Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[AlBell]

Some people strangely seem to believe social conditioning is as amenable to scientific truth as is physics. Orange is a specific set of wavelengths; refraction and diffraction are also fully describable.

Human moral choices, no such demonstration has been yet made.

 

[JoelKatz]

Some people strangely seem to believe social conditioning is as amenable to scientific truth as is physics. Orange is a specific set of wavelengths; refraction and diffraction are also fully describable.

Human moral choices, no such demonstration has been yet made.

Right, and that's the whole point of science. I say something looks orange to me and it's science's job to figure out what's going on when I say that. But the only way science can come back and say "it may seem orange to you, but it's not really orange" is if science can define what it means to "really be orange".

Science in fact did this. It identified a kind of "real orange" as emitting a particular wavelength of light. And a "seems orange to me" as emitting combinations of wavelengths that stimulate human vision the same way pure orange light does. And now we understand a meaningful sense in which something can seem orange to someone and not really be orange.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Right, and that's the whole point of science. I say something looks orange to me and it's science's job to figure out what's going on when I say that. But the only way science can come back and say "it may seem orange to you, but it's not really orange" is if science can define what it means to "really be orange".

Science in fact did this. It identified a kind of "real orange" as emitting a particular wavelength of light. And a "seems orange to me" as emitting combinations of wavelengths that stimulate human vision the same way pure orange light does. And now we understand a meaningful sense in which something can seem orange to someone and not really be orange.

Science did no such thing. Science determined the wavelengths of light that are described by most people as "orange".

What is the precise definition of "orange"? 3x8-bit RGB codes for colours percieved as "orange" are somewhere between "red" (255-0-0) and "yellow" (255-255-0).

All that exists are distributions on which humans as a group mostly agree to place fuzzy vertical lines on to allow classification of behaviour as "right" or "wrong". The positions of the lines are dependent on genetic and environmental factors and move around over time and between sub-groups.

 

[fls]

Okay, I'm not understanding your definition of "murder". In your example of self-defense, it wouldn't be "murder", at least according to Western legality.

The definition I used was "intentionally killing a human". This would include someone who has killed a person in self-defense. I think your definition of murder would involve something like "killing which is wrong"? But this presupposes the issue, which I wanted to avoid, since obviously we treat some intentional killing as good and some as bad.

Can you give any examples where non-selfdefensive murder would be good for human well-being? Oh...or do these not exist and any non-selfdefensive murder is morally/scientifically bad? Why?

Wars. The death penalty. Whatever the runaway train scenario exemplifies (whereby a large person is pushed onto the tracks to divert a runaway train from killing six people).

"Murder would be expected to have an impact beyond those involved". Maybe it's utilitarianism, or I was wrong and it's consequentalism, or some hybrid.

...or maybe my labels don't matter at all and you and Harris should simply say what science has calculated on the "murder" issue. And thus do away with all these silly philosophical/ethical labels. Waiting...

I very much agree. I haven't used the labels and I have protested against them, as it seems like people then alter the ideas in order to fit the labels (at which point I'm obliged to argue against the alteration) instead of simply addressing the idea. I didn't bring up utilitarianism or consequentialism, I responded when someone else brought them up (in this case, you).

Okay. I would've preferred you answered with some actual science answering moral questions, since that's the topic.

The question you asked was for the definition of "murder". I can't understand what your response has to do with that. Unless you hoped the definition is what distinguishes right from wrong?

WHAT THE ****.

What are you advocating for here? Science's ability to answer "real world questions" in which case I'D LIKE A SCIENTIFIC ANSWER.

Or are you advocating for Harris' claim of SCIENCE CAN ANSWER MORAL QUESTIONS in which case I'D LIKE A SCIENTIFIC ANSWER.

Is "is it okay to murder?" a moral question? YES/NO.

Can "science answer moral questions?" YES/NO.

Can "is it okay to murder?" be answered with science? YES/NO.

Ah yes. The fallacy of the undistributed middle.

The point is that what we call moral questions can be formulated in ways that are useless and ways that are useful. Rather than trying to answer useless questions with science, it seems reasonable to ask our questions in ways that are useful instead. The list of questions I gave are examples of useful questions.

They "lack" what?

Understanding and entering into another's feelings.

"Empathy" is a revered scientific value? What is your scientific rationale for empathy mattering at all?

Are you saying "empathy" is as scientifically designated as "blue"? Please expand.

It refers to a brain process present in humans which involves the medial prefrontal cortex. It can be distinguished by asking "is it okay to give Sally an apple if I get the teacher's permission?" and "is it okay to hit Sally if I get the teacher's permission?", for example.

...

"Science can answer moral questions"

YES/NO (?)

Yes, when we realize that they do not need to be formulated as useless questions.

Okay, give me a moral question as you and Harris present it, and demonstrate why/how it's scientifically answered.

These questions are typically answered by a moral consideration, with input from sociology, religion, etc. They are not answered by science (except ancillarily as a tool for sociologists, and believe it or not theists).

I'm sorry. I thought it was pretty obvious that the questions I posed would be answered using facts. For the first question, "what characteristics distinguish scenarios in which the death penalty is used for egregious crimes from those which don't?" (I gave some examples of potential characteristics in my next question...each question was related to the preceding question), scenarios that differ in terms of specific characteristics would be presented in order to determine whether people answer differently on the basis of those characteristics or whether their answer stays the same. For example, a scenario in which the escape of a violent, serial murderer in the community is likely vs. one in which incarceration is very secure may change someone's answer about whether violent, serial murderers should be killed. Please note that the answer doesn't mean that they should, it just indicates the kinds of characteristics people are identifying with their moral intuitions. Similar approaches would be used to attack the rest of the questions (i.e. relevant facts would be gathered).

Not that "typically" is a defense of the norm. But if one seeks to upend the norm, one should certainly bring a lot. What has Harris brung? What have you?

"Murder is right"

How are you going to scientifically going to tell me it's wrong? There are a literal world of religious, sociological, anthropological, legal, evolutionary, psychological reasons murder is not "right". And yet there's a smaller world of humans who thinks it is "right".

If you or Harris wants to join these various institutions/agents you certainly should substantively demonstrate whether, why, and how murder is right or wrong. And if you're going to hold your own view as the One True View, good grief, you REALLY need to bring it.

Obviously you should not cull from sociology or evolution for your stance. It should solely be from Science. Tall Order. Incredibly, Impossibly Tall.

Or you or Harris can admit that every argument you make is based on some axiom that's as arbitrary as the Ten Commandments. "Thou Shalt Not Deprive Another of Well-Being". With "well-being" just as undefined as multiple Biblical imperatives and phrases.

eta: or even if it's defined, still arbitrary and completely unconvincing

All it requires is an interest in our own activities. Intentional killing interferes with human activities in ways which would be discovered by answering the questions I posed. Sure, you can claim that we ought not have any interest our activities if you want. But that seems a bit of a hard sell considering all the interest shown in a far more trivial matter by your years spent posting here. And I suspect you'd duck if I tried to hit you on the head with a hammer.

Linda

 

[fls]

Harris is arguing: "Because a pencil half-submerged in a cup of water looks disjoint, it must actually be disjoint."

I guess that answers my earlier question.

Harris specifically addresses and denies this interpretation. That is, he says that science would investigate why it looks disjoint.

Linda

 

[JoelKatz]

Science did no such thing. Science determined the wavelengths of light that are described by most people as "orange".

It did much more than that. It showed us precisely what people were measuring when they judged something to be orange. It allowed us to quantify the range of colors a particular person was willing to judge as orange. It provided us an objective way to compare the color judgments of different people. In effect, it made orange more than "seems orange to me".

What is the precise definition of "orange"? 3x8-bit RGB codes for colours percieved as "orange" are somewhere between "red" (255-0-0) and "yellow" (255-255-0).

What is the precise definition of "car"? Definitions of things don't work that way. Many concepts have fuzzy boundaries around them. That doesn't change the fact that some things are squarely inside the concept and some are squarely outside.

More importantly, if two people disagree about whether or not something is orange, they can now do much better than just say "well, it looks <not> orange to me, and I'm sticking to that". They should be able to precisely agree on what range of frequencies they are both seeing and that one of them judges it orange and the other doesn't. That is, they should be able to understand exactly what in the physical world accounts for their difference in judgment and they should be able to agree on what is really there. Science should eliminate their disagreement about whether or not something is "really orange" by letting them understand *why* the concept of "really orange" doesn't quite apply.

All that exists are distributions on which humans as a group mostly agree to place fuzzy vertical lines on to allow classification of behaviour as "right" or "wrong". The positions of the lines are dependent on genetic and environmental factors and move around over time and between sub-groups.

And yet, any given light source has a precise mix of frequencies that we can now scientifically determine. Thanks to science, we no longer are left with "it looks orange to me, but if you say it looks green to you, all I can say is that you're broken or lying". We can do much better than that now. We can say "I judge it to be orange because it has this particular mix of light frequencies and these are a close match to the stimulation patterns of light in this particular range of frequencies and the term used in English for that range of frequencies is in fact orange. If you judge it differently, you are misusing the term orange, or your color vision is not standard."

We can now defend our judgment of something as orange on the basis of objective facts. But, of course, the range of things that span "orange" is fuzzy. But that's true of everything. Give ten people a measuring tape and ask them to measure the same stick and they may disagree whether it's close enough to six feet long to be called "six feet" or not. This doesn't mean "six feet" isn't an objective measurement. (It also spans an imprecise range of measurements.)

Science left us nothing about colors to argue over. If I think something looks orange and you don't, we should now be able to agree on exactly why this is and what is really there. This will leave no disagreement. However, without a scientific understanding of color, all we could do is each assert it looked a particular way to us.

If I judge something to be good and you judge something to be bad, with a full scientific understanding of exactly what we're both doing, there should similarly be nothing left to argue over. I will know precisely why you describe it as "bad" and you will know precisely why I describe it as "good" and we should be able to agree on what the actual facts are in totality.

 

[JoelKatz]

I guess that answers my earlier question.
Harris specifically addresses and denies this interpretation. That is, he says that science would investigate why it looks disjoint.

What I should have said is that Harris is being claimed to have argued that.

 

[Egg]

The point is that what we call moral questions can be formulated in ways that are useless and ways that are useful. Rather than trying to answer useless questions with science, it seems reasonable to ask our questions in ways that are useful instead. The list of questions I gave are examples of useful questions.

Useless in what way? I would think many people find use in having principles which they try to live by. Unless by "useless" you just mean "questions that science cannot answer" and solve the is/ought problem by dismissing ought questions as invalid in some way.

 

[Paulhoff]

So, where do these morals come from now, that is what I like to know. Some old farts reading some old books based on some old religious ideas that are clueless to the making of the real world?

Paul

 

[JoelKatz]

Useless in what way? I would think many people find use in having principles which they try to live by. Unless by "useless" you just mean "questions that science cannot answer" and solve the is/ought problem by dismissing ought questions as invalid in some way.

Well, science cannot answer the question of precisely which colors should fall under the term 'orange'. It's a useless question. Ultimately, what we choose to call 'orange' is arbitrary.

However, science can allow us to analyze precisely what frequencies of light something is emitting. When a person says "it may look orange, but what is it really", it may seem like they're asking the useless question science cannot answer. But what they really want to know is what's going on in the world that accounts for, explains, and makes rigorous the types of assessments humans do when they judge something to be orange.

 

[Egg]

Well, science cannot answer the question of precisely which colors should fall under the term 'orange'. It's a useless question. Ultimately, what we choose to call 'orange' is arbitrary.

I agree that it's arbitrary, but having a shared idea of what the term "orange" refers to would strike me as having some utility. On what grounds would you call that a useless question?

 

[JJM 777]

This is so typical JREF forumming. 44 pages of debate on "science can do this", without actually doing what is claimed to be doable. Why not use your energy and time for doing it then.

 

[fls]

What I should have said is that Harris is being claimed to have argued that.

Ah yes. That's a good analogy, then.

Linda

 

[fls]

Useless in what way? I would think many people find use in having principles which they try to live by. Unless by "useless" you just mean "questions that science cannot answer" and solve the is/ought problem by dismissing ought questions as invalid in some way.

JoelKatz had a good way of putting it. It is fairly useless to argue about an exact definition for "orange" (good) once you understand what is going on in the world which accounts for and explains what humans are attempting to judge.

We don't have to pretend that principles come from a magical being instead of understanding what it is they are representing, in order to find them them useful.

Linda

 

[JoelKatz]

I agree that it's arbitrary, but having a shared idea of what the term "orange" refers to would strike me as having some utility. On what grounds would you call that a useless question?

I agree that it is useful for us to have a shared understanding of what range of colors to call 'orange'. But the particular range selected and the label used is inherently arbitrary. It is to some extent informed by the colors we actually need to distinguish.

It's kind of like the question of how tall someone must be to be "tall". It's more useful to actually be able to measure and report height accurately. And where you make the cutoff is inherently arbitrary, but it will be informed based on things like average height.

The question in these cases is more about what's most useful rather than what's correct.

 

[JoelKatz]

This is so typical JREF forumming. 44 pages of debate on "science can do this", without actually doing what is claimed to be doable. Why not use your energy and time for doing it then.

Even before we understood evolution, it was important to establish that the origin of life was capable of a scientific understanding. To some extent, it was a precondition of obtaining such an understanding.

The two things are mutually reinforcing and working on one works on the other. If you look at many other things once considered outside the scope of science (from disease to the origin of life to the origin of the universe), scientific understanding and the framework for such understanding alternated advances. And stalls could come from either front.

Right now, with a scientific understanding of morality, the main stalling point is on the framework side -- scientists don't know what to study or how to study it or even whether such studying is possible. So that's where people like me are devoting our efforts.

We will get there when we get there. Right now, the important thing is to sweep the roadblocks out of the way and refute any pseudo-science that pops up to fill the vacuum.

 

[AlBell]

We don't have to pretend that principles come from a magical being instead of understanding what it is they are representing, in order to find them them useful.

Linda

I doubt anyone posting in this thread thinks our principles came from a magical being, understanding that they came from elders of social groups codifying 'acceptable' vs 'not-acceptable' behaviors as seemed best for their specific social group. As generations came and went elders from various social groups came into contact and further discussed these matters.

Some of the first good con-games -- religions -- arose when various elders discovered that invoking the supernatural helped group cohesion and adherence to The Rules lessening the need for 'might' to enforce those rules, with the added benefit of enriching the shamans with little labor on their part needed.

Harris has now stepped up to the plate with Science (and more correctly, all-to-human scientists) to replace the supernatural.

 

[Paulhoff]

Yes, one knows what real scientist are, a bunch of old farts in white coats that are clueless to the real world................

That somehow sounds familiar...............

Paul

 

[annnnoid]

Yes, one knows what real scientist are, a bunch of old farts in white coats that are clueless to the real world................

That somehow sounds familiar...............

Paul

Noam Chomsky…a minor figure in the world of cognitive science...had this to say about old farts in white coats offering opinions about human nature:


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.

Right now, with a scientific understanding of morality, the main stalling point is on the framework side -- scientists don't know what to study or how to study it or even whether such studying is possible. So that's where people like me are devoting our efforts.

…people like you??? What the hell does that mean? Who are 'people like you' and what are these efforts ‘people like you’ are devoting yourselves to?

Harris sure seems to think that it’s possible (…science can answer moral questions… wasn’t that explicitly what he claimed ???...). You seem to have an awful lot of awfully big questions for someone who insists that something can actually be answered. We don’t know what, how, or even if…isn’t that just about everything? What, then, do we know…. ….as in, scientifically?

 

[fls]

I doubt anyone posting in this thread thinks our principles came from a magical being, understanding that they came from elders of social groups codifying 'acceptable' vs 'not-acceptable' behaviors as seemed best for their specific social group. As generations came and went elders from various social groups came into contact and further discussed these matters.

Some of the first good con-games -- religions -- arose when various elders discovered that invoking the supernatural helped group cohesion and adherence to The Rules lessening the need for 'might' to enforce those rules, with the added benefit of enriching the shamans with little labor on their part needed.

And given the results, this process hardly recommends itself.

Linda