisions (the physical facts that make prescriptive ethics exist in the first place) won't teach us anything about it? That's akin to arguing that understanding color vision won't tell us anything about color. It's facially absurd.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This doesn't help, because you've used the word "should". When I ask what prescriptive morality actually is, what I want do know is what it means when we say someone "should" do something.

And it also doesn't help to say it best achieves some goal or purpose. Committing suicide best achieves the goal or purpose of ending your life. The question of "should" is the question of what it means to say a particular goal is the "best" one or the most appropriate one. For something to be "best" it has to be best at something.

It just means that one thing is preferable to another on moral grounds. If it's being best at something, it's being best at being morally good. There is nothing more to it than that. There is no further to dig - we're at the axiomatic rock bottom.

I think you are side-stepping the fact that we really do not understand what it means for something to "be right" or "be best" precisely as we once did not understand what it means for something to "be blue". (Because we always had to reduce it to it seeming so to us.)

No. You keep trying to smuggle back in as agreed-upon fact the totally incorrect assumption that there is such a thing as what is "really moral" if only we could perceive it, and that the problem is our imperfect perceptive faculties. This is still just wrong, and it will continue to be just wrong however many times you try to smuggle it back in.