Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[fls]

I don't.

Then why did you even bring up the idea that the use of human embryos outside of the womb could be 'immoral' instead of asking about something like the morality of possessing antibiotics?

And of course your statement implicitly suggests that if Science (in your case case medical science) can do something of course it must be moral.

Even a little bit of thought shows that this is not the case. There are all sorts of things which technology has made possible which are not pursued as preferred courses of action.

Linda

 

[Dani]

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.

This comment in response to Linda grabbed my attention.

After all, Linda seems to agree with Hume.

Hume's ought is equivalent to Linda's useless.

Hume's is is equivalent to Linda's useful.

 

[JJM 777]

science can tell us when a foetus is potentially independently viable. (...) certainly a fertilized egg-cell isn't it. A baby emerging from the birth-canal is.

Long time ago I thought about this aspect. (In a different context, speculating how big population should have the right to claim independence as a people, nation and state.)

I was honest enough to ask, can I survive independently, without help from other humans? While eating my microwave pizza and sipping some Pepsi Max, I concluded that not with the skills that I have now, even less with the skills that I would have learned without any human teaching me ever about anything, and in this northern part of the world where I am, not through the winter anyway.

From this viewpoint the answer (call this a scientific answer or not) to the question, when a human is potentially independently viable without any help from other humans, seems to be: when he is at least 7 years old or so (you can make it 10 or 12 if you want) and has received intensive scout training so he can make a living from the wild. Except if he is lucky enough to be adopted by a swine or ape or something, as has happened in a few cases I guess. But does that really count?

 

[AlBell]

Then why did you even bring up the idea that the use of human embryos outside of the womb could be 'immoral' instead of asking about something like the morality of possessing antibiotics?

Likely because a number of people in the US do find the use of human embryos immoral; more so I suspect than find the use of antibiotics immoral.

Even a little bit of thought shows that this is not the case. There are all sorts of things which technology has made possible which are not pursued as preferred courses of action.

I note you failed to address the issue of morality as to deciding preferred courses of action re technologically possible actions.

 

[JJM 777]

I wonder what a poll from the middle-east would say about the way Western women dress. Is there any scientific reason why we should draw conclusions from one poll and not the other?

A democratic reason, be it scientific or not, would be to count the heads and draw conclusions from the most populous opinion.

I would rather use multi-democracy, be it even more scientific or not, and listen to each major opinion group separately, allowing them all to do as they wish in their separate geographical areas.

Or then you can put it in this way:
Task: maximize the happiness of global population.
Different offered solutions will be compared by calculating the total happiness of global population, the highest value wins.
The winner would not be a solution where one most popular option is forced upon everyone on the planet. The winner would be something similar to what I call multi-democracy, using multiple solutions to cater to the various preferences of individuals in large populations. Call it scientific or not.

 

[AlBell]

Which you're going to ignore.

Ignore "How would you distinguish between the theft of human embryos and the theft of human eggs from a cold storage unit? Or would you distinguish between the theft of human embryos and a failure to select human embryos for implantation?

While you pose another one.

Yup. "An even better one is the morality of possessing human embryos not in a womb."

So in what way is it a better question? And is that a good question, in your judgement?

Your question? Not particularly.

Perhaps an even better one than yours?

I think not; prior to examining the morality of embryo or egg theft or failure to implant, I'd say we need to examine the morality that allows possession of those items in the first place.

 

[Paulhoff]

I think not; prior to examining the morality of embryo or egg theft or failure to implant, I'd say we need to examine the morality that allows possession of those items in the first place.

The morality of a non-being, oh my.

Paul

 

[AlBell]

The non-being judgment on your part is of course the actual question.

 

[Paulhoff]

The non-being judgment on your part is of course the actual question.

The judgment on an non-being is what?

Paul

 

[AlBell]

I now have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Paulhoff]

I now have no idea what you are talking about.

How dose one make a moral justment about something that isn't a being, as in an embryo.

Paul

 

[AlBell]

Some apparently do.

I guess you can ask Science if you haven't found an answer.

 

[Paulhoff]

Some apparently do.

I guess you can ask Science if you haven't found an answer.

Please tell me why if there was a study done, that an answer would not be found. Are you telling me that humans can not in anyway be studied.

Paul

 

[AlBell]

Ask Science; and no.

 

[annnnoid]

Please tell me why if there was a study done, that an answer would not be found. Are you telling me that humans can not in anyway be studied.

Paul

Seriously….how long have you been at JREF Pauloff? Do you honestly not understand that the question ‘what is the “being” of a human being’ has yet to be scientifically answered (even remotely actually)?

Perhaps I should offer a quote…..yours:

A society fails when ignorance outweight knowledge.

…or maybe a society fails when skeptics forget how to spell.

 

[Paulhoff]

Seriously….how long have you been at JREF Pauloff?

JREF has nothing to do with this talk, in fact, I know Randi and that is non sequitur too.

Do you seriously think that there can never be a set of rules and/or guidelines that can be used for morals? People’s general reactions to anything in daily life can be studied and conclusions and ideas for morals can be made from them. Or do you prefer to have some church etc make up morals for you and their only authority is “They Say So”.

Paul

 

[fls]

Likely because a number of people in the US do find the use of human embryos immoral; more so I suspect than find the use of antibiotics immoral.

Only if you think that religious rules are somehow moral principles, when clearly they are not. I realize that we are obliged, from a socio-political standpoint, to address the fact that people think they have been offered morals. But if you are talking about how science would address questions of human values, your questions are non-starters.

I note you failed to address the issue of morality as to deciding preferred courses of action re technologically possible actions.

There isn't anything special about technologically possible actions - that is, they don't need to be addressed any differently from deciding other preferred courses of action.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

JREF has nothing to do with this talk, in fact, I know Randi and that is non sequitur too.

Do you seriously think that there can never be a set of rules and/or guidelines that can be used for morals? People’s general reactions to anything in daily life can be studied and conclusions and ideas for morals can be made from them. Or do you prefer to have some church etc make up morals for you and their only authority is “They Say So”.

Paul

Which group do we study? White middle-class Americans? Poor uneducated Indians? Rich people who own yachts and pay little if any tax?

Do you think what people believe is acceptable behaviour is dependent on their circumstances?

 

[Paulhoff]

Which group do we study? White middle-class Americans? Poor uneducated Indians? Rich people who own yachts and pay little if any tax?

Do you think what people believe is acceptable behaviour is dependent on their circumstances?

Daaaaaaaaaaa, all so-called groups, daaaaaaaaaaa.

Lets see, does anyone think that it is OK to just murder anyone, please raise you hand if yes.


Paul

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Daaaaaaaaaaa, all so-called groups, daaaaaaaaaaa.

How large do you think the intersection of all those different groups' points of view on the right way to behave is going to be?

Lets see, does anyone think that it is OK to just murder anyone, please raise you hand if yes.


Paul

It's okay to murder anyone so long as they're believed to be the enemy (at least today).