Sam Harris at Oxford, questioned by grad student
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- Can science determine human values? Sam Harris responds to my question at an event in Oxford (when I was a graduate student). My essay critiquing his view is here:
www.academia.e...
You can tell from a comment that a person is educated and intelligent.. What's sad is that intelligent, educated person is making an argument in defense of an invisible man in the sky...
Religion truly is poison..
Ray C
God is the invisible man in the sky I am referring to.. The NON existent invisible man in the sky..
Ray C ... When Christians say there is a god, they are talking about their invisible god, who lives up in the sky.
So, yes.
Granted, it is a tongue-in-cheek description of a god, but it has elements of truth to it in that many gods are 1) invisible, and 2) live in some sort of expanse or space outward or above us. The gods of the major religions also tend to be male, obviously excluding many of the Hindu deities, who are depicted as female.
I think you just don't get the joke.
"Noone comes to the 'FATHER' except through me." What about that is not patriarchal?
Ray C "But that doesn't negate nor contradict the fundamental conception of Yahweh as immortal and/or possessing superhuman powers and faculties" No, evidence and facts do that just fine. I cant believe its 2014 and people are still engrossed in this superstitious nonsense.
Thankyou for a fair title rather than the usual 'Sam Harris owned' or 'Grad student owned'. I don't see any real controversy here. A reasonable question was asked (although unnecessarily verbose) and Harris gave a perfectly reasonable response. It is important to view such encounters objectively and not root for the person we like or dislike. I usually like what Harris says but I have to always remind myself to listen critically and judge the question and answer not the questioner and person answering. It is not always easy.
You have to be skeptical always. I agree that it was a good question but Im sure the entire lecture answered that before it was asked.
Really? I thought he sort of rambled on...
You're not the type to study at Oxford either are you?
Now if it was a proper debate, he'd then afterwards have the chance to ask "did that answer your question?" and he would then have the opportunity to say yes or no and then clarify what his question really was about.
agree
The person who posted this video, is the same guy who asks the question. So it's no surprise he didn't choose one of those titles
I'm a huge Sam Harris fan, but I gotta grant that this was an intelligent, well thought out question. Essentially he's just pointing out a limitation of Sam's theory, which Sam himself recognizes; the only things that "science" (or philosophy) could tell us about morality, are things that are already intuitively obvious. ie: don't throw acid in someone's face.
That, and if intuition is the standard by which we are validating these "scientific" claims, then what's the purpose of introducing this new method in the first place? Why not just cut out the middle man and rely on intuition?
+Scott K
Morality springs entirely from enlightened self-interest. It's actually mundane once you understand it.
+Scott K Even though I am anything BUT a huge Sam Harris fan, I'm glad we can agree on what you've stated, namely that Sam Harris's whole method first requires one fundamental assumption in order to work. That is, first granting that human well-being is something that is morally good. Harris acknowledged this in the video at the onset of his response.
It's interesting that secular moral reasoning must first assume something in order to go, just like the common theories of evolution typically first assume the miracle of the Big Bang in their effort to debunk the miracles of the Bible. Evolution first needed a miracle before it could grow legs; secular moral reasoning first needed a miracle before it could grow legs. Maybe people won't like me using the word "miracle" regarding the start of secular moral reasoning, but that's really what it is because the whole fundamental assumption upon which it relies contradicts the whole method of secular moral reasoning. Put another way, secular moral reasoning runs on logic and reasoning, but it does so on the grounds of assumptions of the goodness of well-being. It's a method seeking to be consistent with itself that starts with an assumption that is inconsistent with itself.
So, like I said earlier, I'm glad we can agree on this even though we're probably much, much different theologically.
Related tangent: I watched the movie Interstellar recently, and I was keenly interested in the part of the movie where *spoiler alert* Anne Hathaway says that nature doesn't commit evil acts, only people do. Matthew McConaughey responded along the lines of "Then the only evil in this unexplored galaxy is the evil we bring with us." Hathaway gave her unspoken agreement. Isn't it interesting then, in that discussion, that the very goodness of Man's existence is called into question? If you ascribed your thinking solely to the merits of that discussion, you might say that the universe would be better off without Man, the one who brings evil. Those two characters in the movie would clearly tell you that without Man there would be no evil in the universe. I wonder what Sam Harris would say about that part of the movie, and how he would refute their objective moral claim that human well-being is destructive to the universe, and therefore according to secular moral reasoning, should be considered morally evil?
+Matt R "...just like the common theories of evolution typically first assume the miracle of the Big Bang..." science does not assume anything - if someone assumes something, that it is not science. Science is about drawing conclusions from the observations, not the other way around. In the case of Big Bang, most scientists thought at first that the world had no beginning, BUT THEY CHANGED THEIR OPINION when they were confronted with compelling evidence. That is the major difference between science and religion. Religion praises the ability to have faith regardless of the amount of evidence against your position. Remember children: the easiest thing for a person to do is fool himself.
Sorry if this will sound silly, im fairly new to this topic.
But it seems to me that we do need science in order to advance our understanding of how to achieve well-being, and our morals can in fact be adjusted and constructed depending on the latest scientific findings.
As an example, through science we came to know that waste is negatively affecting our environment and carbon dioxide emissions are the causes of global warming. We know that if these problems continue, it will make the lives of our offsprings on this planet difficult. Therefore it becomes immoral not to recycle or not to reduce CO2 omissions when we can.
+Scott K I can't speak on behalf of Sam or anyone. But I'm pretty sure about this. You haven't understood Sam's argument om how science and moral truths. He's arguing that science can in fact help us to figure out if actions are morally good or bad. It is NOT just a matter of intuition. That's completely opposite of what he's arguing. His analogy with economics is pretty spot on, acknowledging that a "moral landscape" and an analysis of it would be far more complicated, maybe even impossible to ever map. The "low hanging fruit" is just an easy example, but asking "which degree of human compassion is morally good" could also be answered if you knew every variable that affected the situation and could map and analyse every historical event, understand every macrosocial and microsocial situation for all affected areas (the world in this case) etc. etc. And even if you can't understand everything, you'll probably be able to "engineer" your way through it by looking at patterns in history, tests in the current world and an approximation of the full model.
I think to answer the students question, i quote very loosely from Lawrence Krauss :
"Science doesn't teach us anything about morality, in fact nature itself is absolute unbiased. Science informs us on the consequences of our actions, based on those consequences we can form educated decisions about whats right and whats wrong."
+Justice Hunter Great quote!
My problem is this though: If science can educate us to make better decisions in a world that is indifferent to how we feel or what we desire, then truly there is no objective moral point, practically zero. With this in mind, how is killing the weak wrong if we want to advance survival of the fittest as a species?
If the universe is indifferent to our pain - which i think is true - why aren't humans indifferent too?
Regards.
p.s: this is not an attack or a desire to start a youtube comments feud, I want to see what you have in mind about this.
+absba9 Thought I would chime in. This seemed like a good question. I think the essay A Critique of Cultural Relativism answers this question. Basically because humans are a social species we have developed a kind of universal truth based on trust. In the Essay trust is the basis for human existence. The examples go something like this. If humans could not trust each other there would be no foundation on which human existence could flourish. If everyone you met either lied to you or tried to kill you, you would avoid people all together: like mountain lions. Trust essentially layed the ground work for language, society etc. To answer your question about killing the weak. I think of society as a new threshold, an evolution of evolution in which our whole conception of survival of the fittest has transformed. If we were hunter/gatherers( were resources were limited) it very well might make more sense to leave the sick and old behind, like you say for the strength of the whole. Which would arguably be moral, as it shows concern for societies preservation. But because we live in a complex society where resources are abundant we do not find ourselves in situations were the weak must die off. If anything imbalances between how those resources are distributed among global populations shows that it's not so much a matter of strong vs weak. It is possible that many are weak directly because of exploitation by those who are strong.
well said.
+Justice Hunter Good thread. I agree with Jacob: we are moving past the individual looking out for herself and her children and into a society of individuals trying to figure out how to best serve the needs of and advance that society. It's a fight against evolutionary human nature. I think Mr. Harris has actually talked about this.
+absba9 There doesn't need to be an objective moral standard. Morals are made by humans for humans, so we're the ones who decide what's moral and what isn't.
Of course, since morals aren't absolutely objective you do have to base them on something that is, and due to the way humans work morals are just a way of maximizing our pleasure (or minimizing our suffering, whichever way you want to put it). And then things start to get a bit more complex, since maximizing ones own pleasure also involves helping other, maintaining our well being for as long as possible as opposed to going for short term pleasure, etc. That's where science comes in, it helps us predict the best actions to take to reach our objectives.
And we also can't forget everyone is different, so people will also have different opinions on morals at times, but there also are some points in which almost everyone agrees, such as "killing each other is bad".
Or maybe I'm just saying stupid shit since I just thought of this on the spot and I'm really tired right now.
I want my girl to look at me the way dawkins looks at sam
LOL I just saw that😂😂
Pursue Dawkins and make him your girl
@@KevanMajere33 😂
Please listen to other music, thank you √√√
I’m still struggling to (a) partially understand the question and (b) fully understand the answer.
The grad student was asking Sam to make the case for a strict, direct scientific ground for morality without the super-easy cases answered by so-called common sense (such as "isn't it wrong to throw acid on someone's face). We don't really need a system of morality to explain something that horrendous as "wrong", is the point of the questioner, I think. Sam's answer, however, failed because he never provided that strict and direct scientific basis for determining right from wrong.
@@MrAntiOrdinary science doesn't determine anything about morals. Nor does it claim to.
@@jaymeanderson5121 That's true. But the grad student there got the impression that Mr. Harris thought he COULD ground morality in science. That's why his answer skirted around the question.
Me too, I find this to be true of most of the IDW group.
@tnnt05 organic things break down over time.
I don't see this as an example of Sam Harris being "challenged" or the student who asked the question of being "owned", the student asked a question for clarification and greater insight and Sam Harris answered thoughtfully & intelligently. Stop trying to make controversy where none exists.
I agree. I don't really like Sam Harris that much. that said, I thought it was a great question and a great answer.
+Thomas Maresh I took it to mean "challenged" as in Brian gave Harris the opportunity to answer a very difficult question. Not "challenged to a duel" or anything controversial at all. It's a subtle but important difference
+Thomas Maresh Sam Harris can only fool morons like you... keep buying his books... that's how he makes a living anyway....
***** You're another of Sam Harris nutjob Fanatics... You can't even make a sound argument...
Just a question (probably a stupidly brave question with the quality of some of the replies here); are we confusing correlation with causation with that women's education and reproductive rights example? I know you're not the only one who's making that argument but it strikes me as a bit of a stretch. For instance, couldn't it be just as easily argued that countries that are not doing well prohibit their women from leaving the house because they're afraid? I'm making a sort of warped "women and children first" argument here, I realise, but it seems to be an unjustified assumption that promotion of equality for women came first - and then came the country's demonstrably better performance.
Please realise I'm not arguing for women to locked at home. I'm commenting on the intellectual disconnect between those who believe they're keeping their women at home "obviously" in order to protect them (and thereby ensure their community's long-term survival), and those who believe that women being kept at home "obviously" caused the difficulties these countries are facing (thereby threatening their community's long-term survival).
Sam: "Throwing acid is wrong. Dropping acid however ..."
😂😂😂
😂
Can be ,: great fun, illuminating, taking a trip and never leaveing the farm....
"Who are we to say that it's wrong to throw battery acid at children's and women's faces"?
-Ham Sarris
@@emailkolar4517 " ... I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn't felt sexually attracted to mice. I know I have. I mean, most normal adolescents go through a stage of squeaking two or three times a day. Most youngsters on the other hand, some youngsters are attracted to it by its very illegality. It's like murder - make a thing illegal and it acquires a mystique. Look at arson - I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn't set fire to some great public building? I know I have. The only way to bring the crime figures down is to reduce the number of offenses - get it out in the open - I know I have"
- Kargol, psychiatrist
Dawkins is a passionate listener...
Danny Boy Calmest listener ever. I hereby forge the scale of calm listening, it is graduated from Dawkins to Trump.
dawkins was the first one who explain how the moral evolve based in genes in his book the selfish gene.
Why twins are the ones with the stronger bond, then mother, father, son, similar in apparence, from animals to animals who are not similar at all.
The explanation of that empathy we feel, the good and wrong.. is all in the genes, etc.
No. Dawkins and Harris are phonies of the highest magnitude!
I like people who can listen in a debate and do not interrupt people mid sentence.
@@johnbarrett5229 a neuroscientist and biologist are phonies? Perhaps I'm not following your logic?
As I see it, the student is asking Harris to move up the tree past the low hanging fruit. One of the biggest problems with every theory of morality is not the easy questions, but the hard ones. I've never encountered any moral theory that answers everything easily and unambiguously. What Harris is saying is that we don't have to answer everything perfectly, and that often there are more than one right answers, and it's often clearer to see what is wrong rather than what is right. He makes an analogy with medicine. We can't perfectly define "good health" and it's often easier to see what is bad health. It doesn't stop us from using science effectively for health care. Harris extends this more broadly to our overall "well-being" for morality. We can sometimes more easily see when we don't have it, than when we do.
Hey, he asked the question I have wanted to ask for a while. That pretty much never happens.
For those annoyed with his verbosity, it was carefully worded, but nerves drove him to reiterate some clauses he did not need to reiterate.
It had to be carefully worded, because he basically told Sam Harris that everything he'd said for the last hour-and-a-half was bullshit and a waste of time, yet said it in such a polite and academic way that Sam was forced to follow with, "That's a good question." That is a delicate balancing act!
"he basically told Sam Harris that everything he'd said for the last hour-and-a-half was bullshit and a waste of time" ...No, he didn't.
He asked why Sam Harris was using the obvious, common sense examples like "throwing battery acid in peoples face". He was basically saying that it isn't a good example because it's an already solved issue, as most people in the developed world would generally agree that it is morally wrong to do that.
I think he was looking for Sam Harris to use science to solve a moral dilemma on the spot. One that wasn't so easy to pick a clear wrong or right.
Nope. You've missed the point. He doesn't just take issue with the example, he said Sam did not address the "really interesting" premise that he'd promised. He wrote an academic paper against Sam's premise, for goodness sake.
www.academia.edu/10290501/Science_cannot_determine_human_values?auto=download
Rory Stevens
Cessily Wow, there's a good read. Thanks for posting it.
He wasn't challenged... He was asked to clarify a point... fucking click-bait...
it sort of is a challenge, because if he is making a "common sense argument", it's saying he isn't really saying much.
i still don't see how that is a challenge. He was simply asked to illustrate his point more in a more sophisticated way, in order to make the whole point stronger, but the guy already agreed with the claim that sam harris made. But whatever. not like this actually matters. This comment will be seen by a few people, and then disapear into the immeasurably vast, exponentially expanding ocean of (mostly useless) information, that is the internet. So why am i still writing this? Because i'm bored. In a world like this one, with all the unbelievibly mind shatteringly incredible aspects of reality, it is still possible to feel bored. But as my sister once said - "if you're bored, you're boring". I wonder if anyone will read this nonsense comment this far :D, and if someone does - why? not like this is of any value to your life. this string of incoherent sentences does not enrich your experience of reality in any way. And yet you're still here. I will leave you with one thing i know to be true, probably the only thing i am certain to be true, a fact that is undeniable - Grateful Dead is the best band that has ever existed.
Hm.. but the student posed the illustration that it's low hanging fruit. He asked how Harris can use scientific endeavour to make objective claim in morality.. if you follow Harris' response .. he doesn't even say how. He only talks about compassion.. which when I last checked, not a scientific term.
hmm he wasn't merely asked to clarify a point, he was told that the arguments he had presented so far were weak, and asked to provide a strong one. That's being challenged.
He was challenged in the formal sense.
This man is so unbelievably talented at creating analogies.
Unfortunately, I agree with the challenger. I don't think that science can reveal morality
Why not just take on the humble position and say, that you don`t know IF `science can reveal morality`?
Nobody holds any obligation of forming a belief on matters that are not suitable for forming beliefs upon.
I know where you're coming from, but everything else in human knowledge depends on axioms as foundation. Really, nothing can tell us that we "ought" to value well-being whatever it's definition. Nihilism awaits those who try. In much the same sense, nothing can prove that B = B. 14 = 14 is not a scientific statement, it's an axiom.
We absolutely HAVE to make presuppositions to advance discourse. No school of thought circumvents this. Really, this subject pisses me off because it is a moot conversation ender.
tldr; You're right, but if science can't, nothing can.
If morality is a `social contract`, then it should be in the best interest of any person to be moral.
And science (allthough it can`t give basic motivation for being moral) can then give information for us to judge the morality of a thing.
If science was able to show WHY we are moral beings, this could be maybe be a reason to be moral. Because a lot of people aspire to be `their natural self`. [Even though I personally think this is a stupid reason to be moral.]
If there is something that science cannot answer, then nothing will ever come even close to addressing the question. Science is the best method of inquiry and it is only superseded by more science.
Anubhav Bhardwaj Can science answer your claim?
Brian: “Talk was great mate but you're basically saying one of two things:
1. “I'm a utilitarian and if we all just agree on maximising well-being...well then science can inform us about how to maximise well-being” (em...duh, that's kind of f---ing obvious)
or
2. “Science can prove utilitarianism”
This claim is actually a lot more interesting and the reason we all came here...because it's impossible.
Which are you claiming?”
Sam: “Well, if we all just grant that we're talking about well-being...well then science can inform us about how to maximise well-being...”
*Summary of RUclips comments*
1. “This video about whether science can answer moral questions was actually all about two people arguing for/against the existence of God. What a waste of time. Religion is evil.”
(Amazingly, the two top comments under this video with a total of 348 likes)
2. “Question was too confusing...but Harris was right”
3. Ad hominems against Brian/Sam
4. Some intelligent discussion on why the assumption of well-being is/is not justified.
James Khan Actually, that's a pretty bloody good summary of this whole page!
James Khan THANK YOU. I scrolled through the comment section and was like "Wtf? Did we even watch the same video?"
James Khan If principle applies to everyone then is it acceptable to from a basis of morality around it. No one actually wants to suffer as much as possible. As such everyone, except perhaps mental illness patients perhaps? still maybe not, value avoid suffering/striving towards well-being. That's about as objective of a framework as we can come up with imo.
I don't see why we need science or religion when it comes to morality.
If someone can't tell the difference between right and wrong then they are a danger to society.
Think before you act and use your common sense.
If you can't then you're an idiot and have a major screw loose.
DEEZ NUTTZ That's not exactly an enlightening comment. "Common sense" is not a well-defined concept. Obviously, moral sensibilities differ from person to person. Your moral values are not common to everyone, so in that sense, there is no "common sense". The interesting moral questions are those that ask about what happens when people's moral sensibilities come into conflict.
Harris is claiming that if moral agents accept "wellbeing" as the base axiom for morality, we can then objectively measure what is moral and what isn't from that point. But before we accept that axiom (wellbeing), morality is a subjective construct.
I believe that may be missing the point, Ryan. I'll try to explain it as I understand Harris' case.
When we talk about morality, Harris tries to get to the bottom of what we mean by that. Well, as it turns out, when we talk about morality, what we really end up talking about is the well-being of sentient beings. Throwing battery acid in somebody's face is clearly an immoral action because it clearly diminishes their well-being greatly. It's the widest, most general link to the real world that morality has, and therefore it's a basis for a science.
It's for that reason that morality's subjectivity doesn't matter - it's getting past the topic. What Harris says is that we mean "what improves and doesn't improve well-being" when we say "morality". And that well-being can be measured scientifically, therefore it is no longer in the realm of the subjective.
I agree with Ryan, Harris' argument is only valid when you define "moral" as "maximizing well-being", which has some chance of being measured or quantified.
if we accept "well being" and its objective assessment through science as the basis for our moral framework then we have to accept that the evolutionary mechanism of the "low hanging fruit" i.e common sense arguments on morality, placed in our brains over millions of years, are derived from that very concept of "well being". the scale over which that concept of well being extends may vary from an evolutionary perspective( individual,tribal etc) and a modern scientific one( society, multiculturalism,nations etc) and hence the objective moralities of the two may give us different end results. i can't think of an example right now( 3 am) but if i do, i'll certainly post. i hope i made sense though : )
Ryan's point is that having well being as the basis for our moral framework is an assumption
As is the fact that we ought to value health, an assumption. And yet we use it as a basis for the science and study of health. All of the sciences are based on an assumption which must be accepted if the science is to be practised - an assumption. The assumption need only make sense, which in the case of different states of well-being mapping on to what we mean by "morality", it certainly does.
Harris' point is not to say that science has the answers to all moral questions. His point is that morality falls into the purview of science, much like equally vague or vast concepts such as health or economics.
For those not trained in philosophy:
The questioner: "Sam, your argument is bullshit; you said science could tell us what's really right and what's really wrong, but you start from an idea of common sense NOT science. So, how can science PROVE our common sense notions."
Sam's answer: "Well, if we start from common sense..."
The reason the question is good is that is shows that Sam's position isn't grounded in science and anyone who has ever taken any philosophy/ethics class will not be surprised with this fact.
Stephen Hawking said philosophy is dead. That's the way we tried to explain the world before science. Just a thought.
@@doncourtreporter Oh, well if the great Stephen Hawking chimed in, I suppose I will change my mind. Why didn't you tell me this before!?
@@Hegeleze Haha. And he's correct. Who gives a damn about one's "philosophy"? That's nothing like science. And you're almost funny.
Don’t confuse science with understanding. Science left that realm long ago for technological know-how. Think if I asked you what a “door” is scientifically. You actually must assume a prior level of knowledge which science then acts on.
Let’s say you respond that science discovers new areas and makes new terms. True, but the atoms are still atoms of the door, right?
But then you say we can isolate out the area without the need of talking about doors at all! Ok, now the interesting part - science can’t give an account of the scientist who is doing the analysis. Cut out the human world all you want, you’ll never cut out the human which gives access to the scientific world meaning you’ll never get rid of philosophy. QED.
I love this kind of thing: intelligent public discourse is how we advance as a society
You probably never seen any rioting, looting or even a simple Black Friday mob.
As the Joker said (paraphrasing a bit) when the boat is sinking all the noble/moral people will eat each other alive.
The notion that people can advance just with secular morality is PROVEN WRONG EVEYDAY EVENTS for the last well documented/recorded100 years.
You dont have any morality without a standard outside Humanity because without that standard you cant justify it.
You can understand morality and have it but its never justified objectively.
Without God you have nothing. You cant objectively demand from a person to abide to any morality and you certainly cant judge them.
Its always your word against someone elses.
@@kostasz7z wish i can prove ur being one-sided and perhaps a bit cringey, but i just woke up and might braindump later on
@@kostasz7z I think you're actually making some good points, but for God's sake please don't quote the Joker 😂
@@kostasz7z So if you don't have a god, where are you getting your morality from, since that seems to be the case. You are somehow assuming that I and other atheists have no more compass without a god when it's just not true. This argument is tired and has no basis in factual reality.
@@matth9359 but you have a conscience and the rest of it.
“The moment you grant that we’re talking about well-being…”
But that’s a philosophical commitment. Science doesn’t tell us that we ought to care about anyone or anything’s well-being. But even if you grant Harris’s philosophical starting point and grant that morality is about well-being, that doesn’t answer whose well-being or the well-being of what we should be concerned about? And that’s a fundamental philosophical question, not a scientific one. Do I prioritize the well-being of all sentient creatures and become a utilitarian and vegetarian, or even a vegan? Do I prioritize the well-being of just humans and be a different kind of utilitarian? Do I prioritize the well-being of my tribe and be a tribalist? My nation and be a nationalist? My race and be a racist? My family and be intolerant of family members bringing dishonor to the family and support honor killing, believing that the well-being of the family’s honor is more important than the lives of any of its members? Do I prioritize my personal well-being and be a moral egoist? I had a philosophy professor once say that he would sacrifice the life of one of his students to save Van Gogh’s Starry Night in a fire, so he would prioritize the well-being of some great art works over the well-being of a human life. Was he wrong? These are all philosophical questions, not scientific ones. Science can’t answer any of them. But it can take philosophical commitments and provide evidence to support those commitments. But it can’t tell us what commitment we ought to follow. That’s why guys like Harris annoy many philosophers who have struggled in obscurity on these issues. Harris becomes famous based on books trashing religion after religious extremism brought us 9/11 and he uses this fame to push something that is basically on the level of an undergraduate philosophy paper that is naive and ignorant of the very complex philosophical issues involved.
You determine what you ought to do by analising morality scientifically as a social phenomena. Which then leads you to conclude what is that should be prioritised. Spoiler: sentient creature. Why? No time to explain. But you can figure it out.
Harris never disappoints. Always a well-reasoned, non emotional answer.
have you read his book? its total garbage.
He says it's "an appeal to common sense" when Harris says things like "wouldn't you say it's bad to throw acid on someone's face", but, how is this a problem? Science is based on axioms that are said to be self-evident. Logic is also based on axioms that are said to be self-evident. All systems of reasoning whether logical or scientific are based on axioms considered to be self-evident. You need self-evident axioms to create any reliable system. That's why Harris starts his answer with "the moment you grant that we're talking about well being". Because the system is based on this axiom considered to be self-evidence. In the same sense that no one is arguing that the axioms for logic, such as the Law of Identity, are false, or that no one is arguing that the axioms for science, such as the consistency of the universe, are false, no one is arguing that well being is better than suffering. This simple self-evident axiom, that it is better to promote well-being than suffering, then we can begin to make truth claims about what is moral and what is not.
"Science is based on axioms that are said to be self-evident."
Which axioms specifically?
"Logic is also based on axioms that are said to be self-evident."
Which axioms specifically?
If Harris wants to argue what he is saying that science can decide morality that goes way beyond any things taken to be self-evident in both logic and science which tend to be of a rather more "If you disagree you are literally insane and we will have to lock you up" type.
"This simple self-evident axiom, that it is better to promote well-being than suffering, then we can begin to make truth claims about what is moral and what is not. "
You can't because it fails for a variety of reasons. 1. Well-being is a pretty nebulous phrase where people have many different ideas about what that means or what it would mean to maximise well being. 2. Sometimes suffering is viewed by most as better than increasing "well being" if it means not abusing the liberty of others or similar abuses of rights (the standard transplant surgeon objection) 3. There are a variety of thought experiments about morality where people have different opinions; there is no scientific measure which will resolve those thought experiments. 4. Many people simply don't agree that the Hedonistic paradise is any paradise at all.
Cathal Ó Broin
*>"Which axioms specifically?"*
undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions
*>"Which axioms specifically?"*
editthis.info/logic/The_Laws_of_Classical_Logic
*>"If Harris wants to argue what he is saying that science can decide morality that goes way beyond any things taken to be self-evident in both logic and science which tend to be of a rather more "If you disagree you are literally insane and we will have to lock you up" type."*
No, it doesn't. Sam Harris is essentially saying: "Science can decide what promotes well-being and what doesn't. If we can accept that promoting well-being is moral, then science can decide what is moral."
Accepting the premise that promoting well-being is moral and demoting is immoral necessarily allows science to explain what is and isn't moral on an objective basis.
*>"You can't because it fails for a variety of reasons. 1. Well-being is a pretty nebulous phrase where people have many different ideas about what that means or what it would mean to maximise well being."*
Which is not an issue at all.
I think what you're saying is that the problem with well-being is that it's ill-defined, but it's not, it's being well. Google defines it as "the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy".
Well-being is both satisfying physical needs and emotional needs, and keeping one in good health.
If you were to say well-being is ill-defined, then shouldn't we stop studying medicine? Because who's doctors to say what medicine is good for us and what isn't? They can't define well-being.
But actually, they can, everyone can, it's pretty simple. This is why we give cancer patients chemotherapy, because we know what well-being is.
*>"2. Sometimes suffering is viewed by most as better than increasing "well being" if it means not abusing the liberty of others or similar abuses of rights (the standard transplant surgeon objection)"*
Preserving rights is preserving well-being, because if you lose rights, well-being is lost as well. If a person needs a transplant, and another person has the organs but is unwilling to give it, you aren't just saving one person and sacrificing another if you decide to take his organs anyways. You're both killing someone and removing the right to life, which is more detrimental to well-being than simply letting the first person die.
Plus, I'm not sure why you're bringing liberties and legalities into this. That's rather irrelevant, because just because something's moral or immoral doesn't dictate whether or not it should be legal.
*>"3. There are a variety of thought experiments about morality where people have different opinions;"*
That's not an issue in the slightest. We can test each opinion and see which yields the greatest measure of well-being. If someone thinks spanking is moral, and another thinks is immoral, we can test that. Plenty of studies have already been done, and we know by this point that spanking is always damaging to well-being and non-violent forms of punishment promote well-being.
So, we can easily tell which person is right and wrong. Or, sometimes, they may both be right.
*>"there is no scientific measure which will resolve those thought experiments."*
No, because the "thought experiments" are flawed. It seems to assume that because two people reach different conclusions, it means they're both right necessarily.
But that's just absurd. If we're using an objective basis (well-being) we can actually determine empirically whose opinion is right or wrong. Both people having different opinions proves nothing.
*>"4. Many people simply don't agree that the Hedonistic paradise is any paradise at all."*
Not sure how this is relevant at all.
Amelia Hartman
Re. assumptions in science.
The article giving assumptions for science is not only wrong at a basic level it's also clearly aimed at children.
If the "supernatural" (however one could define it) did in fact impinge on the physical world, then it is fully possible that science could also have a theory which incorporated it. The "non-overlapping magisteria" claims were adopted by many groups largely for public relations reasons.
In fact, that entire explanations makes metaphysical assumptions that are not required in science and appears to be explicitly taking a scientific realist stance. Presumably this is because, as I mentioned, it's an explanation for school children.
*Preserving rights is preserving well-being, because if you lose rights, well-being is lost as well. If a person needs a transplant, and another person has the organs but is unwilling to give it, you aren't just saving one person and sacrificing another if you decide to take his organs anyways. You're both killing someone and removing the right to life, which is more detrimental to well-being than simply letting the first person die.*
Firstly, how did you perform that calculation scientifically at all? You've just claimed it's more detrimental, but show me your calculations in terms of health, happiness and comfort. Rights are not in any of these except to the extent that my rights contribute to my health, happiness and comfort. Please show me how your scientifically balance between rights, health, happiness and comfort.
Secondly, the transplant thought experiment is where one person is killed to save (say) 7 individuals. I'll add that in the thought experiment the person whose organs are removed is peacefully put to sleep without realising. They never feel any unhappiness nor lack of comfort, but those seven the doctor saves have much improved health (they would surely have died otherwise), comfort and health. Clearly looking at the balance there are two possible outcomes.
If the doctor performs the transplant then 1 person dies but 7 live in comfort etc. In the alternative situation, 6 die, and one person lives in comfort etc.
Thirdly, you appear to be changing your definitions now. You said :
*You're both killing someone and removing the right to life, which is more detrimental to well-being than simply letting the first person die,* But clearly your definition of well being includes no descriptions of rights at all so can not appear now in your objection.
Fourthly, being dead is not a defined state in terms of well being, so you also can not introduce it now as a factor. Not being around means they are not in discomfort nor in pain nor in bad health.
*Well-being is both satisfying physical needs and emotional needs, and keeping one in good health.*
If that is your definition of what matters to optimise then I think you'll find very few people agree. This is standard hedonistic utilitarianism and a lot of nasty outcomes arise if you actually follow the reasoning through without shifting to preference utilitarianism when it suits you.
*If you were to say well-being is ill-defined, then shouldn't we stop studying medicine? Because who's doctors to say what medicine is good for us and what isn't? They can't define well-being.*
Even that is not so simple. A medical researcher attempts to objectively discover the benefits of a particular treatment. These are the facts of the matter. It is not up to a doctor to decide for a person that they should take the medicine. A person may make their own quality of life judgement and decide not to take the treatment, or the family to pull life support etc. It's also not a medical decision weighing up the quality of life vs the financial cost. That depends on the person (or an ethics committee deciding what drugs to buy with public money). As the transplant dilema shows, just blindly optimising for maximum health is also not the best thing to do.
*it means they're both right necessarily.*
No it doesn't. That's not what you are meant to get out of these thought experiments.
*we can actually determine empiracally whose opinion is right or wrong.*
No you can't.
Cathal Ó Broin
*>"The article giving assumptions for science is not only wrong at a basic level it's also clearly aimed at children."*
le random guy on the internet thinks he knows better than Berkeley.
They're not the only university to support this, either.
web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm
www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/NOS%20Over.BasicAssump.html
But hey, email these universities and tell them you know better. I'm not going to debate some random dweeb on the internet about whether the universities have it wrong.
If you can't accept such a basic point, there's really nothing I can say for ya.
*>"Firstly, how did you perform that calculation scientifically at all? You've just claimed it's more detrimental, but show me your calculations in terms of health, happiness and comfort."*
You're right, let's ban the government from administering chemotherapy to children. Because, you know, it's _impossible_ to know whether something promotes well-being or not. So who knows what that shit is doing to them!
Let's all pretend we don't know about well-being!
*>"Rights are not in any of these except to the extent that my rights contribute to my health, happiness and comfort. Please show me how your scientifically balance between rights, health, happiness and comfort."*
"Balance" is nonsensical. We aren't talking about the Force here.
*>"Secondly, the transplant thought experiment is where one person is killed to save (say) 7 individuals. I'll add that in the thought experiment the person whose organs are removed is peacefully put to sleep without realising. They never feel any unhappiness nor lack of comfort, but those seven the doctor saves have much improved health (they would surely have died otherwise), comfort and health. Clearly looking at the balance there are two possible outcomes.
If the doctor performs the transplant then 1 person dies but 7 live in comfort etc. In the alternative situation, 6 die, and one person lives in comfort etc."*
You'd be a liar if you told me that you thought that it was immoral to sacrifice the 1 for the 6. The very computer you typed that on was created in an infrastructure that kills millions in order that countries like ours would benefit.
Everyone sacrifices others for the greater good. But the aim should be reform so that we don't have to sacrifice anybody. But we all sacrifice others for our society's benefit. That's just an inescapable fact.
*>"Thirdly, you appear to be changing your definitions now. You said :
You're both killing someone and removing the right to life, which is more detrimental to well-being than simply letting the first person die, But clearly your definition of well being includes no descriptions of rights at all so can not appear now in your objection."*
Nope, changed no definition at all.
I honestly can't believe you're this stupid, are you just grasping for straw now?
_Rights are concepts we made up in order to ensure well-being. That's the very fucking purpose of a right, you moron._
You honestly think rights have nothing to do with well-being. *faceplam*
*>"Fourthly, being dead is not a defined state in terms of well being, so you also can not introduce it now as a factor. Not being around means they are not in discomfort nor in pain nor in bad health."*
Okay, you are just really fucking stupid now. I'm about to just give up this entire conservation. This kind of stupidity isn't worth my time.
Well-being is _being well_, if you fucking _die_, that's the worse of you can possibly be, besides being tortured before hand.
My god, you're a moron. You're literally saying dead people are healthy. It's the exact _fucking opposite_.
*>"Well-being is both satisfying physical needs and emotional needs, and keeping one in good health.
If that is your definition of what matters to optimise then I think you'll find very few people agree. This is standard hedonistic utilitarianism and a lot of nasty outcomes arise if you actually follow the reasoning through without shifting to preference utilitarianism when it suits you."*
Nope, just about everyone on the planet basis their morals on well-being.
Even the Muslims who flew planes into the World Trade Centers believed their actions were for the greater good.
*>"Even that is not so simple. A medical researcher attempts to objectively discover the benefits of a particular treatment. These are the facts of the matter. It is not up to a doctor to decide for a person that they should take the medicine. A person may make their own quality of life judgement and decide not to take the treatment, or the family to pull life support etc. It's also not a medical decision weighing up the quality of life vs the financial cost. That depends on the person (or an ethics committee deciding what drugs to buy with public money). As the transplant dilema shows, just blindly optimising for maximum health is also not the best thing to do."*
Eh, no, you're utterly false and your claims can be easily disproven with a simple Google search. If doctors weren't responsible for determining whether a specific medicine is beneficial or not, and it was totally up to the patient, _then doctors who administer bad medicine wouldn't be arrested and sent to prison._
You're living in some sort of a fantasy land.
*>"No it doesn't. That's not what you are meant to get out of these thought experiments."*
Wow, what a disgusting straw man. You knew you were taking that quote drastically out of context, and you did it anyways.
*>"we can actually determine empiracally whose opinion is right or wrong.
No you can't."*
Yeah. I'm done with you. You don't care for a second to have a serious discussion.
You're constantly pulling shit out of your ass simply to make an argument, you don't want to gain anything out of the discussion, you just want to "win". That's why you'd say things so fucking moronic as "being dead is not a defined state in terms of well being", would take my quotes out of context, ignore pretty fucking obvious points that every philosopher and scientist agrees on (the axioms behind science), and then respond to some of my most important points simply by saying "No you can't" without even bothering for a second to ask me to expound on the point.
Good day to you, sir. After getting to the end of your post, I realized how little you actually care for the discussion, and so I will not carry it on any further.
Amelia Hartman your entire response is a joke. You deliberately misunderstood every single thing I said. Why bother discussing things with me when you have no intention of honestly arguing. misconstruing what I said (and ignoring every difficult question) doesn't argue against me, it simply makes you look silly.
He has a great way of saying absolutely fucking nothing.
John Din this whole video didn't make sense, the guy's question was a complete confusing cluster fuck and Sam's answer was an elaborate "i don't know what you're asking so I'll just explain how science explains morality for a bit"
Harris' response should be the textbook example of circular reasoning.
I love Sam, but he seems to miss the point of the question (though in his defense, the question wasn't all that clear). As soon as he says "the moment you grant that we're talking about well-being" he has already side-stepped the question by simply stipulating the very assertion that the grad student is questioning.
In other words, I think Sam thought he was asking "How does science help us identify things that cause or prevent well-being?" Whereas the student was really asking "How do we know morality is about well-being in the first place? Is it science or mere common sense that establishes that benchmark?"
Or maybe it's me that missed the point of the question 🤔
You are right. He addresses it more directly in The Moral Landscape, although it's a pragmatic answer that appeals to common sense rather than hard proof, so you might not like it. As I understand it, he basically makes the case that sure, you could define morality otherwise, but you'd necessarily end up with something less intelligible, less interesting, and less useful. What superior moral code could possibly exist that would have a goal other than maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures?
Even religious morality, with all of its tangled and distracting dogma, is indirectly focused on maximizing well-being (especially over the long-term in the afterlife). It's just not particularly good at it, just like how primitive cultures endorsing abhorrent practices like slavery, the subjugation and mutilation of women, eye-for-an-eye vengeance, etc. are not very good at it.
Given that any alternative definition of morality must be inferior from a practical standpoint, Harris deems it fair to accept the well-being-based definition of morality as an axiom and move on to other moral topics, similar to how we must accept certain axioms to make any progress in fields like mathematics. Sure, you are welcome to believe that 1+1=3, but you aren't going to get very far, and no one should feel obligated to take you seriously.
@@marredcheese see I thought the student was saying that even if we grant that maximizing well being is the goal, that Sam's making the claim of appealing to common sense rather than using science to help maximize well-being. And that you can't just appeal to common sense for the harder cases, like you can for the easy, "low hanging fruit" cases.
Science can help us understand how to maximize well-being in some cases, but seems to break down for the harder cases. For example, wouldn't a strictly scientific approach to maximizing well being dictate that 1 healthy person should sacrifice their internal organs to save the lives of 5 other people that needed them to survive? Because 5 humans living well > 1 human living well
I've heard someone ask Sam that very question and his response was deeply unsatisfying and he again appealed to common sense, rather than using science to answer the question
He very much side-stepped the question while using an assumption and then applied it to economics rather than morality, even after conceding the assumption applied to a science that does not seem to follow experts' general assumptions in the first place. He then tried to use this cumbersome connection in a "this follows that" argument and pushed the square peg of economics into the circle shape of morality. Thoroughly underwhelming response to me. I would like to see him have a greater opportunity to answer to hopefully improve on this response as I am left with no greater enlightenment than before I started.
He didn't miss anything.
That "low hanging fruit" is specifically the answer. You can't disregard it. If it seems so obvious, there is a reason for that.
I feel like far too many people just absolutely don't understand what he's saying. It's sad.
The student didn't understand the issue in the first place, if they thought we could disregard the obvious and low hanging. Those ARE the answer.
Big fan of Sam Harris but Brain Earp is spot on here!
His point:
Lone scientific discoveries don't tell us anything about morality UNTIL you start PHILOSOPHIZING about them. Therefor it is PHILOSOPHY that determines moral values, NOT science in itself.
Obviously this touches on the age old question of whether morality is objective or not. I believe it isn't. Laws of physics don't seem to give a damn about inter-subjective "well-being".
+Charles D. Jungheim :facepalm: ***Brian Earp, the guy *with* the brain.
An excellent question and a very good follow up analysis of the answer in the youtube introduction. I hope in the future we hear more from you (and maybe possibly a little less from Sam Harris).
No, I do believe that Harris is correct. Void of any intrusive cultural influences I think we would find a consensus on moral rights and wrongs due to altruism and empathy. Moral relativism only explains differences and that we are able to deviate from that, not that it's all relative. Science does tell me that other people and beings suffer. Behavioural traits granted by natural selection gives me, as a human, the natural ability to relate to that as a bad thing. While it evidently can be easily overriden by other influences, I don't see how that detracts from his argument. I don't see how the statement that sciences informs us on morality through verifiable facts stand as false.
Wether or not values derived from those facts is considered philosophy wholly depends on epistemology, does it not?
"Void of any intrusive cultural influences I think we would find a consensus on moral rights and wrongs due to altruism and empathy.
But can you objectively show why morality should depend on the innate altirusm and empathy found in most humans?
I'm an atheist and I'm on the fence with this topic. I think that once you accept certain goals for a moral code to strive for, you can objectively judge individual actions and behaviors as to whether or not they work towards said goals or against said goals.
But it just seems that we've pushed the problem back. We've solidified that we can objectively judge actions and behaviors but, at least to me, fail at showing how the goals we use to objectively judge actions and behaviors are themselves objective as well.
Chris Hollier
In the way we live today, anything other than seeing widespread reciprocal altruism as the main means of preserving genes corrupts our societes and causes inequality/suffering, which in itself is self-perpetuating and eventually backfires onto the fortunate.
It radiates back to the general, logically derived, consensus on diminsihing suffering for everyone, which I can't see as anything but objective since everyone would agree on it in a worst case scenario.
If you see his logical conclusion as objective, then this (as far as I've gathered) sole means to accomplish that is too.
Therefore, the only method to truly advance our world towards that logical end is just that. Something I think should define secular values further.
Watching lectures on human behavioural biology, one realises that we are indeed capable to be shaped into pretty much anything. But wether or not we would ever want to be self-destructive...I can't see it as subjective. It's also combined with the issue of free will and that we really have none. Even saying that would _want_ to be self-destructive is an oxymoron.
Chris Hollier
You are a silly bitch.
To figure out whether something is good or bad ~ you would first need to establish ~ What the relationship is between the two objects ~ Then you would need to determine what are the shared values between the two object ~ You would then take a measurement before the experiment and then one after the experiment ~ For instance you and I are friends ~ We value unity , harmony etc.... Before the experiment you ask both of us to fill out a questionnaire and circle a number between 1 and 10 for both unity and harmony ~ You then throw acid in my face and have us both fill out a new questionnaire ~ You then take the questionnaire and figure out if the unity and harmony between us increased ( Good ) or decreased ( Bad ) ~
wowz im coming down off a transcendent trip.
Fair enough!
so very, very wrong.
In some sense, killing my mother is bad, whilst killing Osama Bin Laden is good. In both cases people are murdered and you're describing the exact some experience, except the moral domain of each action allows you to feel in one case pride and in the other shame/guilt/anger.
Suppose Osama Bin Laden is your father: are you justified to feel a particular way about him, or are you bound to have no justifiable judgement?
If Osama Bin Laden is your father then whatever you do may be described to be in some sense wrong and in some sense right...
Because you're able to perceive how strongly people feel about him and how strongly they may feel about your actions - due to your association to him - your choices, based on reasoning alone, will dictate how you feel about right and wrong, but your decisions will have no overall effect on what truly is right and what truly is wrong.
Eventually you must ask yourself: is there anything categorically good/bad about reasoning?
Unless reason is defined empirically, i.e. unless you can appropriately describe choices in reference to real physical objects, you can't really make that call, but even by somehow acquiring such a definition, you could *at best* relate the experience of choice with the sensations the parameters of such an experience allow you to have, that takes you nowhere near defining good and bad, it just specifies the idea of perspective.
well said
+zer o in some sense...
The words of great Peter Medawar come to mind: "The spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought."
Harris uses a really bad analogy with moral science vs. economic science saying "we don't understand" "we are blindsided." The truth is that we DO understand economics and know the perfect Austrian model is always right, yet we choose to take the Keynesian model because, though usually wrong about everything, it promotes government largesse and the welfare state. So it makes a horrid example to compare to morals where we really can't apply science to it in any reliable way at this point.
"the perfect Austrian model is always right..."
Somebody's full of shit.
Josh Carter You need to elaborate on that. Because cussing at someone is not an argument.
Too much cursing, fine. Let me put it this way, there's no such thing as a perfect economic model that is always right
Wave Strike you say Austrian model always right???/ Keynesian models have predicted low inflation and low interest rates. You Austrians have predicted high inflation and high rates for U.S bonds. The IMF has shown that the Austerity in Europe has a correlation with low economic growth and many times contraction(Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Lativa) You could not be more wrong about the facts.
Timzactive Take a guy like Peter Schiff predicting the housing bubble crash, he was in no way "blindsided." Keynesian fruits like Barney Frank argued in front of the entire nation and in front of the entire congress that there was no problem with housing. Let's keep it to the specific example Harris was giving and I think you will have to agree.
The student didn't challenge him, he agreed with him and asked for elaboration on his previously simplistic argument.
Wrong, the student (I'm sure he's got his PhD already by now) actually wrote an article critiquing Harris. And I think he is spot on. Harris is just wrong here.
@@zgobermn6895 allahu akbar brother
@@zgobermn6895 Link please
It seems like his answer is, “let’s just assume that morality is synonymous with promoting well being.”
He is back-pedaling and avoiding the issue. How to do move from the "is" of scientific observation to the "ought" of morality? You cannot.
Oh, yes you can.
Congrats on the pantomime logic there.
Just asserting something doesn't make it so.
As my counter assertion absolutely proves.
Abradacamera - I hope it's not too late to say that your comment was complete nonsense. How do you move from "is" to "ought"? Harris was effectively claiming that you can, Douglas Groothuis said that you can't. His "pantomime logic" was based on Harris's failure to demonstrate what hasn't been demonstrated in the history of science and philosophy. Do you want to justify your "Oh yes you can"?
Scientific observation easily demonstrates that the election of Adolf Hitler on August 19, 1934, as president of Germany was objectively tragic. It OUGHT not to have happened. Votes for Hitler were morally wrong as it led to the destruction of well-being that was obvious even before the events of the following eleven years. To discern an 'ought' or 'ought not' is the purpose of morality. What other than science (reason) can guide us on any moral question?
Mr Oxford grad student , objective morality does not exist. It is all subjective. Some things may be repulsive to most people in the world but it is still a collection of subjective ideals.
***** Everybody is trapped in their own little ego bubble, they get influenced by other peoples opinions, each person makes up their own subjective opinions when it comes to morality. But you are right in following a type of golden rule which humans have adapted for social well being. But this golden rule "treat others how you would want them to treat you" was invented by many other cultures way before any bible was written or the mythical JC in the fiction novel the new testament was invented.
***** well he isn't a recorded historical figure either, unless you include the bible as a historical document, as opposed to a collection of myths, poems, and fables etc
***** Paul started christianity, he never knew a living human demigod Jesus.
look if you want to believe in a fairytale , that's up to you. But prove to me Dionysus, apollonius, tammuz or Krishna never existed. all the other godmen who pre-date jesus show me the paradox that one is true and the others which pre-date jesus are false.
Faith is belief without any evidence, that's what you are doing. Well I guess that favours you, the ignorant sheep get to heaven and watch the wise people of the earth get burnt in some torture chamber created by your loving god who was the designer of the rules, the builder of hell and the one who created the defective human in the first place, if anything he should be burning in hell, but I am not so cruel and couldn't even torture the most evil being for eternity, your god is stone cold cruel. I could never worship a god that tortures his own creation, and your Jesus is supposed to be this same loving god. Thanks but no thanks, I don't need your messed up fairytale that contradict reality and logic. Good luck to you.
***** what historians ? ones that are christians do not count, that is called bias.
Tell me the proof, who outside the church says jesus existed? nobody, only a forged Josephus document that is so fake even church historians don't use it out of embarrassment. Just because a heap of ignorant people say something is true doesn't make it so, you have been fooled and are a walking zombie , brain dead to truth. But goodluck to you.
***** to me believing in fairytales is childish.
In your opinion Is Jesus the god of the old testament ?
The wiki page of the historicity of jesus is so shallow, it does not state any proof other than a forged josephus document and a mention of christians by Tacitus a man who lived and wrote 100 years after the supposed birth of jesus. Now 2000 plus years later a horde of christian historians believe in something to be true doesn't make it so.
Whether a man named Yeshua existed or not is even beyond the point. To beleive he was born of a virgin (no sperm) and flew with his body into the clouds of heaven is insanity to the logical mind. And Jesus burns us in hell (under the flat earth) for eternity because we choose not to be insane and believe in the ridiculous.
Brian Earp Science absolutely helps morality and here's an example : psychology and socio psychology helps us understand ourselves and why we react a certain way in certain situations. By being aware of our own psychology we get to control some instincts and make better choices in life.
Well he doesnt give an argument for why what is true for economics should also be true for morality. He just proposes that it is.
Summary for normal humans:
Q: "But how do you prove with science that morality should be about well-being in the first place?"
A: "We have to agree that morality is about well-being, because it's inconceivable that it would be about anything else"
(+9000 words)
Am I the only one who thinks Sam Harris didn't answer the question?
I agree...
And it seemed intentional and defensive, too... hmnm
You only hear what you want to hear, even if Sam directly answered the question.
titanbubu I am assuming that you think that I'm a religious person, and hence the "you hear what you want to hear" part. However I am an atheist and what Sam Harris did is bring irrelevant analogies which in their turn made no sense. But since you are so enlightened and have heard the "Direct" answer please elaborate, I only look forward to increasing my knowledge.
You are right. He has no idea what to say so just talks crap and hopes he sounds intelegent.
***** The question was why does Sam use "low hanging fruit arguments". And his response was clear, it is usually all we have to go on when dealing w/ complex systems. He used economics (a complex system) as an example, and it was a direct answer to the question. Start small, then build from what we know to be true. i.e. burning down buildings would create jobs however it is an irrational/immoral way to kick start the economy.
Harris doesn't "evade the premise." He quite clearly (and convincingly) answered the question why he uses the common sense cases as they're the easiest way to recognize how science can answer moral questions.
I would also point out the rather obvious problem with your "premise" in that things don't stop being useable because they're easy to recognize, or appeal to common sense. Utility isn't contingent on complexity.
Adam Goldfarb Can you point to the spot in the speech where Harris calls morality "an objective thing"?
VERY intelligent student. We can see why he (an American) was accepted into Oxford.
Science is basically an epistemological framework that works really well. So yeah, it's a philosophy. It's just one that is awesomely applicable in pretty much every situation.
nope, philosophy is more the discussion (99% philosophical discussion remain unresolved) with equal number of people each side of the fence, science is about the result and changing the accepted consensus, it's not aimed at keeping the discussion going deeper but moving forward
Sam's analogy referencing economics is the root of the disagreement. You actually can't use science to determine objectively the "best" economic strategy since you must first define the metric being used to qualify "best". I think Sam is correct that once you define that metric science yields objectively "best" results, which is what I think Sam does very well.
Sam Harris' argument that science can provide a logical framework for morality DOES rest on the assertion that "it's common sense that" or "can't we all agree that" x or y is moral. However, Brian rightly points out that these are *not* scientific or even philosophical groundings. To appeal to 'common sense' as a foundation for any argument is to commit a logical fallacy known as "Argument Ad Populum". In other words, you're appealing to the majority. "A bunch of people believe this, therefore it must be true." How is this any different than a Christian making the claim that it's common sense that God created the Universe because most people agree on it? Harris is not making a scientific claim here. Name ONE scientific theory which starts with, "It's common sense that" or "We can all agree that". You can not. This is not science. It's an attempt at philosophy and a bad one that at that. It rests on logical fallacies and Mr. Harris did not address this whatsoever, he changed the subject. Before anyone starts throwing Ad Hominems at me please recognize that I AM an atheist and that I love Sam Harris, I've read many of his books. But his argument for science as a basis for morality is easily dismantled and frankly embarrassing. Just because you like Sam Harris doesn't mean you have to agree with everything he says.
Man this is awful. The guy is asking a pretty easy question. I'll take the liberty of summing it up "If you believe that science is the only basis for real knowledge, then what scientific basis do you have to make the statement that 'throwing acid in someone's face is wrong'". As per usual, all Sam Harris can do is start rambling on about anything BUT the question that was asked. Does he really start talking about economic systems and our ability to predict any manner of financial crisis? Oh my.... I'm afraid he does :(
+Matt M I think Sam referred to economic systems as an analogy for his exploration of morality through science -- he appeals to simple cases now only to establish that there are certain right and wrong answers, just that the complexity involved in harder cases makes it hard to quantify them.
Of course, I agree with you -- Sam was caught off guard, and didn't vaguely begin to give a real answer, but he did try, let's give him that much.
+randombutspecific
I know ur right, and he was comparing economic systems to moral systems and our ability to make economic decisions and moral decisions must have some sort of underlying "scientific" basis.
Clearly comparing economics to morality would by most rational standards, would commit the fallacy of false analogy, as they are two completely different notions.
In answering this question this way, Sam Harris seems completely oblivious as to the nature of argument that his detractors are making (he seems completely oblivious about this to this very day).
If he wanted to actually make it a comparable analogy to answer this guys question, he would have to tell us how you can use scientific principles of economics to prove to some Tibetan monk who thinks everyone should live a life of poverty that he "ought to care about an annualized GDP increase of about 4%", or to an Amish farmer that he "should care about technological advancement to improve productive efficiency".
Instead he rambles and he makes himself look foolish. This is what he always does, in all of the many many times I have heard him talk.
+Matt M nah that's not the question at all.
he's ask what is the true underlying argument behind the easy cases such as looking at basic human well-being in the face of (hehe) acid throwing? and how does science provide us with an answer to that
sam's approach is to show that some things are clearly wrong evinced in the easy contexts, he sets this up with his analogy to economics.
so he's saying no it can't tell u what to do, but science can tell u what is truly wrong eg someone throwingacid in ur face by ur loss of well-being as a result of that
+Stan Alpha
No, literally, that is his question. You as Sam Harris seem to completely miss this argument made by his antagonists, including this statement.
As you state, Sam Harris makes an argument that uses science to determine if something is good for our "well-being" or in some other cases he argues that we can use science to determine what maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering. While these two concepts are completely different and can be in conflict, he seems to use them interchangeably. I digress.
To respond to what you're stating about this student's question, I'll merely quote him starting at 16 seconds: "you seem to be claiming to do something much much more interesting than that, namely that you can appeal to science to prove something that is SUBJECTIVELY true about morality". Pay attention to that word "subjective".
In other words, making a statement such as "not throwing acid in someone's face increases their well being and therefore is the morally right decision", of course this could be demonstrated scientifically. What you CANNOT demonstrate scientifically is the SUBJECTIVE axioms that underly this statement that "I ought to care about an individuals well-being". If you think this subjective axiom is true, cite to me all of the scientific evidence that I "ought to care about a person's well-being."
Just as one simple example, there are many, many people in history who were Collectivists who felt that the collective survival of a society as a whole, or even the human race, is the primary "moral good". If that meant throwing acid in an individual's face to achieve this objective by maintaining order in society or some such thing, then throwing acid in someone's is morally "good". Prove to me scientifically that they are all wrong, but Sam Harris is right because of his appeal to "common sense".
What is most frustrating about Sam Harris, he seems to have this cocky, demeaning attitude toward Christians, but he does not seem to understand the philosophical nature of this argument whatsoever. He may be a good neuro-scientist or whatever, but he doesn't seem to understand even basic notions of this philosophical argument.
It is very simple, if there is no God, and your only appeal to authority is "Science", there is simply no reason whatsoever to believe that "I ought to care about another person's well-being".
+Matt M That's simply not true. The scientific reason to care about another person's well-being is that, due to the observed patterns of human behavior, showing care toward others increases the chances of reciprocity; i.e. if I refrain from throwing acid on other people's faces, it significantly decreases the chances that someone will throw acid in my face, which increases my well-being. Increasing my well-being is a natural goal. The entire basis of morality is survival; only religious charlatans pretend otherwise.
"Economics is still struggling to be a science" true and never more true 🧡♥️💛
id love to see Ben Stiller and Greg Kinnear do a skit on these two answering questions.
Why? Why do you need Hollywood celebrities for everything? Do yourself a favor. Stop watching TV. Everthing doesn't have to be funny.
@@thomasmills339 Why are you so triggered
brian milligan he’s just saying they look like famous actors. Calm down
Sam's economics example about destroying material wealth isn't an accurate parallel. We don't just use common sense or instinctively know that destroying material wealth will not work, we know this because we know the effects of what happens when we do this.
However, when it comes to morality he seems to be equating this economics example to just knowing what is "wrong" and what is "right", when in reality we have no idea beyond what we feel through instincts (for example physical aversion to gruesome/gory violence like beheadings). Someone can even defeat this as easily as just explaining that we over time have grown accustomed to peace and have seen less gruesome violence and that is what causes our averse physiological reaction to it now.
I don't think the student's question was properly answered by Sam.
+Jim Jones I agree, although I don't think anyone can answer the question, religious or irreligious. Given that, I find a secular approach to morality by far the more reasonable. As do religious believers, since the vast majority sift the scripture(which they claim as an absolute guide) in order to select the nice bits and ignore the nasty bits. By definition they're not doing this sifting using a religious moral framework so it's pretty clear that they're secular moralists who turn to scripture to justify moral choices they've already made.
+Jim Jones destroying and starting over was the example...
+Jim Jones Of course we can tell whats right and wrong through more than instinct, all you need to do is have a metric. Healthy is good, sick is bad. Why? Because being sick leads to discomfort, damage and possibly death often with no 'upside' which all can be measured through various medical tools, you don't even need the patients testimony to determine that its bad. That's also how we know gruesome violence is bad, it rarely leads people directly involved to being healthier. The more advanced we become the more we can measure these types of things completely objectively.
People don't like the entire idea of this because it would take away their own personal comfort or determinism of whats moral. Its no different than religious people NOT wanting a 100% confirmation of religion but rather requiring faith and personal revelation because then it can conform and be twisted to their own wants and needs. Its entirely possible to determine whats moral without subjective or emotional involvement but its going to be a VERY long time before people will set aside their own selfish views to accept it.
+Jim Jones The economics example was to illustrate that, although we do not know yet how to properly respond, we are CONVERGING on a solution. He's saying that trivial moral questions like whether throwing acid on someone's face is good or bad is akin to an economic question of if destroying material wealth will solve a global banking crisis. Like you say, we've become much, much more pacifistic over time as a species, perhaps we are CONVERGING on a moral 'solution.'
I have my hangups about this, but his response has definitely convinced me to check out his book.
I don't agree with Sam Harris. I get that if multiple people have the same fundamental goals, or they define well being in the same way, then you could argue that there is an objective optimal solution to attaining that goal, and that can (in principle) be ascertained by science. But finding the goal, itself, is outside the realm of science. It is entirely a prescriptive exercise, and science is not a prescriptive exercise, it simply describes how things work. There are simply people with different goals. And while each different goal itself may have its own objectives solution, there exists no metric by which you can evaluate which _goal_ is the best. That is entirely a subjective choice.
+Schrodinger I would argue that there is a goal that every person agrees on, namely the goal of personal happiness. Feel free to challenge me on that point, but if we accept that every person's goal is happiness then it would be an objective solution to make sure that happiness is maximised in our society.
+Schrodinger Yeah where I disagree with you is the idea that we each just get to define what is good and what well being is. There seems to be something intrinsic to the human animal, and I might argue, all intelligent social creatures, that compels us to empathy, to compassion. And intelligent, social creatures are the ONLY determiners of morality, because morality is delineating what is right and wrong in a social context. In other words, I don't think you can choose to have compassion or not. You can choose to act on this compulsion, or not, but you can't choose not to have it.
I think this is what is at the core of secular humanism. The idea that morality is not a concept to be prescribed, but rather something we are trying to describe, that stems directly from our inner compulsions and our interactions with other beings.
About this time is usually where I usually get counter-examples about psychopaths, serial killers, and nazis. I would argue that things like these are just statistical noise. What you see in human societal evolution is a very clear trend: the more choice a society is given, the more older, primal concerns like hunger are mitigated, the more humans tend to emphasize compassion and empathy within the current moral context.
+Schrodinger So if morality is subjective... thanks
+Schrodinger But Sam Harris is not saying people can't have different goals however.
You could argue, that the concept of health is relative, because you may not like to vomit profusely, but I do! I like to vomit all my stomach acids several times a day - who are you to tell me that this is not _healthy_?
You can argue that chemo isn't healthy, in fact it's literally poison, but it _treats_ cancer, which can be healthy in the long term in comparison.
The moment that we grant, that health relates to lack of pain, comfort, lifespan and other such factors, we can say meaningful things about what is healthy and what is not.
The first example with the guy who likes to vomit - instead of letting him hijack the word healthy, we should just be _honest_ and say; no, he's not healthy. But he has every right to _choose_ to be unhealthy, as his goal.
Likewise, you have every right (well, to the extent that you do not harm others) to be immoral or unethical, if you do not agree with the predominant consensus of what is considered moral. -You just don't get to claim the label, that's all.
+nejtilsvampe //But Sam Harris is not saying people can't have different goals however.//
He does say that some goals are, objectively, more right than others.
//But he has every right to choose to be unhealthy, as his goal.//
But, that's the ought. If we're not going to tell him that he ought to be healthy, or ought not be unhealthy, then there's no point to this exercise.
Sam is full of horse shit. That doesn't say I ought to, or ought not, listen to what he says. I think it's sometimes helpful to listen to horse shit, so that we can know how not to make mistakes.
Thanks for posting this, Brian. I'm a fan of Harris' but he does evade your question - and this is rather telling, given that the question concerned the nub of his whole premise. This led me to your academic papers, which I'm finding really interesting!
what the hell did that guy just ask?
Who knows, I think he was just trying to sound clever.
I think it's along the basis of Sam Harris saying science can determine morality, but in the cases he refers to the moral is easily determined. He does not use science to determine difficult moral decisions: and I think the student is trying to see why Harris continues to appeal to easy moral qustions, rather than difficult philosphical questions snd furthermore is there is such thing as ultimate moral truth.
Buggered if I know, but I bet he winds up being a politician.
I would say he asked if Sam was appealing to common sense or consensus when referring to Sam's idea that personal well being was the best way to justify objective morality specifically using the example "i think we can all agree throwing acid on your face is bad" .. but I think the guy missed the point. The REASON it's bad is because it's detrimental to the health of the affected person which affects not only the relationship between the two parties, but society on a larger scale due to the aftermath/impact of the event. Using empathy and compassion as well as the actual result of the action to determine the most beneficial outcome to all involved helps determine the most accurate moral response to a situation without personal subjectivity coming into play. It may sound like a cold calculated weighted answer, but it all boils down to
1. What's best for the individual,
2. What's best for society that will yield the best net return to the well being of the individual?
3. What does empathy, sympathy and logic guide you do to in light of the fact that the (1) and (2) apply to everyone else around you from their subjective experience.
While it does not imply Objective moral values, it does imply the inherent framework and beginnings of what we call a social contract, and I believe the nature of that contract will develop independently of outside influences if the tenets are adhered to and not subjugated by any moral authority, tautology or untoward agendas.
Mark Brewer So well put...
The reason he uses the low-hanging fruit, is in helping to define a position in a clear and "laman-like" manner. You're right, however - in that it is mostly philosophical. One needs to remember however, that gaining any form of absolute truth simply isn't possible and so we kinda need to start from abstracts. The main line that the secular humanists tow, is "whatever reduces unnecessary harm" - and I think this is a good basis to start from.
People can have different views on what is necessary and what is not. Hitler might have thought that it was necessary to kill millions of Jews for whatever agenda he believed in, and there is no way you can say he is morally wrong if you have no objective moral law that is not given by another human but given by something that transcends us.
So it’s common sense. Science doesn’t have much more to say than that. How we interpret scientific results is NOT also science.
There is no such thing as objective morality. Next question.
You are a fucking idiot. That's on abjective fact backed up by your own statement.
No because objective morality is a noun. Being absolutely certain is an adjective. Words can have two different meanings. I'm not using the spiritual meaning of the word when I use it to reinforce my premise. No violation of logic. However if you would like to provide evidence that there is a supernatural god that created objective morality please provide the evidence. I'll wait lolol!
Ok, how about bible prophecy? How do you explain the writers of the Bible knowing the universe was expanding Psalm 104:2? Or the bible knowing that light existed before stars Genesis 1:1? Quantum physics shows that solid matter is at it's core just solid light. And if you believe in evolution, can you justify that belief after knowing that it violates entropy? And don't tell me that only applies in a closed system, because the universe IS a closed system. Basically, can you tell me how what is basically a physical software program like DNA exists without a programmer? At the very least you end up with pantheism, because why else would the universe create molecules that think, self identify, self replicate, and are consicous? And speking of consiousness, can you tell me how subjuective experiances like thought, memory, ideas ect can arise from what is essentially atoms? Do you realize that for this to occur there must be another dimension of reality at play, which, by the way, are at least supposed to exist according to the latest theories in physics?
A;so, I find it hilarious that someone involved in the scummy activity of healthcare markrting would comfort themselves about their amoralness by deluding themselvrs into beliving the reality of good and evil doesn't exist.
No evidence!! Lolol !!
Damn I wish I could convey my thoughts and questions as fluent as that man did
The grad student's point is that Harris, no matter what example he uses, starts with taking something for granted. But it's a useless point because we all take some things on faith. The grad student for instance takes it on faith that other minds exist, that Harris is actually sitting there talking with him, etc.. Life has to be this way, certain basic things have to be taken on faith, otherwise one wouldn't be able to eat, drink, dress, cross the street without getting hit by a car, or even get out of bed in the morning.
Harris' response clearly shows the shallowness of his contemplation and a fundamental flaw in his contention. Good question.
When Harris is diverted from making nonsensical analogies about literal representations from religion (that most know to be metaphor) to get a cheap laugh from psuedo-intellectuals - he is clearly out of his depth in critical thinking.
So you think Sam Harris' position that we should act to increase the global well-being of every conscious being on the planet to the greatest extent that science allows us is flawed? Care to elaborate?
Jonny Cook You are making the same obvious statement that he or anyone else could but then failing to ground it in any practical context of how that is different from what has been happening for the last 1000 yrs of scientific development and its impact upon our day to day lives.
Harris takes his contention that science is the ultimate provider of morality too far and this answer clearly shows that he is unable to articulate that. It is far too a narrow perspective, arrogant and disingenuous to ignore the numerous other methods of thinking and human disposition for faith to simply say a method of disproving theory will be our ultimate guiding light and all other methods should be ridiculed.
what? I think it's you who is out of your depth. And I'll never fucking understand how those who think they know what happens after you die call the other people arrogant. Your post is just ad hominem name calling. Read some more books aside from the bible if you haven't burned them all
Lark Macallan hmmm, ok confused person, what makes you think I burn books, read only a bible or that I am in anyway religious? oh thats right - the world is in black and white, it is a polarised binary place where you are either atheist or christian.
Sorry to burst your bubble but as an agnostic I have my own take on things and find the extremism and totalitarian thought of militant atheists as reprehensible as any extremist religious sect.
He did answer the question and he put it in a very simple way to be understood for the 5 minutes he had. Is he supposed to write a book for each answer? otherwise he's "Shallow" lol
I've seen a lot of these butthurt philosophers getting a bit huffy puffy when Sam is making their field of work a bit redundant.
Let's face it much of modern philosophy is irrelevant mental wanking.
Well said.
Id ask you to go find the video with Lawrence Krauss speaking to two separate teachers of philosophy. Krauss explains why science slowly pushes Philosophy into being useless as even Stephen Hawking as said, but they show how philosophy isnt useless, it pushing science forward in ways science cant do itself. Its a good video and its not terribly long.
chainblade92
I've watched that video and I'm quite familiar with modern philosophy. I would put Massimo Pigliucci dead centre in the butthurt group or even as the leading butthurt philosopher.
I'm not saying all of modern philosophy is useless, just a large amount of it. Philosophy can and should be very useful indeed.
I was in the audience for this. Fascinating evening. He has some fascinating guests on his pod cast these days, and the way he has set himself up has rendered him "Cancel Proof".
@Viet Male Because of his business model. Doesn't run ads, or endorsements, so isn't subject to external pressures.
The easy case is presented because it is so plain and obvious, and thus we can all accept one of the premises of sam harris' argument. Valid premises, sound reasoning, yield true conclusions. The oxford grad student believes that the acid face argument should be difficult, because it would be more interesting. But, it would just make following Harris' reasoning needlessly difficult. Seems like he just wanted to pooh pooh Harris because it wasn't *smart* (that is to say, convoluted) enough.
Is there such a thing as overthinking?
There is to Sam Harris. It's 'thinking for more than 3 minutes'. xD
Great question. Harris is a master at evasion, unsurprising to see him attempt to dodge this. It's a shame he wasn't pressed more on the fact that he uses the "low hanging fruit" in presupposition to his other more radical arguments.
Did you even listen to his answer, try again without your bias.
Samuel Shipman lol I actually watched this whole debate, why don't you try reading my comment without bias, and then watching again without bias?
In his argument I think (I could be wrong), is that the "low hanging fruit" is all that is needed to satisfy the basic argument.
For example, if one states: "There cannot be objective morality". Another states: "We all think throwing acid on people is bad". Then it has been proven that objective morality exists and it can just be disregarded as common sense to another. However, it is evidence that suggests it. Certainly one can always ponder more "gray areas" however, the black and white, is all that is needed to satisfy the question (objective morality), despite the questioner not being philosophically interested in that case.
Edit: I read the users blog post. Apparently Harris has made the claim from one of his books (I have not read) that science is ALL we need for morals and that was the basis of his question. So, in that case, I would agree that he dodged the more difficult question. If he made such a statement (taking the questioners word for it) Harris should be able to reproduce examples of such a claim.
kurt knapp Well said Kurt. I haven't read the book either, but I'm impressed you took the time to do the follow up.
Haha I'm generally used to half baked, logically disjointed rage posts, so something well thought out and researched is nice to see.
***** nope. What you are saying however is called the Fundamental Attribution Error.
I'm not religious ;)
As soon as you grant... and in that sentence he sidesteps the question.
I'm not sure he answered the question either.
Fantastic question. How could Harris so completely fail to miss the point?
I'm really starting to get sick of the language used in moral discussions. If you get to ask why morality should lead to well-being, I get to ask what else you want to base morality on. Most would say authority - uhuh, why? What constitutes authority, why would authority imply obligation, what do you mean by obligation, blah blah blah. You hide all your assumptions in "ought", the whole web of ideas connected to rights and duties. Harris is exactly correct, you have to start at some shared idea, and if it's not to do with well-being, then you should start explaining what you think is the grounding. Authority is a really shitty one; say the authority commands that every man should rape every woman he can as violently as he can - does that make it good? Explain yourself.
Spot on.
Ill just add that scientific guidelines for morality in relation to human suffering isn't a question of who's right.
If I show you or anyone else a scientific proof, then is it my idea? No, I'm just showing you how the world works.
If you disagree then you have to show proof to the contrary.
And no where in this discussion is there an actual side. We are all just trying to accurately portray reality.
Read his book
bones witkowski can you recommend one that tackles the things i brought up?
I think the reason why people would sometimes object to the idea "morality leads to well-being" is because most of the time, that well-being is subjective. I know there is an objective pursuit to well-being, but every country and every culture in the world has literally done that, and look at us now. pure chaos. so to say "well being" is the basis of morality, that's kind of naive and incomplete.
How are you defining well being and how do you think it is subjective?
The fundamental question asked which Harris tried to answer is where do you start with ethical reasoning? His answer is you must start in reality, the conditions of life for instance. This would be in contrast to moral philosophy which does not believe reality matters, that we could have right and wrong in any universe possible (or similarly the religious argument that right and wrong are not based on reality but on authority from God - although that would be the 'faith' Augustinian/Platonic view, the Aquinas/Aristotelian 'science' view would say God affirms what is right and wrong about this reality, and thus we can confirm it by studying reality). Harris also argues that there are definitely wrong reasons, perhaps infinitely more, than right ones, and the immense number of wrong ones perhaps makes common sense easily able to correctly distinguish many of them, but then the grey areas elude us and require some study of moral philosophy.
In other words, you must assume that there is good and then you can prove that there is good.
Pasquale DeZiro wtf? If there are states of being that are preferred over others, we can find them with science
havenotchosenyet yes exactly. IF there are preferred states of being (if there is good) then we can prove them with science. But as your IF suggests, this ‘preferred state’ or ‘good’ must be assumed before it can be proved.
Harris answered like a politician. The student made a brilliant observation and Harris deflected and rambled.
The reason someone wouldn't throw acid on a persons face is because they wouldn't want it done to them, so there's compassion. We give compassion because we want compassion, we love because we want love. Violence in a JUST form would be a guy beating up another guy who was trying to rape a woman. Justice
The guy asking the question loved to hear himself speak.
He is American by his accent.
I have no idea what is being said here.
Good for you for admitting it (unlike so many idiots in these comments who don't know when to shut up).
If the questioner had read what he had actually said to Harris then he would most likely have to admit to not understanding it either. Good thing we have someone totally unrelated to them to explain it for us in the comments, right?
Hardly a succinct answer to a reasonably straightforward question!
+Ian Beston What would be your take on it then, smart guy ?
+JonnyUnderrated That it wasn't a very succinct answer
+Ian Beston I'm pretty sure he meant "how would you answer the question?"
Don't mind him, seems autistic
YEAH SMART GUY?! HUH?!
(i’m acoustic)
there is no objective morality.
Morality is about values,
values are an attitude of a mind,
minds have perspective.
Perspective is subjective.
As an arguer, and a philosopher I like Sam Harris slightly better than Christopher Hitchens. Hitch was awesome, but he lost patience too quickly, and doesn't explain his case in as much detail. Harris makes you like him, right before he annihilates you in detail. He also conceptualizes alternate ways of thinking such as his book "The moral landscape." .
It's far easier to damn religion. It's easy to list the atrocities, and harp on the negatives. Few atheist leaders are there with possible alternatives to religion like Harris is.
"He also conceptualizes alternate ways of thinking such as his book "The moral landscape.""
Alternative in the sense of wrong. His way of trying to cross the is-aught gap is inept (and the book has been widely panned by almost everyone because of it).
His main argument for claiming that morality is a science is that statements about morality are processed in approximately the same place as fact statments. A statement being processed in the same place doesn't make make it the same as fact statements. With that sort of reasoning, I could generalise and say that all statements are facts since all statements are processed in brains. Further, whether we treat moral statements like facts or nots does not make them facts.
It's also pretty intellectually dishonest of him not to read other works in the field under the claim that it's too boring. There is no way someone should be taken seriously after giving that reason to ignore research in a field. To draw an analogy to another field of knowledge, if someone wrote a book on physics without consulting the physics literature they would rightly be criticised too.
ProperGanderSaul That's a pretty weak argument.
Cathal Ó Broin
He doesn't state that morality ''is'' a science. He is simply philosophizing; and saying that it ''could'' be. Which is how the greatest scientists discover the things that are fact. You don't get anywhere without questions, and there is truth in the statement that many atheists are only open minded to what is fact, and not open minded as to what we don't know.
That's the one thing that the religious tend to have over atheists personality-wise. The typically aren't as pessimistic, and atheists do have higher suicide rates for example.
-Atheist
ProperGanderSaul Why does religion need an alternative.?
Can we not exist, without it.!
An enormous number of people seem to do just fine, without it.
We can't fly, is it really a problem.?
ProperGanderSaul
Well said, and that is very similar to what I was trying to get across. Not all of religion is inherently ''bad'', and not all of religion is unhealthy...it's the fact that a deity is involved which trumps all other possibilities and modes of thinking before one even begins.
I know some religous people that are perfectly wonderful, successful, and as intelligent as the next person. Therefore there is something in them that needs this. Whether it be an emotional, psychological, cultural need, a guilt factor, or just a strong feeling of hereditary responsibility through tradition.
Sam totally sidesteps the question. I am a HUGE Sam Harris fan, but this is one of his worst answers. It's not bad in itself so long as he would say "You can't derive an ought from an is, but once you start from a few extremely intuitive, general-held base premises/moral intuitions, then *insert his current answer* ". But the problem isn't as simple as he makes it, "wellbeing" is a strange concept, and for anyone who doubts that, CLOSELY examine the philosophy of Antinatalism.
Antinatalism is false and self-contradictory on its face. In essence, it says that the laws of nature are erroneous and should be resisted. Good luck.
@@jmb4969 When you say "a moral philosophy is FALSE" you automatically discredit yourself
@@cosmingurau I didn't use those words. However, we are discussing ethics here, so I will respond. Antinatalism is an immoral philosophy. By its principles all adherents of antinatalism should immediately commit suicide, as they are, by definition, causing harm and suffering to others and/or to themselves and should never have been born. And that is the point of error in antinatalism. Before the dinosaurs were wiped out, they procreated, died, evolved, etc. Their procreation was not an ethical problem. Neither is ours. To declare the laws of nature invalid is insanity. Learn to live with suffering and death. They cannot be avoided. Luckily, nothing actually dies. Everything simply changes. Therein is a source of solace, comfort, and, yes, ethics. Our moral obligation to others consists of alleviation of suffering, not succumbing to nihilism and suicide or pre-meditated murder. But if you must off yourself, go ahead. On the topic of choice, upon which lies the fundamental principal of antinatalism, i.e., the fact that the unborn have no choice in the matter, this is a false premise. Nature does not provide choices. There is no free will. You had no choice in your birth because there was none. Again, the ethical problem is simply one of the alleviation or minimizing of suffering. Pre-murder doesn't qualify. Nothing in the foregoing is intended to advocate unlimited procreation, or argue against birth control, abortion, etc.
@@jmb4969 Yes, that's exactly what you meant. You said AN is FALSE. Just in case you needed to be reminded, AN is a moral philosophy, and thus cannot be "TRUE" or "FALSE". If you really, really stop and think (as few people do) AN is an organic evolution of several lines of moral thinking: the empathy element (and the golden rule it spawned), and the perspective of the individual (the idea that one's experience actually DOES MATTER, it's not just a cog in a much more important and significant machine).
But lemme get to the delicious part.
You said we don't have free will. Heh, you're making it too easy for me. Determinism is the best possible argument for Antinatalism. If people have no free will (and I entirely agree, they don't) then all you have are favorable and unfavorable causal chains (as determined by the consciousness which experiences said causal chain). But of course, one cannot know if one's offspring will have a favorable causal chain or an unfavorable one. Which factually demonstrates that procreation IS a gamble - since you can't use free will magical thinking to compensate for unfavorable internal or external elements. So the only way to defend procreation is to thus claim that gambling with someone ELSE's life is moral. In which case, we simply aren't starting from the same moral base premises, and further conversation on the matter is bound to be of little use.
@@cosmingurau Let me simplify this. Note, I changed my terminology from 'false' to 'immoral' for your benefit. AN offers a moral basis for the self-extinction of our species. Fine. Human extinction, however, does not solve the whole problem. Other species will continue to live and suffer. Therefore, you need to exterminate all creatures. But you can't stop there either. Stars will continue to be born and cause the suffering and deaths of countless other worlds. The only solution is to reverse the laws of nature such that nothing exists. So, without addressing the ethics of such a theoretically 'moral' philosophy, it can simply be called 'nuts'.
Harris' response was glib and empty. He then resorted to using the very technique the questioner put into question. Touche.
He seems to explain the reasoning behind it pretty well though. He doesn't *have to* find a new set of ideas to come to his conclusion again just because somebody questioned them. As far as Harris is concerned he didn't see anything that falsifies his original thinking. Why would he have to change it ? We have to consider the fact that some conclusions can't be achieved without certain examples. You probably can't explain to anyone what subtraction is if you can't give an example in practice. Such as "I have two apples, you took one, now I have one.". Harris's example that throwing acid on someones face is wrong is the materialized version of his idea that there are objective moral faults. After you acknowledge that it is a matter of simple logic to also know that there has to be objective truths *unless* the amount of objective faults are in an infinite amount. I was more disappointed about how Harris made a logical gap to assume if there are objective wrongs then there is *AN* objective truth. His example can only logically satisfy the premise that there *are* objective truths. I think his response was well developed considering that he makes only one logical leap to state properly that there are objective moral truths in the universe. I have to stay the problem is with the logical leap, not with him insisting on using his initial example.
It was neither glib nor empty. It was vague and not very much to the point. I'll give you that, but glib and empty it was not.
That's actually a very good way of explaining it, comparing the ideal moral code to economic tactics. Isn't weird how so many people don't see this and seriously think that some dude in the sky created morality, like how people used to explain the stars? The dude who asked the question too, he seemed pretty bright otherwise.
Sam Harris' response is what you get from someone who doesn't seem like they've read much moral philosophy. David Hume made the is/ought distinction almost 200 years ago.
Correction: "Oxford grad student educated by Sam Harris."
Very funny. Four and a half minute non-answer...
Rory Allen It was a real answer. You just don't understand it apparently.
That's unsurprising. He isn't a philosopher by any stretch of the imagination.
***** No. The kid was asking why he's attacking easy to determine things he calls "low hanging fruit." and Harris explains why very clearly. Whether his familiarity is sufficient enough for you is irrelevant.
VikingII
so familiarity or evidence or proof is not necessary for Harris to make his point - convenient and ironic as a militant atheist dont you think?
Man. Sam Harris is not a philosopher and it really shows. No disrespect intended but that answer was tough to listen to.
Darwin42 I'm still waiting for his contributions to physics to be revealed.
He's not a physicist. Neuroscientist I think
+Επανεινωνδας Κοσμας well yeah he isn't a physicist
Alex Palmer touché. Doesn't change the nucleus of my statement. He heralds himself as someone that knows better based on his scientific expertise but all he's really acclaimed for is his philosophies, and those are amateurish at best.
He's a smart guy, no doubt, and he presents himself well, but not at the level he thinks he does. He simply not the force he and his fans pretend to be.
For the most part he panders to his base and it's only his base that praise him.
+Επανεινωνδας Κοσμας fair enough statement
That is not what a potlash is. Wikipedia "potlatch is a gift-giving feast practiced by indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast of Canada and the United States"
1st nation peoples gained status by how much one gave away, not by how much one could own. Which system is better?
Sam Harris either means his "science has a say on morality" in the trivial sense that moral questions can be informed by empirical knowledge, which the overwhelming majority of ethicists would not dispute... or he means it in the patently false "is = ought" sense.
It's not good thinking at all and I'm amazed that his fans are willing to tolerate such poor thinking.
Chris H -- You acknowledge that Harris' point could be something that "which the overwhelming majority of ethicists would not dispute" and then you characterize that as "Not good thinking at all".... Are we supposed to ignore your self-contradiction or just assume you are heavily medicated?
He failed to understand the question posed.
Sam Harris didn't answer the question. He instead explained the use of low hanging fruit with another low hanging fruit (the hypothetical notion that someone might propose that all wealth should be destroyed to solve economic problems).
Sam Harris failed to provide a philosophical framework in which he explains how science can determine morality. All I see is Sam Harris saying informed decisions on issues of morality is scientific because science provides us with some of the information on which to make a decision.
Aside from the argument itself, I'm just really happy that we're talking about this.
"Mandkind's greatest achievements have come about by talking"
- Steven Hawking
It's also interesting that talking has also created some of our greatest crises.
I'm not trying to contradict you, I'm simply complementing your statement to emphasize the power of speech. What are your thoughts?
Student: Can you show that science can prove what is objectively wrong and right from an ethical perspective without resorting to low hanging fruit?
Sam Harris: Hmm, good question. Proceeds to resort to low hanging fruit and never really substantiate his point.
he didnt answer the question
The convoluted question ended up being how do we know throwing acid in someones eyes is bad....My answer would have been try it on yourself lol.
+7Earthsky What if you're an extreme masochist? Some people are actually driven to cut themselves.
+brandex2011 Just because they enjoy it doesn't mean it's good.
Philosoph T They would disagree. "Good" is subjective.
brandex2011 and they would be wrong.
Goodness isn't solely dependent on enjoyment.
You clearly have absolutely no background in philosophy or ethics.
Philosoph T I'll try this again. This is not a frivolous argument. "Good" and "wrong" are both subjective. You apparently have barely a freshman level understanding of philosophy and ethics.
I'm already engaged in a deep and very interesting discussion with someone who thinks and presents some challenging positions.
I don't care to waste time indulging your simplistic pronouncements. If you believe you have an interesting case to make, proceed. Otherwise, your personal viewpoint is just standard, irritating static.
I understood the question but I need help understanding the answer...
I`m actually a bit bewildered how you get any more morals from religion, than science. A book telling someone how to live their life, can as easelly come from a scientific mind, who actually can study human behaviour better and thus coming to a better conclusion on how the human brain works. One of wich claims can be done, is the lack of morals or emotions in certain brains, like psycopaths. The fact is that we know very little about the human brain. We know so little, that we struggle with the understanding of conscience. Funny how science is implemented in the word. Here is the meaning of the word:
Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment that assists in distinguishing right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms (principles and rules).
About turning to science to say something objectivelly true about morality. We do trough science know that its in every living things interest to minimize misery. To do so, we need morals. To tell whats wrong, and whats not to minimize misery. We do so trough rational discussions, based upon scientific knowledge.
You hit it right on the nose. I'll never understand why people would rather pick up a bible then to just study psychology, sociology, philosophy, Logic. So much you can get from them. Knowledge can make you feel connected with the universe. You gain the ability to see into others and see into yourself and empathize with people more instead of getting frusterated, atheism practically encourages the exploration of life. And thats the biggest shame to me, everybody i know that is religious is always so close minded that they have inabilities to fix their problems and see the world in a different way. I feel like religious people are almost stuck in their own fantasy it seems, you approach them with knowledge and it's usually batted away because that person thinks they know the universe already. To be honest I'd rather see churches giving out shrooms and lsd than the bible lol.
But you did not geet the point. With faith you have objective morality. The good is what God says is good and bad is what God says is bad. With science you have subjective morality and good is what most people agree is good (or what makes most people happy, or causes the lowest amount of overall suffering). And the very samee action can be good or bad in different circumstances. WWith faith it is easy, eating a pig is bad and it can never be a good thing and you do not have to worry about well being of the pig, his death or whether there is other way for you to get nutrients you need.
Challenged? Perhaps but not successfully.
Well being according to who? Who is determining this well being? Are you free to elect to do something that others deem to not be in your own personal well being? Can you force your interpretation of well being on to someone else? Too many questions arise from the assumption that if we all just start with well being everything will work out. Abortion is a classic example; well being of the mother or the fetus? Sam's reasoning while admirable can't resolve that issue and it tears countries apart... The point is that science and atheism do not provide a moral foundation. Atheists can certainly have a moral foundation but it does not come from atheism or science. I'm glad that Sam Harris acknowledges that his assumption of well being mostly works in the simple cases but it is the complex cases that we are trying to solve... Non-scientific and theistic people can arrive at Sam's same conclusion that you should always take into account other people's well being without science or atheism. In fact, the real limitation of science and atheism is they also don't provide any reasons to not inflict harm. In fact, science and atheism provide absolutely nothing to suggest you can't go and kill people for sport. If you don't go and kill people for sport than it is due to forces outside of science and atheism because neither of those provide a moral standard. Sam is providing a moral standard that is certainly admirable and most people can agree with but it does not come from atheism or science. It is a philosophical premise. Science and atheism are irrelevant to his premise of human well being. It is because nothing in science or atheism proves or states that you should or should not do anything.
Anyways, I'm just typing out loud! Cheers!
+gsimon123 Theism does not provide any reason not to kill any people for sport.. I can make tomorrow a religion that says that killing people for sport is the most moral thing to do and try to disprove my claim by using this logic. As for your example, if well-being is something that has objective manifestation (i.e. it exists) then it can be observed and measured. In your example, utilitarianism will try to maximize well being of a whole society. If anything, this is a great example of why any religion is incapable of rationally dealing with this situation at all. Religions simply don't make any verifiable claims about how collective well-being will be affected this decision and the resulting actions become self-justifiable (try to convince ISIS that your view of morality is more justifiable than theirs by appealing to theism). On the other hand, science is the only way to explore not only how collective well being of both "humans" / "creatures" is affected by this decision, but it is also our only hope to explore how sentient both creatures are (in this case the adult mother and the fetus). Science can potentially point out exact similarities and differences in terms of sentience when it comes to sperm cells, egg cells, fertilized egg cells, fetuses at different stages of development and adult humans. Taking it a step further, it is our only hope to answer more difficult questions about morality and compare sentience of other creatures (animals and, in the future, AIs). That being said, your points and the example that you provided with the fetus were very good.
+gsimon123 "well being of the mother or the fetus?"
Well being of those with a self awareness of well being. That takes a while to form. Why is this question any different for theists than for atheists?
"science and atheism provide absolutely nothing to suggest you can't go and kill people for sport"
What a psychopathic and wrong assertion. Plenty of secular reasons to avoid and distain murder. Plenty of theists justify murder via religion.
+gsimon123 Morality seems to be a social construct - similar to religion. Can a stone-age man hitting another stone-age man over the head with a rock and killing him in order to steal his meal be beneficial to the hitter? Sure. Maybe we all descended from that crafty, rock-wielding early man. But let's say in a small village a few thousand years later, the same scenario plays out, but we see the inevitable downside of such behavior. Someone witnesses the attack, tells the chief, the hitters teeth are bashed out and he is banished from his village, doomed to wander the desert until he dies.
The laws of physics aren't inherently good or bad. actions are not necessarily good or bad. but we have constructed a moral code over the millennia that has changed widely over time and varies with region. This moral code evolved with us as a species - It was not invented overnight or handed down from on-high. It is constantly being re-worked and is somewhat reflected in local, national and international law. Even a few decades ago there were laws on the books in the U.S. that we would find ridiculous, unjust, or cruel today. Read any religious texts (particularly 1000 years or older) and you will also find some very ridiculous, unjust, or cruel laws.
+gsimon123 What part of "We don't have all the answers yet" didn't you understand?
First Name Last Name Well I guess my point is that until science DOES provide the answers, it is perfectly reasonable to allow other systems to determine morality while we wiat. Until science has proven what is best for everyone then atheism doesn't have a foundation to base its morality upon. In the meantime, religions at least have a foundation upon which they build their morality. I guess my counterpoint is that atheism does not yet provide a foundation to make moral decisions. If you do make moral decisions it is irrelevant to atheism.
his point is that there are religious beliefs that are clearly wrong answers (as they relate to morality and wellbeing) and refusing to acknowledge this or labeling people who do as bigots impedes our ability to find the right answers.
Saying that with science we can determine what's right or wrong it's a complete lie. Sam often sees his utilitarianism as an universal and objective way to determine morality but it isn't.
All I take from this video is that this guy destroyed Harris.
The latter was just unable to answer so instead he rambled incoherently and pointlessly for 3 minutes.
Harris mistakes acts that lead to a desired result with "good" actions. Like when he talks of economic crisis. Of course there are solutions that are better or worse than others, that's based on the implicit premise that a good solution is one that will make things work out as desired and a bad one, one that won't.. Yet that is using the words good and bad in a non-moral sense.
That's a typical pitfall of Harris' speech : he uses examples where good and bad are implicitely defined as adjectives to qualify a given result in a practical situation that has nothing to do with a moral dilemma. And then from showing that there is objectively a solution that is good and the other that is bad, leaps to the claim that thus, there exists an objective good and objective evil. Yet what seems completely lost on him is that what allows him to define good and bad in the first place is that he has just defined - subjectively - a paradigm in which good and bad are associated with a given set of events or results.
Of course if the point is to fix an economic crisis, a "good" solution is one that will fix it and a "bad" is one that won't. But who decided that fixing an economic crisis was objecively moraly good or evil in the first place? Here, good and bad are just fillers for "efficient" and "inefficient".
I think we can all agree that Lexus make better cars than Toyota. Both provide means of transportation. Is the Lexus morally superior to the Honda? Is a spoon morally superior to a fork when it comes to eating soup or pudding?
I like listening to Dawkins and other atheists because I like how they don't shy away from calling people out on their bullshit. I especially liked Dawkins series "ennemies of reason" where he debunked pseudo-medicine and shits like that. But I think they all are making a huge mistake when they try to "prove" that there is no god or, in this case here, there being an objective secular notion for good and evil. It's foolish, and really sucks for their credibility as intellectuals to be caught resorting to these weak arguments and showing their complete misunderstanding of basic philosophical concepts.
furiousmat he didn't destroy Harris, in fact both of them didn't what they were talking about, the guy's question was a confusing cluster fuck and Sam's answer was an elaborate "i don't know what you're asking so I'll just explain how science explains morality for a bit"
his question was by no means a "clusterfuck". If you didn't understand it you might want to re-watch it because it really wasn't a complicated question. In essence it said, Harris proposed to demonstrate that science can help us determine an objective morality. But, the arguments he uses to support that claim are weak and inconclusive. So he asks him how he would propose to prove the point he's been claiming to be able to prove. And Harris simply responds with more of the same. Moreover, the first thing he says is "the moment you grant that we're talking about well-being...". Which is a way of saying that he's not going to respond to the question.
"The moment you agree with me you'll see how I'm right" lol.
If I had to answer why objective morality is tue is pointing to why exactly we have morality in the first place.
Our morality comes from our emotions toward things we our emotions are simply biological constructs meant to help sentient creatures,survive and procreate..
Anything that goes against the purpose of morality's existence is surely immoral
That would be my answer if I believed in objective morality.
just the question itself had me mentally crippled, i hadnt a clue what he was on about lol
Sejus Mai and that is why you are fan of sam harris
The questioner asked Sam that if an objectively correct morality exists, then why can't he provide examples/scientific evidence to support that claim?
pkScary
In human perspective, before we find out other intellectual species, the existence and well-being of the human race defines the objectively correct morality.
It was a good verbose question to a more verbose, rambling and unclear speaker who thinks he has answers to everything while confusing the gullible with pseudo-intelligence and the appearance of wisdom where there is none. My question is quite simple for this lot of Harris, Dawkins, etc, is exactly what is the point of their ramblings? Are they the new evangelists? Atheist evangelism, if ever there is such a thing
This is definitely not a challenge. It's a query like one would ask a teacher or a child their parent(s), rather than something that requires argumentation.
Poor answer to a great question
I'm so happy I found your video. You asked him exactly what I wanted to. It's a shame he didn't answer.
I completely disagree, science has nothing to do with morality. The example he gives about economic solutions in that there are definitively wrong answers is silly. There are no objectively wrong answers, it comes down to a matter of perspective. For example the system we are living in with global capitalism would be seen as wrong to most people in the world as it harms them more than helps them. Their opinion doesn't matter however as they have no power. I think Sam is having a hard time looking at this from an outside perspective. It was a very incoherent and illogical argument.
+Hawkeye 1982 If someone asks when World War 2 occurred, and you say in the 1500s, isn't that an objectively wrong answer? What is the perspective in that?
In regards to morality, I'm sure the argument is more like this:
Some morals are better than others, and if there is a "better" than there has to be a gradation or a spectrum to "perfect" from "better" or "the worst" from "the bad". On the basis that he's defending that "Science" can prove it, I'll be honest and say I don't know where he's getting the scientific basis to prove morality.
However, I believe the evolution of reason is a truth that can be proven in high IQ and the values of western civilization that have produced the most prosperous societies and egalitarian morals compared to highly objectionable morals in lower-IQ societies could be a proof for objectivity when it comes to morality and ethics. Surely the rate of tolerated bodily harm and other factors could be measured variables that would support an argument for objectivity.
+Hawkeye 1982 I suggest you read Harris' book. You clearly haven't understood his thesis if you think it is a matter of perspective. The moral landscape does have a reference point and the ups and highs in that lanscape are not a matter of perspective. That doesnt mean however, that there are many peaks and valleys in the moral landscape and therefore there are many possible solutions to a certain moral question that cannot be valued better or worse than the other. You bring up capitalism here as if Harris had somehow defended capitalism. Harris doesn't claim to have solved such a problem. He simply claims that with the means of science we can always move closer and closer to finding the solution.
+BMFin On an Ivory tower everything looks rosey. No system objectively speaking will be good for every individual in it. It becomes very pretentious and biased when most people speak of capitalism. Capitalism exists only because most people in the world starve. That is a fact, cheap labour from Asia is the only reason that capitalism can thrive.
Capitalism may very well be morally worse than some other systems. No one is claiming otherwise. This is besides the point however. This definetly isn't a debate on wheter capitalism is the ideal system or not. This is a debate on wheter science can solve moral problems. I suggest you discuss your views on capitalism somewhere else and keep to the original topic.
+BMFin Sam explained nothing in this talk. Science can no more explain right or wrong than religion can. It is simply the biased with which an individual sees a philosophy that speaks to them as to whether it's right or wrong fro them. To go down this route is as silly as saying that the ten commandments are the only reason why people don't commit crimes. It is ludicrous.
Correct me if Im wrong, but did Sam point was that if we consider morality deals with the well being of people science can tells can tell us if something is good or wrong, since science can explain what things should be done to reach the well being of humanity?
Remember that the person who uploaded this video is the guy who asked the question to Sam. The title is biased.
Did he, an Oxford grad student, not challenge Sam Harris?
The answer is no, he did not