Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[fls]

I don't think we suffer from a shortage of analogies...we can form economic systems but we can't say whether everyone ought not be impoverished, we can discover a system of medicine but we can't say anyone should be made healthy, we can formulate quantum electrodynamics but we can't say that something is green, we can make logical arguments but we can't give a justification for doing so, I can swing a hammer at your head but you can't duck, etc.

Linda

 

[Dani]

I don't think we suffer from a shortage of analogies...we can form economic systems but we can't say whether everyone ought not be impoverished, we can discover a system of medicine but we can't say anyone should be made healthy, we can formulate quantum electrodynamics but we can't say that something is green, we can make logical arguments but we can't give a justification for doing so, I can swing a hammer at your head but you can't duck, etc.

Linda

Did I miss something or is it just a straw man?

Who says that we can't do all those things?

 

[fls]

Did I miss something or is it just a straw man?

Who says that we can't do all those things?

It's just a synopsis of this thread. Apologies if I missed anyone's pet analogy.

Linda

 

[Dani]

It's just a synopsis of this thread. Apologies if I missed anyone's pet analogy.

Linda

You actually missed something much more important than that: the point that many of us have been making in this thread.

No one claims that we can't make moral decisions, only that ultimately they're not scientifically justified.

And nothing prevents us from doing things that aren't scientifically justified. We do them all the time.

 

[fls]

You actually missed something much more important than that: the point that many of us have been making in this thread.

No one claims that we can't make moral decisions, only that ultimately they're not scientifically justified.

And nothing prevents us from doing things that aren't scientifically justified. We do them all the time.

Huh?

I didn't miss that point. I've said over and over again that I understood this to be your point

Linda

 

[Dani]

Huh?

I didn't miss that point. I've said over and over again that I understood this to be your point

Linda

Not only my point. I'm sure it's shared by a majority of those who critisize Harris' arguments in this thread.

 

[fls]

Not only my point. I'm sure it's shared by a majority of those who critisize Harris' arguments in this thread.

Right. You said "us", so I figured you might take my "your" as plural without me saying so specifically. If not, consider it specified.

Linda

 

[Dani]

Right. You said "us", so I figured you might take my "your" as plural without me saying so specifically. If not, consider it specified.

Linda

Alright then.

You present a synopsys of the thread and when I point out that it doesn't depict our position, you say that you already know what our position is.

So you're implicitly going back on your word?

 

[fls]

Alright then.

You present a synopsys of the thread and when I point out that it doesn't depict our position, you say that you already know what our position is.

So you're implicitly going back on your word?

By synopsis I meant a list of the analogies used, not a list of positions taken. However, I would have guessed that you would agree with Cyborg's last post (although I would have asked first).

Linda

 

[Sophronius]

Okay, lemme try to freshen things up a bit:

Nozick . . . asks if it would be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of some superbeings. Provided that we take the time to really imagine the details (which is not easy), I think the answer is clearly "yes." There seems no reason to suppose that we must occupy the highest peak on the moral landscape.

This is a second hand quote from the moral landscape, so if I got it wrong or if it is not representative/misleading, do tell.

If it is, I think it clearly shows what is wrong with Harris' philosophy. He seems to think that it is "right" to maximise the total amount of happiness in the universe, that this is our ultimate objective even if no human on earth actually wants it. This does not at all follow from a charitable interpretation of his "well, it makes sense to value the wellbeing of conscious creatures." He does not seem to state where this ultimate goal comes from, and it seems kind of important.

Again, if I am misunderstanding him, please correct me.

 

[Dani]

By synopsis I meant a list of the analogies used, not a list of positions taken. However, I would have guessed that you would agree with Cyborg's last post (although I would have asked first).

Linda

It doesn't make any difference. People don't use analogies just because. People use analogies precisely to illustrate their position.

You just used analogies that don't illustrate anyone's position in this thread as far as I know.

 

[fls]

It doesn't make any difference. People don't use analogies just because. People use analogies precisely to illustrate their position.

You just used analogies that don't illustrate anyone's position in this thread as far as I know.

The first one Cyborg had just stated (damned inconvenient page break ). The second was mine. The third was Joel Katz's. The fourth was Harris' (okay, technically not a thread participant). The last was mine again.

Linda

 

[Dani]

The first one Cyborg had just stated (damned inconvenient page break ). The second was mine. The third was Joel Katz's. The fourth was Harris' (okay, technically not a thread participant). The last was mine again.

Linda

Cyborg didn't state such thing, and the second one doesn't illustrate anyone's position in this thread.

 

[fls]

Cyborg didn't state such thing,

Sure she/he did.

"But, like economics, that still leaves us with the subjective part which is - "well, what is it we actually want to achieve with this system?"

I don't see how that's likely to go away as long as people are allowed to form their own opinions as to what's important."

If it's our opinion, saying that everyone ought not be impoverished is not scientifically justified.

and the second one doesn't illustrate anyone's position in this thread.

Oh right. I forgot. Since I stated this it is presumed that I meant something else instead. Never mind the second and fifth, then.

Linda

 

[Sophronius]

"But, like economics, that still leaves us with the subjective part which is - "well, what is it we actually want to achieve with this system?"

I don't see how that's likely to go away as long as people are allowed to form their own opinions as to what's important."

If it's our opinion, saying that everyone ought not be impoverished is not scientifically justified.

This seems perfectly valid to me, actually.

There is plenty of discussion on how wealth should be divided and such. Economics certainly makes no statement on how things ought to be. And yes, asserting that everyone ought not be impoverished is, without anything to back it up, scientifically unjustified.

I don't see what the problem with any of this is.


Edit: maybe I was wrong to assume that you disagreed with it. Your post at the top of this page seemed sarcastic/incredulous to me somehow.

 

[Dani]

Sure she/he did.

"But, like economics, that still leaves us with the subjective part which is - "well, what is it we actually want to achieve with this system?"

I don't see how that's likely to go away as long as people are allowed to form their own opinions as to what's important."

If it's our opinion, saying that everyone ought not be impoverished is not scientifically justified.

And that is not the same as saying that we can't say whether everyone ought not be impoverished, which is what I pointed out.

Oh right. I forgot. Since I stated this it is presumed that I meant something else instead. Never mind the second and fifth, then.

Linda

If you didn't mean it, what was the intent of the analogy?

 

[fls]

This seems perfectly valid to me, actually.

There is plenty of discussion on how wealth should be divided and such. Economics certainly makes no statement on how things ought to be. And yes, asserting that everyone ought not be impoverished is, without anything to back it up, scientifically unjustified.

I don't see what the problem with any of this is.


Edit: maybe I was wrong to assume that you disagreed with it. Your post at the top of this page seemed sarcastic/incredulous to me somehow.

I'm sorry. I missed that you had come back and edited your response.

I don't disagree with what I said (and what you said above). It just amuses me that it is presumed to be a meaningful (in the sense that it means these things cannot be scientifically justified) discovery.

Linda

 

[fls]

And that is not the same as saying that we can't say whether everyone ought not be impoverished, which is what I pointed out.

Well, yes it is. That is what we have been talking about here. Whether we can form a scientific justification for statements like those I offered above (everyone ought not be impoverished, etc.).

If you didn't mean it, what was the intent of the analogy?

I did mean it. That I didn't mean it was your claim. I'm just telling you that I'm not going to ask you to support your claim.

Linda

 

[Dani]

Well, yes it is. That is what we have been talking about here. Whether we can form a scientific justification for statements like those I offered above (everyone ought not be impoverished, etc.).

No, it's not. You didn't mention "scientific justification". What you said was more like:

[...]we can discover a system of medicine but we can't say anyone should be made healthy[...]

Again, there is a difference between saying that we can't do something and saying that there is no scientific justification for something.

Before you reply that it's obvious that you were referring to the latter expression, let me remind you that:

1) The expression you used has a specific meaning in contrast to the one you seemingly are referring to.

2) In the context of this discussion, there are sufficient reasons to think that those who defend Harris' position might be referring to the expression you used in the literal sense to describe opposing viewpoints, since Harris himself specifically said:

You can't believe the e-mail I get from very smart and overeducated people who think that there's no way to argue against the Taliban because they've read some Hume saying you can't get an ought from an is.

He is covertly making a straw man argument and equating "we don't have a scientific justification for X" with "we can't X". I'm trying to figure out what kind of overeducated people can't argue against the Taliban because we can't scientifically justify oughts.

So, now that we seem to have clarified this misunderstanding, I'm glad that you were not making this straw man argument.

I did mean it. That I didn't mean it was your claim. I'm just telling you that I'm not going to ask you to support your claim.

May I ask you to clarify once again your position, if you don't mind?

When you said:

we can discover a system of medicine but we can't say anyone should be made healthy

Meaning:

we can discover a system of medicine but we can't scientifically justify whether anyone should be made healthy

You really meant that? If so, what made you change your opinion?

 

[Dani]

This seems perfectly valid to me, actually.

There is plenty of discussion on how wealth should be divided and such. Economics certainly makes no statement on how things ought to be. And yes, asserting that everyone ought not be impoverished is, without anything to back it up, scientifically unjustified.

I don't see what the problem with any of this is.


Edit: maybe I was wrong to assume that you disagreed with it. Your post at the top of this page seemed sarcastic/incredulous to me somehow.

Just to clarify, I agree with your position. I assumed Linda disagreed with it because she's been in disagreement with this point of view in this thread.

By the way, I had thought about the hypothetic situation from your previous post in which Harris says that it would be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of some superbeings. Where is the quote from? Did he really say this? If so, I think it's consistent with his position on the well-being of conscious creatures but inconsistent with the "human universals" argument and, generally, the arguments that appeal to our biology.