Facts & Values: Clarifying the Moral Landscape (Episode
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 апр 2024
- Sam Harris revisits the central argument he made in his book, The Moral Landscape, about the reality of moral truth. He discusses the way concepts like “good” and “evil” can be thought about objectively, the primacy of our intuitions of truth and falsity, and the unity of knowledge.
April 23, 2024
SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/subscribe/ OR become a channel member to access episodes on RUclips. For those who can't afford the full subscription price, we offer full and partial scholarships www.samharris.org/subscribe/s...
Subscribe to the YT channel: ruclips.net/user/subscription_c...
Follow Making Sense on Twitter: / makingsensehq
Follow Sam on Facebook: / samharrisorg
Follow Sam on Instagram: / samharrisorg
For more information about Sam Harris: www.samharris.org 
Наука
I feel like this will receive widespread appreciation in 50 years. Maybe much longer. Most people aren't ready to even speak the language of incompatibalism and secular objective morality.
What morality you talking about America has more people in prison than rest of the whole worlds prisons combined
@@bigm317shhh, let the poor bastard be happy within the narrow walls of Sam’s thought experiments :).
@@bigm317What on earth are you on about?
@@bigm317
Sam Harris has a really basic view of morality. If he wants to join the objectivist crowd he should join JBP and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the theistic sphere. His examples are just naive. There is no objective moral standard but there are shades of better and worse depending on your subjectively inserted value and I happen to agree with Harris' value on wellbeing. But if you measure wellbeing, find the indicies to support your claims and work towards those goals then, don't use preferred taste or weight measurements. It's just silly.
Do you now
Essentially a final resonse to Alex O Connor? Absolutely love this, wish he would talk more philosophy these days.
Does he offer a response to Alex? I'd like to see Harris engage with moral antirealists who work in metaethics. I don't think his position would hold up well to scrutiny.
Why? Harris is an idiot. "Therefore there must be right and wrong answers, to questions of ..." artistic, musical, literary, theatrical, culinary, etc., etc., etc., ... likes and dislikes. What a maroon. Just because subjectivity objectively exists, doesn't mean there are objectively right and wrong answers.
@@lanceindependentif I threw a basketball at an antirealists forehead would he say that's a good or bad thing to do
This seems to be the result of Sam's conversation with Alex Oconnor. Should check it out as well.
I'd be unsurprised that he was given the heads up from Richard Dawkins, that Dawkins was releasing, one day ago, "Sam Harris Is Wrong About Morality"
@@samdg1234 I missed that! Thanks for the heads up. Will see what Dawkins has to say.
@@csquared4538
I certainly hope I haven't gotten your hopes up. I found it most disappointing. They hardly spent any time on the topic. I've no idea why he titled the video as he did.
@@samdg1234O'Connor had posted a video titled that, so maybe Dawkins recycled that title to keep the interested viewers on the same path.
Came to the comments section to say this... you beat me to it.
it was one of your best books and clarified some of the big issues for me⚛😀
Sam’s most important work: structuring secular ethics in REAL epistemic bedrock.
Yeah, I feel like he gets flak for some of the things he ventures into, but what you said ^, his work in ethics, is paramount, and he frankly nailed it.
@@sunnyinvladivostok He didn't nail it. He barely even makes arguments. A lot of his positions consist of bare assertions or appeals to his own incredulity. For instance he claims that the only thing people can care about are conscious states and that anyone who claims to care about other things is just pretending. No evidence. No arguments. He just declares anyone who disagrees a liar. It's ridiculous.
Sam Harris's work on metaethics isn't nearly as good as plenty of authors working on this topic.
@@lanceindependent Fair enough & point taken, I do agree he treats his critics & criticisms unfairly harsh and disdainfully. I guess I am biased by enthusiasm for his attempt at proving a universal morality, which feels like a good thing to pursue and understand
@@sunnyinvladivostok I appreciate that response, thanks!
Thanks Sam, still the voice of reason for our generation.
A conversation worth having.
Thank you for what you do, Sam. I really appreciate the focus on the ontology perspective you present in this episode. Be well.
great to clarify this stuff, thank you
I was skeptical about some of those, but the last five minutes or so is hot fire.
This piece reminds me why you're not merely the only real intellectual out of the whole pop intellectual group, but a great thinker over all.
To me he seems like an educated fool. Not to mention some serious racist vibes.
He's a complete and utter maroon.
Great, as always.
Superb addendum to the book 👌
From Sam? I didn't see much that was new here.
I end all these conversations in about 10 seconds by pointing out that moral relativism has no way to condemn slavery or genocide.
Unfortunately that just won't do for the broader topic of metaethics, since there's more options on the table than just objective morality or moral relativism. There are many non-relativist subjectivist accounts of morality. And Sam Harris' view in many ways borrows ideas from them.
Also, how relevant is this solid grounding moral objectivists obsess over, anyway? Like suppose the most hippie, philosophically confused liberal person says to you that thy condemn slavery, that's how they feel. Are you really gonna tell them they don't actually feel that way morally? Or that their lack of philosophical grounding is more important? How could it be? Surely at the end of the day whether the person condemns slavery or not with their words and actions is what matters. Because even if there is some "objective truth" of the matter, that truth still has to be discovered, interpreted AND accepted as valid, subjectively. So it really cannot be reduced in the manner you suggest.
And moral objectivism of the christian variety justified in the centuries past.
@@keithhunt5328he said nothing about Christianity. This shows the atheist position isn't about a lack of belief in god or believing there is no god. Being atheist is about being anti Christian.
The IRS website has a policy on what to do if the taxpayer threatens suicide. There's nothing in it about sympathy or leniency. We are free range tax cattle. We are slaves.
So you don’t actually understand the problem? Christianity/religion can’t do that either.
This is probably the most valuable topic that you speak about. I wish more people could hear it.
It's an important topic but I don't think his take on it contributes much to the discussion. Harris has consistently shown a failure to engage with the literature on metaethics and on the relevant concepts, issues, and distinctions in the field.
@@lanceindependent perhaps. He does address that concern though
@@chazlewis8114 He talks about it but mostly in a glib way. Jokingly saying it's boring isn't a justification for ignoring it. Tbh his takes strike me as amateurish and uninformed even after years of feedback and reactions. I've seen almost no progress or growth with his views. Just the same overconfidence and talking points.
That vanilla taste deficiency analogy was a gem. And i wish we'd start calling it well-doing, seems to have more access to power.
Excelente video Sam Harris
Wrong or right, we all live our own truth.
For some reason, I get the vibe that some recognized "thinkers" simply are afraid to deal with such a difficult topic. And by "difficult", I don't mean the number of brain cells. I'm talking about hurting feelings and taking a stance. I think Sam has made a very cogent argument and a lot of good can come of working towards a scientific approach to morality. Some of the resistance sounds very much like the arguments made in the past when groundbreaking advancements in science were initially presented.
What cogent argument did he make here? I didn't think he presented any good arguments.
The best substantive critique of The Moral Landscape that I have heard is from Carefree Wondering
Ooops !
surely I was the only one foolish enough to attempt to enjoy some ice cream,
while listening to Sam describe my moral terrain.
what about truth then? if telling a lie helps people be happier should we lie?
Case-by-case analysis. Navigate on the landscape to the best of our ability in each moment.
Telling a lie, like everything else, has numerous consequences such as loss of reputation when a lie is exposed. Most moral decisions are hard because of conflicting elements of wellbeing and harm.
Do you believe that all facts are always true and in all cases?
In my view there are a great many facts that are particular to particular circumstances and situations.
@@CozmoBeregofsky In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
@@stevem691 All conscious beings have a goal: to avoid dissatisfaction. Methods for doing so vary greatly from being to being, and also from moment to moment. It sounds like you've found a unique way that works well for you. You and I might have similar approaches, but we can accept that many others avoid dissatisfaction in their own unique ways.
Agree with 100% of this LOGICAL breakdown of a very complicated tectonic layer cake of moral objectivism. Sam continues to upgrade my Operating System with his uploads of sound reasoning.
Word.
A good quality vanilla ice cream with a quality caramel sauce is perfection...
Maybe my favorite flavor is aluminum. You didn't think of that, did you?
I agree. I love vanilla and caramel but am not a fan of chocolate ice cream.
You may say that aluminum flavored ice cream is tasty for you, but then you are not playing the same game as the rest of us in regards to the word "tasty" @@uncleanunicorn4571
After reading the Moral Landscape I was impressed but unconvinced. It seemed like yet another value framework that was ultimately without foundation. I felt like he handwaved the Is/Ought gap.
But I really appreciated his discussion on the topic with Alex O'Connor. Alex questioned and deconstructed Sam's moral realism with more skill and subtly than I've seen in Sam's interlocutors. As a result, he was able to offer the most robust arguments in its favor, which it seems are distilled in this recording.
Great work.
What do you think ought means?
If your answer is duty or obligation, what do you mean by those terms?
@@ConceptHut the childish game of repeated "why" questions of "what do you mean by" doesn't prevent us from talking about the things in question coherently. Your demands are too strict. You aren't making those demands of the words you use in your questioning, are you? So why not quit the silly games?
@@Google_Censored_Commenter You seem upset.
@@ConceptHut "i'm not angry - i'm just disappointed"
@@Google_Censored_Commenter Who are you quoting?
Does anyone know if Sam Harris has said anything about the passing of Dan Dennet?
Not that I've seen...was thinking the same thing...
I hope Sam will comment on very much philosophical project of Bryan Johnson "Don't die" at some point. It's worth being discussed even barring implementation details
@@alexanderg9670 the guy is a clown who somehow doesnt even understand or havent been told that 4% body fat isnt good for you...
@@wasdwasdedsf Ad hominem is irrelevant. My point that his philosophy is worth discussing. "Don't die" probably will resonate with more people than "Maximize well-being". It doesn't immediately require utilitarian calculus. My guess is that "Don't die" will be a great help of climbing on local peak of moral landscape for mankind
And both are prefectly compatible btw
This video was probably produced a week or so before Dan died, I would guess his next video will talk about Dan. I'm pretty sure they were friends and on good terms
Morality depends on concious minds existing, so the only objective good will be the one that assures concious minds continue to exist, rather than cease... So any judgement structure which fails to prioritize the (impossible?) prediction of whether a choice leads to us spreading beyond and outliving Earth is flawed.
This is such an important topic. Making human flourishing and well-being the focal point of our morality could be considered a scientific truth in itself. Morality should be treated as a scientific field of study.
It is a scientific field of study. It's just not the case that the only way to consume reality is in terms of increases or decreases and well-being. Also Sam's way of characterizing the notion of well-being is so inclusive and under specified as to be effectively useless.
No. That could not be considered a scientific truth. If you're simply studying morality, the scientific truth is that people have a variety of different concepts of morality, and there is no objective, scientific, evidence that one is objectively correct. Sam subjectively picks one, measures others with the one he picked, and then rules the others wrong. That's somewhat like picking imperial and then saying metric is the objectively wrong way to measure things.
@@TheHuxleyAgnostic The core scientific truth about living organisms is their instinct to survive and reproduce. Achieving this relies on the well-being and overall success of human beings as a species. This is an undeniable scientific fact and it's relation to our values.
@@Pradeep_889 Sure, it's an objective fact that tons of species are wired to subjectively value self preservation. Does that translate into it being an objective fact that none of those species should be harmed, including humans? Including cows? Including dogs? Including chickens? Including cats? Etc. Don't we simply like ourselves, dogs, and cats more, so give them more value.
@@TheHuxleyAgnostic How can you ensure your own survival without relying on others? As a child, your chances of survival hinge on the well-being of your parents, who, in turn, depend on the type of society they reside in. If this holds true for one species, it holds true for others as well.
I will always be grateful to Sam for giving me moral realism back!
He doesn't make a good case for moral realism at all. Every account of moral realism is trivial, false, or unintelligible.
Sam didn't invent sociology. We already have a study of societies. We already measure the human condition, in all kinds of ways. There are indexes for happiness, freedom, democracy, poverty, education, life expectancy, crime, safety, etc., etc., etc. There are already existing peaks and valleys, based on those scientific measures.
He also didn't invent what he agreed was already a widely understood given ... That, if you set a subjective value, there are then objectively better and worse was to get what you value, and science can help. If I value building a nuclear power plant, or a nuclear bomb, there are then objectively better and worse ways to achieve either of those goals, and science can help achieve them. Likewise, if I subjectively value human well being, or human suffering, there are then objectively better and worse ways to achieve either of those goals, and science can help. In all of those cases, objectivity and science don't care what you do, any which way.
The question is all about whether science/objectivity can tell us what to value, and the answer is no. He has never actually got beyond what he stated was a given, at the start. Science doesn't care if you want to blow up the world. It will help you do it.
If you agree to the navigation problem i don't see a problem with having science and the scientific method direct us towards the peaks visible to us on the moral landscape while avoiding the valleys. What we value shouldn't be set in stone as that can be altered along the way as long as we focus on putting as much distance as possible from the worst misery for all @@TheHuxleyAgnostic
Would love to heae Alex O'Connor on Sam's podcast to explore more of these topics
Me too. I think there are lots of other people it'd be cool for Sam Harris to talk to about metaethics, though.
Ryan Born's response to objective morality is worthwhile and unfortunately Sam's response to it doesn't clarify his claims. Sam seems to think it unfair thay his objective morality argument is held to a higher standard of self-justification than science, for instance, can even meet. But then, science is attempting to determine what is empirically consistent with itself; morality, in addition to aiming for internal consistency (which it can't achieve because individual and collective values are incommensurable, howsoever important in their own right), is also attempting the impossible feat of justifying itself with no basis. Sam's response: "What other basis could there be?" - I don't know the answer to that, but Sam shouldn't pretend to either.
I am eagerly awaiting the day where Sam wakes up to learn that moral truth is as manufactured as the self, and that virtual or conventional presumption of their "realness" is as good as it gets.
He needs to explain this in a whiteboard with apples and oranges
If it's that difficult - maybe Sam isn't for you
The dude was making what seemed to be a pretty obvious joke. Random pettiness isn’t appropriate, even with strangers on the internet.
@@NavAK_86enlighten us 🤣
@@NavAK_86 Extremely pretentious response.
What an idiotic comment
I actually think you could rescue Hume, if you grant that some goals and desires are suppressed/repressed, for some individuals. A healthier, particular human organism, will be more cognizant than not, of the most optimally aligned goals and desires for maximizing well-being.
Well said, as always.
I'll have a double-dip cone of "aluminum" flavor.
What’s morally worse would be a copper-penny flavor.
Is consciousness itself objectively measurable? We can connect it to brain activity, which can be measured objectively, but the experience itself is immeasurable.
13:42 " ... My daughter's birthday is no easier to ignore than an asteroid impact. "
Sam's sense of humor is like a great Champaign - - - BRUT DRY B---)
Sam is a national treasure
Unless you're Muslim or African American
Man that half hour flew by
This weight loss and ice cream section is golden. If you had just tuned in it would sound like a satirical impression of Sam but also wholesome 😅
And having no free will, you’re going to eat the ice cream.
Thx Sam, this is much more relevant to societal progress, than say, twitter/tictoc/social media bickering. Lost in the weeds of wordplay, now, becomes a thing though. That is when that old bugaboo, GOOD FAITH intentions come into play. You do gods work Sam, only in the most non religious meaning of that concept. I am with you and your interests, as I am sure others will be.
What worries me about integrating this philosophy is that it takes out the human element in my life that makes humans imperfect. And I feel like when trying to implement this philosophy in life or society there seems to be no end to the project of perfection. Also, it makes me feel like a robot whose actions and thoughts are constantly being analzyed. It takes out the sponaneity in life. But idk maybe I'm wrong.
The self can be considered to be composed of personality and character. Personality can be considered how you behave because of how you feel about things. Character can be considered how you behave because of what you believe about things.
With that framework, the spontaneity can be within your personality. Even if we all had exactly the same character, our personalities would differ.
Not all of our character needs be the same for us all to have identical ethic, moral, and virtue frameworks. There is much more outside those three to believe and behave in response to.
Sam Harris. Wise Harris.
Do I hear Alex in the background? :)
all things related to the ML should be freely and openly shared online - it is a tragedy that this text and related material is behind a paywall.
What's the definition of well-being? Does it have to be physical, or can it also be whatever can be conceived by the mind as generally "good feelings"? Let's say we build a simulation of our best possible utopia imaginable, and we manipulate the minds of the subjects to be completely immersed in it - by these standards, connecting someone to that simulation is probably one of the most moral things you can do. In this new reality we can start playing around with the edges of universal morality, what if the physical body of the conscious being inside the simulation is being used for the benefit of the person who put them inside without their concent, but they would never know about it? What if connecting a conscious being into the simulation shortens their life span - but that's the only way to achieve this optimal sense of well being they can experience? What if the beings are chicken, and you put them inside this simulation because it makes their meat more tender, and eventually you're going to eat them - but in nature they would never achieve well-being remotely close to what you offer? What if the only way you can offer this experience is if it's financially viable, and so you must shorten the life span of the beings inside? Does anything of what I just said change the morality of putting beings inside this simulation? If so, what exactly makes it universally immoral?
Wish he had taken something from his David Deutsch conversation. Seems to still value "wellbeing" over error correction.
Hey Sam, I'm listening to Richard Dawkins latest video with Martin Rees, and he's on there lambasting your take on morality. You should look into it and provide some thoughts as a rebuttal 👊😎
Not sure if this is talking about the general concept that he is presenting or if and how it applies to current events. Once you bring it out of theory and into action you also bring numerous other forces along with it and these forces are not interested in any specific theory.
He's talking about Martin Rees
I was listening to this stuck in traffic and I had a fantasy everyone else was also listening and we all agreed how much it made sense, and obvious and important these ideas were. So clear
Unfortunately I don't find same to be clear on this topic at all and I think many others have the same reaction.
@@lanceindependent if you don’t mind, can you share what is not clear to you in Sam’s point of view on morality?
@@francdugas Sure. I just did a nearly three hour stream where I raise objections to this specific video. I don't think you can send links here, so look up "Why Sam Harris Still Doesn't Understand Morality" for the channel Digital Gnosis.
@@lanceindependent Thank you for sharing. I have a feeling that when you say you find him unclear, what you might actually mean is that you don’t agree with his views. Could you clarify? If his arguments are unclear to you, could you specify which argument or explanation you find the least clear? Alternatively, if you understand his position but disagree, could you tell me which point you disagree with the most? I would be curious to know and try to understand. For now I would prefer interacting with you than watching a video.
@@francdugas Sure. Sam says lots of things. Some of the things he says make sense and I agree, while others make sense and I don't agree. However, I also think his position is so unclear that I don't even know what exactly his position is or what his argument for it is. I know he'll say his position is this and his argument is that, but they strike me as too convoluted to reconstruct. He makes many claims and it's hard to cash them all out in a short RUclips post, which is why I discussed them at length in the video I mentioned. Even so, some of the main issues are:
(1) He does not provide any clear argument for why we should think morality is exclusively about wellbeing
(2) His concept of "wellbeing" is vague and underspecified.
(3) His position is so convoluted it's unclear where it fits within the landscape of contemporary metaethics.
(4) His account is so vague and underspecified it doesn't seem equipped to address most issues in normative, applied, and population ethics.
(5) His account is so vague it's hard to tell whether or not and to what extent it purports to and succeeds at providing concrete input on how individuals should go about deliberating on and deciding which course of action to take, morally speaking.
(6) His dismissal of metaethics does him no favors. He doesn't appear to be aware of or to engage with basic issues in metaethics, or ethics more generally. It wasn't even clear whether he understood Alex's view, emotivism, when they had a discussion. Emotivism is something you'd learn about in intro to ethics courses that cover the basics of metaethics.
(7) He often makes bare assertions without providing any arguments or evidence for them. For instance, in the full length version of the podcast, he claims that anyone who purports to assign moral value to considerations outside the scope of what he thinks are the only legitimate candidates of moral concern (conscious states), he simply claims these people are "pretending." Let's say they were pretending. How does he know this? What arguments and evidence does he have for it? as far as I can tell, absolutely none at all. He seems to me to simply assert his own position over and over and report incredulity at anyone possibly thinking otherwise.
(8) Much of his claims on these matters consist of rhetorical fluff that fail to engage with arguments to the contrary or even indicate an awareness of their existence, or to make an argument for his position.
(9) He sometimes will critique misunderstandings or confusions that genuinely are pretty weak, but fails to engage with stronger arguments for those positions. One example is his critique of people who infer from the fact that there are moral disagreements that there's no objective morality. This is a crude version of the argument from disagreement. It's a bad argument. But antirealists have better arguments than this, including more developed arguments from disagreement, as well as other arguments. Are any of them compelling? I don't think so, but Harris doesn't engage with them at all, and instead focuses on popular misconceptions.
(10) He suggests that skepticism about moral realism has consequences but the main consequence he cites appears to be a form of cultural agent relativism. I don't know if I've ever met or even heard of a philosopher who endorsed such a view. I'm sure they exist, but it's not a common position among philosophers who are antirealists. And the specific form of relativism he discusses is one that has substantive normative moral aspects to it. Many other antirealist positions have few or no substantive metaethical implications. Since rejecting moral realism doesn't entail you'd endorse that specific theory, he simply hasn't showing that denying there are objective moral truths at all poses a problem. For comparison, some people who reject belief in God could join some violent radical secular group. But it does not mean that atheism is dangerous in general, simply because some atheists might join a violent radical secular group.
These are just a handful of concerns off the top of my head when I'm about to go to sleep around midnight. I am sure if I listened to the whole podcast again there'd be half a dozen more, and maybe more than that.
Sam Harris is absolutely terrible on the topic of metaethics. He is wildly out of his depth, and almost everything he says varies from trivial to confused to convoluted to false, with almost no substantive insights, novel points, or good arguments. It is quite literally some of the worst coverage of metaethics I have ever seen, and I make a point to listen to every youtube video, podcast, tiktok video, and so on that addresses metaethics and moral realism that I can find.
If someone is morally relativistic, they lack standards to evaluate their moral judgments. Consequently, when faced with a dilemma such as choosing between someone experiencing murder or theft, the relativist cannot provide a clear response. It's as simple as that.
[09:53] Utopia
I like your philosophical take on how religion has a problem with prescriptive morality, but I'm curious what empiricism actually says about whether diverse societies can function at scale without prescriptions. I have no doubt the right group can operate without prescriptive morality, but that doesn't mean everyone can.
Caring for one’s family is to me evolution’s way of delegating responsibility
The physical health, and promotion of the species, is the arbiter for morality, predictably uniform to a significant extent, until/unless speciation happens. It's. So. Obvious.
Someone get Sam some ice cream. Chocolate ice cream.
the universe doesn't care about life and wellbeing, it's only when we define morality that we can say it is objective against that definition. Even if that definition is objective towards the standard it still started as a subjective position.
Absolutely no one:
Sam: Episode 364
I would say chop wood carry water. :)
Eating less usually results in hunger which, prolonged, will stifle your metabolism over time and make you gain weight. Hunger is the enemy to weight loss. Your body will store carbs as fat. It's harder for the body to break down fat that you consume to store it. So reduce carbs, especially at night, and avoid hunger by consuming high fat, high fiber, low carb food.
Sam, you are à blessing to humankiind 😂
I think your example is almost correct. People have many minds. There is a mind that wants the ice cream and one that does not. And there are also conflicting minds that exist within the reasoning of both states.
always remeber that blowing air through a set of lungs to make various nouses by vibrating the atmosphere, or stacking squiggly lines into various rows has no literal connection to actuality /reality.
this is the work of imagination ( a wonderful thing of course)
when it comes to what is or could be just do the damn thing.
If this is a continuation of his conversation with Alex, it's not much of one. He's just repeating the same points Alex was pressing against, which is why that part of Alex's podcast was an hour and 40 minutes in the first place. Sam was talking in circles and failing to expand upon his ideas when he had every opportunity to do so.
On that note, this was a terrible episode to gate behind a subscription. He should have just let this one run.
"Murder booo" is a moral fact about majority of known minds
The closer we get to understanding our unknown emotional side as humans, the more we realize we are just deterministic robots. The day we can map what a 'perfect' mona lisa painting looks like, the day we can gene manipulate a baby in the womb to be exactly what we want, the day we have an app that tells us with 100% accuracy I would love this new woman more than my wife- it will be a very interesting day in what is keeping us 'human' as opposed to neurons just activating.
Let me begin by summarizing, without reference to Kelley, the essence of the Objectivist view on the relationship between fact and value.
Objectivism holds that value is objective (not intrinsic or subjective); value is based on and derives from the facts of reality (it does not derive from mystic authority or from whim, personal or social). Reality, we hold - along with the decision to remain in it, i.e., to stay alive - dictates and demands an entire code of values. Unlike the lower species, man does not pursue the proper values automatically; he must discover and choose them; but this does not imply subjectivism. Every proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact: a given object or action advances man’s life (it is good): or it threatens man’s life (it is bad or an evil). The good, therefore, is a species of the true; it is a form of recognizing reality. The evil is a species of the false; it is a form of contradicting reality. Or: values are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relation to the choice to live.
In the objective approach, since every fact bears on the choice to live, every truth necessarily entails a value-judgment, and every value-judgment necessarily presupposes a truth. As Ayn Rand states the point in “The Objectivist Ethics”: “Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every ‘is‘ implies an ‘ought.'” Evaluation, accordingly, is not a compartmentalized function applicable only to some aspects of man’s life or of reality; if one chooses to live and to be objective, a process of evaluation is coextensive with and implicit in every act of cognition.
Came here to say the say as everyone else apparently, Alex O'Connor is such a rising star and as much as I love Sam I felt he failed to take seriously the ideas Alex was putting forward by getting hung up some of on the language, such as the word "preferences". It's good to see Sam's been giving the conversation some reflection, I look forward to perhaps a deeper follow up exchange.
Honestly, this sounds a lot of the particular kind of American Pragmatism put forth by John Dewey. Sam's conception of Science seems to mirror Dewey's in that Science is pretty much just human inquiry, though in a general algorithm we call the Scientific Method. Dewey's Pragmatism seems to point toward a framework of inquiry and action that inform each other within the context of Science. I wonder how much Sam has read of Dewey.
I like your philosophical take on how religion has a problem with prescriptive moraliyt, but I'm curious what empiricism actually says about whether diverse societies can function at scale without prescriptions. I have no doubt the right group can operate without prescriptive morality, but that doesn't mean everyone can. I'm guessing laws do the heavy lifting in your system, with descriptive morality as a guide for how laws are crafted. This would potentially butt heads with other legal theories.
Well said. How would you differ from Ayn Rand's Objectivism?
If there are facts about any creature or plant or other objects, then it seems there are facts about humans as humans are creatures.
If people don't understand this, or worse, push back on what is being said here that's on them. Sam is too on point here.
What's he on point about here specifically?
@@lanceindependent All of the above.
@@js2567 I'd be happy to discuss this with you. I recently reviewed this video with Digital Gnosis and offered a comprehensive critique, which you can find by searching for "Sam Harris Still Hasn't "Solved" Morality w/ @lanceindependent." I also wrote a summary of some of my objections (those I recalled off the top of my head) to someone else in this thread, which I'll repeat:
" Sam says lots of things. Some of the things he says make sense and I agree, while others make sense and I don't agree. However, I also think his position is so unclear that I don't even know what exactly his position is or what his argument for it is. I know he'll say his position is this and his argument is that, but they strike me as too convoluted to reconstruct. He makes many claims and it's hard to cash them all out in a short RUclips post, which is why I discussed them at length in the video I mentioned. Even so, some of the main issues are:
(1) He does not provide any clear argument for why we should think morality is exclusively about wellbeing
(2) His concept of "wellbeing" is vague and underspecified.
(3) His position is so convoluted it's unclear where it fits within the landscape of contemporary metaethics.
(4) His account is so vague and underspecified it doesn't seem equipped to address most issues in normative, applied, and population ethics.
(5) His account is so vague it's hard to tell whether or not and to what extent it purports to and succeeds at providing concrete input on how individuals should go about deliberating on and deciding which course of action to take, morally speaking.
(6) His dismissal of metaethics does him no favors. He doesn't appear to be aware of or to engage with basic issues in metaethics, or ethics more generally. It wasn't even clear whether he understood Alex's view, emotivism, when they had a discussion. Emotivism is something you'd learn about in intro to ethics courses that cover the basics of metaethics.
(7) He often makes bare assertions without providing any arguments or evidence for them. For instance, in the full length version of the podcast, he claims that anyone who purports to assign moral value to considerations outside the scope of what he thinks are the only legitimate candidates of moral concern (conscious states), he simply claims these people are "pretending." Let's say they were pretending. How does he know this? What arguments and evidence does he have for it? as far as I can tell, absolutely none at all. He seems to me to simply assert his own position over and over and report incredulity at anyone possibly thinking otherwise.
(8) Much of his claims on these matters consist of rhetorical fluff that fail to engage with arguments to the contrary or even indicate an awareness of their existence, or to make an argument for his position.
(9) He sometimes will critique misunderstandings or confusions that genuinely are pretty weak, but fails to engage with stronger arguments for those positions. One example is his critique of people who infer from the fact that there are moral disagreements that there's no objective morality. This is a crude version of the argument from disagreement. It's a bad argument. But antirealists have better arguments than this, including more developed arguments from disagreement, as well as other arguments. Are any of them compelling? I don't think so, but Harris doesn't engage with them at all, and instead focuses on popular misconceptions.
(10) He suggests that skepticism about moral realism has consequences but the main consequence he cites appears to be a form of cultural agent relativism. I don't know if I've ever met or even heard of a philosopher who endorsed such a view. I'm sure they exist, but it's not a common position among philosophers who are antirealists. And the specific form of relativism he discusses is one that has substantive normative moral aspects to it. Many other antirealist positions have few or no substantive metaethical implications. Since rejecting moral realism doesn't entail you'd endorse that specific theory, he simply hasn't showing that denying there are objective moral truths at all poses a problem. For comparison, some people who reject belief in God could join some violent radical secular group. But it does not mean that atheism is dangerous in general, simply because some atheists might join a violent radical secular group.
These are just a handful of concerns off the top of my head when I'm about to go to sleep around midnight. I am sure if I listened to the whole podcast again there'd be half a dozen more, and maybe more than that.
Sam Harris is absolutely terrible on the topic of metaethics. He is wildly out of his depth, and almost everything he says varies from trivial to confused to convoluted to false, with almost no substantive insights, novel points, or good arguments. It is quite literally some of the worst coverage of metaethics I have ever seen, and I make a point to listen to every youtube video, podcast, tiktok video, and so on that addresses metaethics and moral realism that I can find."
I think this is more a response to Rory Stewart than O’Connor.
So really the big moment in Sam's discussion is near the end at about 26:30 with his analysis of "project 2" where he is saying, how can we ever know what is right and wrong about human values. And he points to the fact that, well some people point to their bible as the source of truth on laws of physics, and other people point to scientific knowledge and the body of theories and experiments we have conducted so far.
And Sam says, just because there is someone holding up a bible should not mean we think that physics is subjective or can't be universal, and secondly, in the same way we can have flawed intuitions about the laws of physics that we discover are wrong later (e.g. relativity), the same is true for a science of morality.
But I think that sort of misunderstands the objection, because those are two completely different areas. Science is an investigation of what is true, not what ought to be true. So if someone reads the bible and claims it is an account of what is true, that can actually be factually investigated, determined, and ultimately rejected. Morality on the other hand is a claim of what ought to be true, and there is no obvious way to claim someone's preferences are wrong especially if they reject wellbeing as a principal value. And since part of our moral values is to respect free will we sort of have to accept that. Obviously there are limits when it comes to cults like scientology but lets say we can account for those...
But can we really just dismiss most religious morality this way? Who is going to agree to that? What about all the Islamic or Christian philosophical arguments for God's existence, do we just arrogantly proclaim those are objectively wrong and that the only reasonable moral good is maximizing happiness? I can't believe any religious person would agree with that. Should we debate Islamists and Christians absolutely...maybe even pressure their governments when they violate human rights. But it goes a little too far to proclaim some sort of objective framework that you are right and they are categorically wrong from the outset. Imagine if they did that for us :P. We would reject it as much as they would! So I just don't see this as helping.
And moreover our secular worldview might turn out to be wrong - what if consciousness is actually fundamental to the universe and our material reality is an illusion...then doesn't most science go out the window? In the short term maybe scientific materialism seems like a safe bet but in the long term I don't think we can have any sort of certainty about it, certainly not objective certainty.
That was excellent and it was more than Sam Harris or his supporters deserved. Their certainty is what's morally repulsive. Sam Harris gets up in the morning convinced that he's got the real inside scoop and other mere mortals someday will reach his exalted level but this, after all, has been his bread and butter, for the last 20 years. He can't admit he may not have the inside scoop after all.
I'll have you insisting, in no time, someone's preferences are wrong when they're about to poke you with a red hot poker.
What do you think ought means?
@@MD-bu3xc He actually addressed this in the video -- saying morality is what ought to be true is the same as saying science is what's in the bible. Both are random assumptions that aren't useful. Don't try and attack someone if you can't even comprehend their basic ideas first lmao
Human wellbeing can be measured objectively and there isn't a good reason to not use that as morality.
I disagree with the premise that in order for a moral claim to be true it must compel one to follow it. One could follow it even though they do not want to but they realize it logically follows like that of the example of veganism.
How is medicine possible if there isn't a working definition of well-being? Is there not a healthy range of blood pressure? Well being is one of those things that exists between metrics.
Health is a specific kind of well being.
What's your definition of well being?
Sam opens up the freezer for the tenth time in a day:
My desire for icecream once again wins over my desire to lose weight. My will is too weak, and since free-will doesn't exist, I cannot choose to refuse the icecream.
Checkmate, fit bod. My logic wins again.
You really don’t have free will.
@@charliewalker9443
You actually do.
@@justanothernick3984 You really, really don’t.
27:09 "I'll now deal with the fundamental challenge to the thesis I put forward in The Moral Landscape..."
"If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe..."
Well, that was a waste of twenty five minutes!
"Increasing the sense of boredom in the universe..." Priceless.
It's not priceless. It's a poor excuse not to study the topic he's talking about. Imagine if he were dismissing climate change then said he's refusing to engage with what climate scientists say because terms like "acidification" and "interglacial" are boring. This isn't much different.
@@lanceindependent These things are utterly different, and the fact you can't understand that speaks volumes about opinions and how we form them.
@@AndyColglazier There are some differences. But they're not differences of a kind that would warrant dismissing academic philosophy as irrelevant. Harris misreads what little academic exposure he's had to metaethics. What differences do you think are relevant here?
One of the major shortcomings of both philosophers and climate scientists is their seeming difficulty in communicating subject matter in lay terms. Philosophers do a great deal of talking among themselves, as do climate scientists, and their shared specialized terminology makes for great shorthand; it's a timesaver. But when communicating with lay people, the message gets lost in the communication. Hence the amount of boredom associated with such things.
Harris is working to cut out the technical shorthand (insofar as that is possible), and get on with the explanation.
If you want your audience to glaze over and fidget, use the special shorthand. If you want people to listen and understand, you have to change the delivery. Experts have to downshift if they want passengers. Otherwise the audience will take the subway.
@@AndyColglazier Harris isn't simply cutting out use of the technical terminology. It's not like he's reading metaethics, and adequately addressing it,but doing so without the jargon. He's barely reading it, and when he does, he frequently misunderstands it or has shallow or confused understandings that could be rectified if he were to be more familiar with the subject matter he's discussing. As a result, he's not just cutting out boring technical jargon, he's cutting out use of relevant concepts, distinctions, and matters of contention.
Sounds like defining your premises in unusual language in order to obtain the conclusions you want in common language.
I'm just wondering, don't genetics play a role? LIke, what "feels right" to a tribe in a certain geographic location won't "feel right" to an average American citizen based on generations of customs and traditions that make them genetically pre-disposed toward prioritizing certain values and customs.
I don't get how objective morality is compatible with difficult trade offs.
Please explain further
I like vanilla. Chocolate is ass-juice.
"It's absolutely possible for me to lose 10 pounds"
That might be false, under determinism (and you are a self-proclaimed determinist, like myself). Even if you have achieved it in the past, there's no guarantee that it's in the cards for you again.
Don't you do it sam, don't you lose a single pound. You look fabulous honey
This is what I read RUclips comments for
The quality of life on earth and actual progress on ethical behavior would improve if we could 'simply' get most people to value how they treat others. Problem is, immature people justify their bad behavior because they think themselves the victim, caused by others treating them badly. This is a ginormous Catch-22, even with all the mature people that don't knee-jerk react with tit-for-tat. Obviously humanity has a vast incurable immaturity, arrogance, and ignorance problem, and the human mind can justify anything. Solving all of the interlocked randomness of self-justified human behavior may be essentially impossible, no matter how sound the reasons or better vision for humanity. Then again, getting some people to admit something is impossible is usually 'impossible'.
Don't be 'afraid' to use big words, Sam...
Words have meaning - why should we dumb-down for peole too lazy to find out?
Harris contradicts himself less than 3 minutes into the video. Beginning at 2:07 and ending around 3:20, he says:
“John Searle once pointed out that we should distinguish between epistemological and ontological senses of objectivity [...] Ontology relates to questions about what exists. For instance, is there only one type of stuff in the universe? Are there only physical things, or are there really existent things which are not physical? For instance, do numbers exist beyond their physical representations, and if so, how? Science is fully committed to epistemological objectivity. That is, to analyzing evidence and argument without subjective bias. But it is in no sense committed to ontological objectivity. It isn’t limited to studying objects, that is, purely physical things and processes. We can study human subjectivity, the mind as experienced from the first person point of view objectively, that is, without bias and other sources of cognitive error.”
Here, Sam first characterizes ontological objectivity as a view about what exists in such a way so as to explicitly indicate that it isn’t restricted to physical objects. Yet he then says that science isn’t committed to ontological objectivity *because it isn’t restricted to the study of physical objects.* This latter remark would only make sense if ontological objectivity were restricted to the study of physical objects, which he himself just explicitly indicated it isn’t. In the same breath, Harris both:
(1) Indicates ontological objectivity is not exclusively about physical facts.
(2) Indicates ontological objectivity is exclusively about physical facts.
Anti realists are wild.
I don't like Sam using words like 'people misunderstand what I mean' and 'people are confused about'. Often, it's just that people simply disagree.
Too many examples over his time as a notable thinker, show he is being generous with those statements. Bad Faith of many critics are available amongst the ‘misunderstood.
Ai assisted?
I see gift as a gift and controlling my freedom of choice is a right in the US.
Good luck down there, from us in Calgary Untruedaux Land Stay Safe and Stay Free. One Atheist Jew to another
Can i have a scoop of aluminum please
but Sharia law isn't outside of consciousness
Chocolate ice cream is disgusting, 😁.
He's right, and so is Hume. His arguments in the book are stronger than the messaging here for me.
Nobody says healthcare isn't objective just because health is hard to define and means different things to different people.
He also said something like: Find me an object that can never influence sentient well-being, and I'll show you the most boring object in the universe.
Also, objective fact that well-being for all would increase if he went vegan. I'll buy the supplements.
Two big giggle pops early,, Funny