The Moral Landscape

MagicMarker

May as well highlight the fact that Sam Harris has a new book coming out in October.

Sam Harris’s first book, The End of Faith, ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In the aftermath, Harris discovered that most people—from religious fundamentalists to non-believing scientists—agree on one point: Science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Indeed, our failure to address questions of meaning and morality through science has now become the most common justification for religious faith. It is also the primary reason why so many secularists and religious moderates feel obligated to “respect” the hardened superstitions of their more devout neighbors.

In this explosive new book, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken about the relationship between morality and the rest of human knowledge. Harris urges us to think about morality in terms of human and animal well-being, viewing the experiences of conscious creatures as peaks and valleys on a “moral landscape.” Because there are definite facts to be known about where we fall on this landscape, Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of “morality”; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible.

Bringing a fresh perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris demonstrates that we already know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, moral relativism is simply false—and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality.

Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our “culture wars,” Harris delivers a game-changing book about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation.

Sam Harris breathes intellectual fire into an ancient debate. Reading this thrilling, audacious book, you feel the ground shifting beneath your feet. Reason has never had a more passionate advocate.
— Ian McEwan, author of Atonement, winner of the Man Booker Prize for Amsterdam.

A lively, provocative, and timely new look at one of the deepest problems in the world of ideas. Harris makes a powerful case for a morality that is based on human flourishing and thoroughly enmeshed with science and rationality. It is a tremendously appealing vision, and one that no thinking person can afford to ignore.
— Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, author of How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate.

I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. Moral philosophers, too, will find their world exhilaratingly turned upside down, as they discover a need to learn some neuroscience. As for religion, and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.
— Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion, and The Greatest Show On Earth

Reading Sam Harris is like drinking water from a cool stream on a hot day. He has the rare ability to frame arguments that are not only stimulating, they are downright nourishing, even if you don’t always agree with him! In this new book he argues from a philosophical and a neurobiological perspective that science can and should determine morality. As was the case with Harris’ previous books, readers are bound to come away with previously firm convictions about the world challenged, and a vital new awareness about the nature and value of science and reason in our lives.
— Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist, Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, author of The Physics of Star Trek and Quantum Man: Richard Feynman’s Life in Science.

An interesting subject no doubt, although I don't know if it's going to bring anything new to the table? I look forward to it none the less.

Waking-Dreams

We wait be bated breath.

Dave!

MagicMarker wrote: »

May as well highlight the fact that Sam Harris has a new book coming out in October.







An interesting subject no doubt, although I don't know if it's going to bring anything new to the table? I look forward to it none the less.

Course it will! Judging from what I've read and seen so far, his ideas and opinions on morality are quite controversial and have been met with some hostility (from scientists also), so whether it changes minds is one thing, but it'll certainly bring something to the table and get the debate going :eek:

I look forward to him whoring this book all over the media Can't wait!

Dunno if I'll end up buying it though, cos I've seen about 5 or so videos of him talking about it, and read several articles, so I already know most of what he's gonna say in the book ahh I might as well!

Nemi

I'm just lazy, although that might be because I don't expect he's got anything new to say at all.

Is there a nice, short article somewhere that neatly explains how there is supposed to be a science of human morality? Because it sounds like pants.

For what its worth, I found What Makes us Moral? Crossing the Boundaries of Biology by Neil Levy to be an interesting read on this sort of issue.

The point that stuck with me is how the human moral sense might be a product of evolution selecting people who were the most credible liars. The most convincing liars will be the ones who believe their own delusions. Hey presto, an innate sense that maybe screwing everyone else over isn't the most rewarding way to live.

Zillah

Sam Harris

ColmDawson

Great news. The title is mentioned at 13:04 in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

P.S. Sam 4eva

Dave!

Hands off, fellas!

MrStuffins

I havent read Harris' previous work.

What is this forum's opinion of The End of Faith?

MagicMarker

I finished the end of faith last night, I'd recommend it! The last couple of chapters would probably relate to his new book, more so in a philosophical sense than from scientific perspective.

I'd highly recommend Letters to a Christian Nation, it's short and sweet and to the point.

Morbert

The book doesn't seem to be that revolutionary. Everyone already knows science can inform moral choices. What people are saying is that ethics and morality are inherently unscientific, as they are abstract, non-physical things.

MagicMarker

Some questions on the new book...

1. Are there right and wrong answers to moral questions?

Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world -- and there clearly are -- then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.

2. Are you saying that science can answer such questions?

Yes, in principle. Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors -- ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world. Wherever we can have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of morality apply.

3. But can't moral claims be in conflict? Aren't there many situations in which one person's happiness means another's suffering?

There are some circumstances like this, and we call these contests "zero-sum." Generally speaking, however, the most important moral occasions are not like this. If we could eliminate war, nuclear proliferation, malaria, chronic hunger, child abuse, etc. -- these changes would be good, on balance, for everyone. There are surely neurobiological, psychological, and sociological reasons why this is so -- which is to say that science could potentially tell us exactly why a phenomenon like child abuse diminishes human well-being.

But we don't have to wait for science to do this. We already have very good reasons to believe that mistreating children is bad for everyone. I think it is important for us to admit that this is not a claim about our personal preferences, or merely something our culture has conditioned us to believe. It is a claim about the architecture of our minds and the social architecture of our world. Moral truths of this kind must find their place in any scientific understanding of human experience.

4. What if some people simply have different notions about what is truly important in life? How could science tell us that the actions of the Taliban are in fact immoral, when the Taliban think they are behaving morally?

As I discuss in my book, there may be different ways for people to thrive, but there are clearly many more ways for them not to thrive. The Taliban are a perfect example of a group of people who are struggling to build a society that is obviously less good than many of the other societies on offer. Afghan women have a 12% literacy rate and a life expectancy of 44 years. Afghanistan has nearly the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the world. It also has one of the highest birthrates. Consequently, it is one of the best places on earth to watch women and infants die. And Afghanistan's GDP is currently lower than the world's average was in the year 1820. It is safe to say that the optimal response to this dire situation -- that is to say, the most moral response -- is not to throw battery acid in the faces of little girls for the crime of learning to read. This may seem like common sense to us -- and it is -- but I am saying that it is also, at bottom, a claim about biology, psychology, sociology, and economics. It is not, therefore, unscientific to say that the Taliban are wrong about morality. In fact, we must say this, the moment we admit that we know anything at all about human well-being.

5. But what if the Taliban simply have different goals in life?

Well, the short answer is -- they don't. They are clearly seeking happiness in this life, and, more importantly, they imagine that they are securing it in a life to come. They believe that they will enjoy an eternity of happiness after death by following the strictest interpretation of Islamic law here on earth. This is also a claim about which science should have an opinion -- as it is almost certainly untrue. There is no question, however, that the Taliban are seeking well-being, in some sense -- they just have some very strange beliefs about how to attain it.

In my book, I try to spell out why moral disagreements do not put the concept of moral truth in jeopardy. In the moral sphere, as in all others, some people don't know what they are missing. In fact, I suspect that most of us don't know what we are missing: It must be possible to change human experience in ways that would uncover levels of human flourishing that most of us cannot imagine. In every area of genuine discovery, there are horizons past which we cannot see.

6. What do you mean when you talk about a "moral landscape"?

This is the phrase I use to describe the space of all possible experience -- where the peaks correspond to the heights of well-being and valleys represent the worst possible suffering. We are all someplace on this landscape, faced with the prospect of moving up or down. Given that our experience is fully constrained by the laws of the universe, there must be scientific answers to the question of how best to move upwards, toward greater happiness.

This is not to say that there is only one right way for human beings to live. There might be many peaks on this landscape -- but there are clearly many ways not to be on a peak.

7. How could science guide us on the moral landscape?

In so far as we can understand human well-being, we will understand the conditions that best secure it. Some are obvious, of course. Positive social emotions like compassion and empathy are generally good for us, and we want to encourage them. But do we know how to most reliably raise children to care about the suffering of other people? I'm not sure we do. Are there genes that make certain people more compassionate than others? What social systems and institutions could maximize our sense of connectedness to the rest of humanity? These questions have answers, and only a science of morality could deliver them.

8. Why is it taboo for a scientist to attempt to answer moral questions?

I think there are two primary reasons why scientists hesitate to do this. The first, and most defensible, is borne of their appreciation for how difficult it is to understand complex systems. Our investigation of the human mind is in its infancy, even after nearly two centuries of studying the brain. So scientists fear that answers to specific questions about human well-being may be very difficult to come by, and confidence on many points is surely premature. This is true. But, as I argue in my book, mistaking no answers in practice for no answers in principle is a huge mistake.

The second reason is that many scientists have been misled by a combination of bad philosophy and political correctness. This leads them to feel that the only intellectually defensible position to take when in the presence of moral disagreement is to consider all opinions equally valid or equally nonsensical. On one level, this is an understandable and even noble over-correction for our history of racism, ethnocentrism, and imperialism. But it is an over-correction nonetheless. As I try to show in my book, it is not a sign of intolerance for us to notice that some cultures and sub-cultures do a terrible job of producing human lives worth living.

9. What is the difference between there being no answers in practice and no answers in principle, and why is this distinction important in understanding the relationship between human knowledge and human values?

There are an infinite number of questions that we will never answer, but which clearly have answers. How many fish are there in the world's oceans at this moment? We will never know. And yet, we know that this question, along with an infinite number of questions like it, have correct answers. We simply can't get access to the data in any practical way.

There are many questions about human subjectivity -- and about the experience of conscious creatures generally -- that have this same structure. Which causes more human suffering, stealing or lying? Questions like this are not at all meaningless, in that they must have answers, but it could be hopeless to try to answer them with any precision. Still, once we admit that any discussion of human values must relate to a larger reality in which actual answers exist, we can then reject many answers as obviously wrong. If, in response to the question about the world's fish, someone were to say, "There are exactly a thousand fish in the sea." We know that this person is not worth listening to. And many people who have strong opinions on moral questions have no more credibility than this. Anyone who thinks that gay marriage is the greatest problem of the 21st century, or that women should be forced to live in burqas, is not worth listening to on the subject of morality.

10. What do you think the role of religion is in determining human morality?

I think it is generally an unhelpful one. Religious ideas about good and evil tend to focus on how to achieve well-being in the next life, and this makes them terrible guides to securing it in this one. Of course, there are a few gems to be found in every religious tradition, but insofar as these precepts are wise and useful they are not, in principle, religious. You do not need to believe that the Bible was dictated by the Creator of the Universe, or that Jesus Christ was his son, to see the wisdom and utility of following the Golden Rule.

The problem with religious morality is that it often causes people to care about the wrong things, leading them to make choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering. Consider the Catholic Church: This is an institution that excommunicates women who want to become priests, but it does not excommunicate male priests who rape children. The Church is more concerned about stopping contraception than stopping genocide. It is more worried about gay marriage than about nuclear proliferation. When we realize that morality relates to questions of human and animal well-being, we can see that the Catholic Church is as confused about morality as it is about cosmology. It is not offering an alternative moral framework; it is offering a false one.

11. So people don't need religion to live an ethical life?

No. And a glance at the lives of most atheists, and at the most atheistic societies on earth -- Denmark, Sweden, etc. -- proves that this is so. Even the faithful can't really get their deepest moral principles from religion -- because books like the Bible and the Qur'an are full of barbaric injunctions that all decent and sane people must now reinterpret or ignore. How is it that most Jews, Christians, and Muslims are opposed to slavery? You don't get this moral insight from scripture, because the God of Abraham expects us to keep slaves. Consequently, even religious fundamentalists draw many of their moral positions from a wider conversation about human values that is not, in principle, religious. We are the guarantors of the wisdom we find in scripture, such as it is. And we are the ones who must ignore God when he tells us to kill people for working on the Sabbath.

12. How will admitting that there are right and wrong answers to issues of human and animal flourishing transform the way we think and talk about morality?

What I've tried to do in my book is give a framework in which we can think about human values in universal terms. Currently, the most important questions in human life -- questions about what constitutes a good life, which wars we should fight or not fight, which diseases should be cured first, etc. -- are thought to lie outside the purview of science, in principle. Therefore, we have divorced the most important questions in human life from the context in which our most rigorous and intellectually honest thinking gets done.

Moral truth entirely depends on actual and potential changes in the well-being of conscious creatures. As such, there are things to be discovered about it through careful observation and honest reasoning. It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values -- allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals -- is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do.

Dave!

And it starts Was that interview in any kind of mainstream publication?

Please everyone if you discover a new interview or article by Sam, post it here!

MagicMarker

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/the-moral-landscape-q-a-w_b_694305.html?ir=Yahoo

You should join his mailing list.

Nemi

Judging from his answers, his book will be even worse ****e than might have been imagined. It's like Father Ted Crilly gives up religion and tries making a living from imagining there's an objective basis for secular morality.

Sam Harris wrote:

It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values -- allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals -- is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do.

How do you get a book contract for writing this kind of wishful nonsense? I mean, I've no sense of personal integrity. I'll do it, if this is what people will pay for.

Giz a job. I can do that. I can gas on about secular morality, without ever mentioning that the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

I guess that no-one would ever think the discussion should start with the hypothesis that justice is the interest of the stronger.

raah!

I agree with nemi, though I won't thank his post, as that would only descredit it :P.

Many of these arguments are extremely weak and short sighted, mentioning the taliban like that seems a bit sensationalist as well.

I know alot of people like this guy here, but I would think twice before making this book another bestseller. Especially when people so vocally speak out against tricksters like psychics taking advantage of people who are into that sort of stuff.

MagicMarker

I think a lot of what he says makes perfectly good sense.

I'll reserve judgement until I read the book thanks very much.

Dades

I'm confused... has anyone here actually read this book?

amacachi

MagicMarker wrote: »

I think a lot of what he says makes perfectly good sense.

I'll reserve judgement until I read the book thanks very much.

Pfft, you and your reading books before judging them.

Valmont

This is a juicy and worthwhile topic and I think I'll definitely be purchasing this book. I have to say I'm slightly biased already in that I think moral relativism is a problem in itself for giving people carte blanche to do what they want because "it's moral to me" or something flippant like that. It seems that in rebelling from the harsh prescriptions of religion some people have gone too far in the opposite direction. Anyway, I'm sure this will be an interesting book for everyone regardless of your own moral philosophy.

Nemi

MagicMarker wrote: »

I think a lot of what he says makes perfectly good sense.

I really don't. It looks like more of the Sam Harris "we can borrow some bits from religions that people find useful, like suspending our critical faculties when someone says something trite".

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'll reserve judgement until I read the book thanks very much.

Lez know how you get on.

Dades wrote: »

I'm confused... has anyone here actually read this book?

Not me, I'm basing my opinion solely on the posted interview. I have read "The End of Faith", for what its worth.

MagicMarker

Nemi wrote: »

I really don't. It looks like more of the Sam Harris "we can borrow some bits from religions that people find useful, like suspending our critical faculties when someone says something trite".

Can you provide specific examples from what I quoted above?

Nemi

raah! wrote: »

I agree with nemi, though I won't thank his post, as that would only descredit it :P.

Feel free, discreditable is my middle name.

raah! wrote: »

mentioning the taliban like that seems a bit sensationalist as well.

Absolutely, and he uses it with the same depth of understanding as a caller to Joe Duffy.

It reminds me of that line in Robert H. Thouless' "Straight and Crooked Thinking", where he points to the doublethink in the statement "Our soldiers are brave, but the Taliban are foolhardy."

Nemi

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can you provide specific examples from what I quoted above?

I did already, here. What's the objective basis for answering the question of what is evil?

(There will be a delay in my response, as my significant other is reminding me of a need to visit Tesco.)

MagicMarker

Nemi wrote: »

I did already, here. What's the objective basis for answering the question of what is evil?

That's a question that requires a lot of thought, and I'm a busy man! :pac:

In fairness, Sam hasn't exactly explained his reasoning in depth here, that's what this book is about. Saying it's wishful nonsense before hearing him out completely is a tad unfair.

Sam Harris wrote: »

It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values -- allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals -- is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do.

Nemi

MagicMarker wrote: »

In fairness, Sam hasn't exactly explained his reasoning in depth here, that's what this book is about. Saying it's wishful nonsense before hearing him out completely is a tad unfair.

But only a tad. I feel much the same way about Sam Harris on this point as I do about the 'Why I think God exists' thread started by 'use logic please'. Some guy turns up and says 'I've a philosophical proof for God', and you sort of know he hasn't, and after a few hundred posts you find that its exactly as you guessed. A couple of thousand years of philosophy hasn't suddenly been overturned.

Which is why I can feel pretty confident in saying there is no objective basis for morality, outside of religion. And, yes, by that clearly I mean religion can only be regarded as having an objective morality if you accept its assumptions.

So, if you arbitrarily decide to accept Christianity or Islam or whatever, you have a basis for deciding stuff like whether abortion is wrong. But we don't. All we can ever do is make pragmatic judgments about stuff.

And there's really nothing Sam Harris can do about that, except delude himself. That short article just suggests to me he has no new insight. And, like you say yourself, we're all busy. We have to make judgments. Mine is that reading this book would be a waste of time, so I'll read something else.

But, seriously, its not like he's going to have any special expertise on this. If we took the starting point of Plato's Republic, the hypothesis that what a society deems to be justice (or rightness/morality) is only the interest of its strongest members, and followed it where it led, the people who post here would do as good and possibly better a job than Sam Harris. Because I doubt that people here would get away with sweeping statements about the Taliban, as if they were pantomime bad guys and the West's involvement in Afghanistan was as sweet and wholesome as the Rose of Tralee.

Dave!

Nemi wrote: »

But only a tad. I feel much the same way about Sam Harris on this point as I do about the 'Why I think God exists' thread started by 'use logic please'. Some guy turns up and says 'I've a philosophical proof for God', and you sort of know he hasn't, and after a few hundred posts you find that its exactly as you guessed. A couple of thousand years of philosophy hasn't suddenly been overturned.

Which is why I can feel pretty confident in saying there is no objective basis for morality, outside of religion. And, yes, by that clearly I mean religion can only be regarded as having an objective morality if you accept its assumptions.

So, if you arbitrarily decide to accept Christianity or Islam or whatever, you have a basis for deciding stuff like whether abortion is wrong. But we don't. All we can ever do is make pragmatic judgments about stuff.

And there's really nothing Sam Harris can do about that, except delude himself. That short article just suggests to me he has no new insight. And, like you say yourself, we're all busy. We have to make judgments. Mine is that reading this book would be a waste of time, so I'll read something else.

But, seriously, its not like he's going to have any special expertise on this. If we took the starting point of Plato's Republic, the hypothesis that what a society deems to be justice (or rightness/morality) is only the interest of its strongest members, and followed it where it led, the people who post here would do as good and possibly better a job than Sam Harris. Because I doubt that people here would get away with sweeping statements about the Taliban, as if they were pantomime bad guys and the West's involvement in Afghanistan was as sweet and wholesome as the Rose of Tralee.

I think Sam's premise is that morality can or should relate to human and animal well-being and flourishing. Within that context, there are right and wrong answers to certain 'moral' questions (though not all questions, Sam emphasises; but just because we can't have something to say about X doesn't mean that we can't say something about Y). For example, is stoning women for adultery a good way to foster a healthy society and culture for humans to flourish in? Surely there is an answer to this. Whether we can determine the answer or not is another thing, though.

Nemi

Dave! wrote: »

I think Sam's premise is that morality can or should relate to human and animal well-being and flourishing.

Fine, but can you see how 'can or should' straightaway makes it subjective. We cannot say morality is human and animal wellbeing and flourishing.

And that's even before we ask what constitutes "wellbeing and flourishing", and whether some kinds of "wellbeing and flourishing" need to be constrained rather than promoted.

Dave! wrote: »

For example, is stoning women for adultery a good way to foster a healthy society and culture for humans to flourish in?

Who's to say? Your Taliban member will surely respond that it certainly is, and ask why you feel that a society that indulges teenage single mothers is so much better.

And its not just the Taliban who might feel like this. Perfectly fine and upstanding Western men who feel humiliated by their wives infidelities would probably welcome it if the State indulged them in submitting their errant wives to painful deaths. In fact, haven't some societies recognised the existence of a cirme of passion?

So, no, that's not a no-brainer. The main reason our instinct tells us stoning is a bad punishment is just that its unfamiliar to us.

Dave! wrote: »

Surely there is an answer to this. Whether we can determine the answer or not is another thing, though.

But hover over that thought. How is what you just said much different to God moving in mysterious ways? What that statement is saying is there is some absolute answer to whether stoning adulterous wives is wrong, but human minds may not be able to perceive it?

Isn't that pretty much the same kind of defence that people mount for divine motives?

amacachi

Nemi wrote: »

The main reason our instinct tells us stoning is a bad punishment is just that its unfamiliar to us.But hover over that thought.

LOL.

sink

Nemi wrote: »

Fine, but can you see how 'can or should' straightaway makes it subjective. We cannot say morality is human and animal wellbeing and flourishing.

And that's even before we ask what constitutes "wellbeing and flourishing", and whether some kinds of "wellbeing and flourishing" need to be constrained rather than promoted.Who's to say? Your Taliban member will surely respond that it certainly is, and ask why you feel that a society that indulges teenage single mothers is so much better.

And its not just the Taliban who might feel like this. Perfectly fine and upstanding Western men who feel humiliated by their wives infidelities would probably welcome it if the State indulged them in submitting their errant wives to painful deaths. In fact, haven't some societies recognised the existence of a cirme of passion?

So, no, that's not a no-brainer. The main reason our instinct tells us stoning is a bad punishment is just that its unfamiliar to us.But hover over that thought. How is what you just said much different to God moving in mysterious ways? What that statement is saying is there is some absolute answer to whether stoning adulterous wives is wrong, but human minds may not be able to perceive it?

Isn't that pretty much the same kind of defence that people mount for divine motives?

Yeah, sorry but no.

If we define human wellbeing and flourishing in the most simplest terms such as 'the highest number of people possible being able to live a full life without starving, succumbing to disease and injury or being murdered'. This is so basic it could be regarded as an axiom.

Stoning adulteresses and rape victims, immediately fails. To say different is simply asinine.

raah!

Yes, but that's not "objectively determined morality", it's pretty much just utilitarianism. There is nothing different here than any other moral system, and it's not derived from science. For one thing, that's not possible. It's absurd to suggest that "science determines morals". But If he does things like studying evolution and reasons to act moral in terms of advancement of the species, I think you are more likely to come up with the capitalistic and semi-selfish moral thinking people have now.

Another easily determined one, which makes more sense from an evolutionary sense "me and my friends being able to live a full life without starving blah blah"

Also, there's no such thing as a system of thought which does not operate from axioms.

Which is why I can feel pretty confident in saying there is no objective basis for morality, outside of religion. And, yes, by that clearly I mean religion can only be
regarded as having an objective morality if you accept its assumptions.

+1
Also, just for a more pallitable form for the atheists here. You could also just arbitrarily accept that "stealing is bad", then "stealing fish" can be objectively derived from this.


I mean this seems fairly evident, and maybe people just haven't thought about the issue of morality at all, which some of these replies seem to suggest. In my opinion the reasons "new atheists" are so opposed to discussing morality is because of the obvious implications of moral relativism on moral behaviour. Rarely do you hear anything other than "lots of atheists are really nice", they are more interested in politics than philosophy.

raah!

Dave! wrote: »

I think Sam's premise is that morality can or should relate to human and animal well-being and flourishing. Within that context, there are right and wrong answers to certain 'moral' questions (though not all questions, Sam emphasises; but just because we can't have something to say about X doesn't mean that we can't say something about Y). For example, is stoning women for adultery a good way to foster a healthy society and culture for humans to flourish in? Surely there is an answer to this. Whether we can determine the answer or not is another thing, though.

Is this a scientific premise? Is this different from any moral system that's ever existed? Is saying "If everyone agrees on moral issues then there would be no disagreements" a revolutionary statement? Or is it just childish?

And yes, there are answers to moral systems, which can be derived objectively from "axioms" which vary from person to person. To say that the individual has to focus on "human well being" is nothing but his subjective opinion. And if ever there was a good point in distinguishing between new atheists and old, it's this kind of political thinking. Atheism doesn't directly lead to this kind of thinking, in my opinion, it leads to a more individualistic basis for thought.

Nemi

sink wrote: »

If we define human wellbeing and flourishing in the most simplest terms such as 'the highest number of people possible being able to live a full life without starving, succumbing to disease and injury or being murdered'.

So should we outlaw birth control? Because we've a ways to go before that basic threshold is reached.

Alternatively, if 'full life' assumes a Western level of opulence, should we slaughter excess population in poorer countries? Because they'll never have a full life, if that's the standard.

Those 'simplest terms' assumes so much.

sink wrote: »

This is so basic it could be regarded as an axiom. Stoning adulteresses and rape victims, immediately fails. To say different is simply asinine.

Calling it an axiom is to kick is simply avoidance. Introducing a reference to rape victims is an appeal to emotion.

All societies mandate death in some circumstances. To say the point is asinine is to fail to understand the implications of this. We say its wrong for the Taliban to stone people for adultery, but calmly accept the need for troops with far more lethal capacity to pass through Shannon.

MagicMarker

ColmDawson wrote: »

Great news. The title is mentioned at 13:04 in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

P.S. Sam 4eva

I just got around to watching this now, very good talk I have to say. It's been a while since I seen any TED Talks but I don't think many I've seen have resulted in a standing ovation!

Nemi

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's been a while since I seen any TED Talks but I don't think many I've seen have resulted in a standing ovation!

What? Ted got plenty of appreciation for his talks; he had them rolling in the aisles for this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvvwNR3vF44

And I've a feeling Sam Harris was taking notes, because his routine really is an ecumenical matter. I got to 8:40 and, I’m sorry, but I had to give up on this trite waffle.

He makes massive leaps of faith. Values are about the wellbeing of conscious creatures. Why? We don’t care about rocks. Does this mean the Taliban destroying the statues deemed to be a World Heritage site has no moral content? (Yes, I’m deliberately picking the Taliban as Sam’s favourite Bogeymen.)

He waffles around how science tells us how to move from better to worse states. But never manages to get past the point where all he’s talking about is different material states, without any way of judging the choices involved in creating more of this or that. How many Barbie dolls should children do without so we can pay for more flood relief in Pakistan? How can science answer that for us, Sam?

Then he, at last, says he’s not saying science can decide it all. Or much of it at all, really. Grand, Sam, can we all go home yet?

I’ve a feeling Sam might have a better grasp of reality if he’d been smacked as a child. Science could help us answer this. We could smack Sam every time he makes an empty rhetorical statement, to see if eventually he stops.

You can hear how his little brain works. “I’ll say being healthy is objectively better than being dead. I’m wrong, but no-one will have the nerve to contradict me.”

Anyone read Dickens any more? “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.” Can you explain the moral content of that for us, Sam?

Seriously, lads, what do you see in this stuff?

MagicMarker

Did Sam sleep with your wife or something?

nozzferrahhtoo

Nemi wrote: »

Values are about the wellbeing of conscious creatures. Why? We don’t care about rocks. Does this mean the Taliban destroying the statues deemed to be a World Heritage site has no moral content?

No, nor does anything in his arguments suggest this. If you apply his argument, which you quoted as being "about the wellbeing of conscious creatures. Why? We don’t care about rocks." you do not reach the conclusion that this incident had NO moral content. You reach the conclusion that it had no moral content with regards the personal well being of the statues.

Or do you maybe feel the statues feelings were hurt? What moral content do you think was there, in that incident you link to, that was not concerned with the well being of a conscious creature exactly?

Then again, such misrepresentation of someones arguments and conclusions are not just expected, but almost unavoidable, from someone who opened by admitting they did not even listen to all of it. A little too easy to disagree with or misrepresent an argument when one openly admits to not having considered it in it's entirety.

Nemi wrote: »

Judging from his answers, his book will be even worse ****e than might have been imagined. How do you get a book contract for writing this kind of wishful nonsense?

raah! wrote: »

Many of these arguments are extremely weak and short sighted

Speaking of "easy“… it is easy to simply call ideas and arguments rubbish and sit back content as if you have added something useful. Alas one has not. The second step of taking an argument that a person made and explaining WHY it is rubbish is useful, but alas harder to do.

We can all call things all the names under the sun. Actually establishing why one of those labels fit is the hard part. Simply saying it never has, and likely never will, make it suddenly and magically acquire the characteristic you are flinging at it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nemi wrote: »

What that statement is saying is there is some absolute answer to whether stoning adulterous wives is wrong, but human minds may not be able to perceive it?

I do not think it is saying that exactly. There seems to be a general misunderstanding on this thread about what Harris’ actual thesis is, but the understanding is one that is easily rectified.

Little of what he is saying is suggesting that science can answer every moral question with what is “right” or “wrong” nor does he claim it can. He is not out to use science to say “X is always right, no matter what”.

Instead what he is saying is that science can define the objective LANDSCAPE in which we should move when considering what is “right” or “wrong” in a given moral conundrum.

In fact he makes a point of using analogy after analogy to get this point across yet all too often people are missing it. He often uses a great analogy to human nutrition for example in which there is no “right” or “wrong” answers to what is “good to eat” but this does not change our ability to define “poison” as being objectively bad in that context.

My favourite one is the image of the Queen piece in chess. Chess is a well defined landscape of moves, which is what he is calling for here, but within that landscape there are exceptions to every rule one might want to live by. The rule “Try not to lose your queen” is clearly one of the biggest rules to live by in chess. This however does not change the fact that breaking that rule can often be a necessary, or even a genius brilliant, move.

His thesis therefore is that science can give massive input into what this landscape should be, in which notionally useful rules clearly open to exceptions can be made. Exactly how and what science has to offer on this is the subject of his book and will be what I am looking for when I read it.

So no, I do not think he is trying to define “stoning adulterous wives” as objectively and 100% wrong. He is however presenting a moral landscape to us in which finding a good argument, or circumstance to lose your Queen (stone those women) is near impossible to do.

I do not see him trying to remove the fact that morality is subjective from the equation... but instead using objective facts to define the parameters that such subjectivity should be given reign. There is no objectivity in morality that I am aware of, and it would be a fools errand to propose a thesis that thinks there is. Objective constraints yes. Objective morality no. There are no "absolute" answers in morality, nor has anyone even Sam attempted to say there are... save for the believers in God who think some magical imaginary entity has defined this for us.... despite their lack of ANY evidence said entity even exists.

Nemi

MagicMarker wrote: »

Did Sam sleep with your wife or something?

Has he ever been with a fully grown woman?

Nemi

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What moral content do you think was there, in that incident you link to, that was not concerned with the well being of a conscious creature exactly?

There's a thought experiment used on one of the OUP Philosophy modules, asking if there would be any moral implications of the last man alive thrashing the Earth. In other words, questioning the point you are raising, rather than accepting it as a given.

If you're linking morality to consciousness, how much consciousness needs to exist before morality comes into being? Does a clam colony have morality? A flock of seagulls? Does conscious creatures include the people who made those statues? Are there still moral obligations to them?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A little too easy to disagree with or misrepresent an argument when one openly admits to not having considered it in it's entirety.

But I'm using Sam's patented scientific method. The evidence I gathered in that 8 minutes and 40 seconds accurately predicted that my wellbeing could only be reduced by watching more of it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We can all call things all the names under the sun. Actually establishing why one of those labels fit is the hard part. Simply saying it never has, and likely never will, make it suddenly and magically acquire the characteristic you are flinging at it.

If that was all I'd done, you'd be right. But I have actually pointed to why its pointless to talk about an objective morality outside of religion.

Nemi

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not think it is saying that exactly. There seems to be a general misunderstanding on this thread about what Harris’ actual thesis is, but the understanding is one that is easily rectified.

Little of what he is saying is suggesting that science can answer every moral question with what is “right” or “wrong” nor does he claim it can. He is not out to use science to say “X is always right, no matter what”.

I think what's more correct is that, in his blurb and associated material posted earlier, he absolutely is suggesting that science can provide answers to good and evil. He equates it to finding solutions for human health. But, indeed, in that youtube presentation he retreats from those outlandish claims pretty quickly, leaving us where we sort of knew we'd end up. With science answering nothing of moral significance.

Because the moral question isn't whether poison is a better nutrient than food. The moral question is can I poison these people, and still not be a bad person.

What Sam's trying to make a career out of is equivocation, by using the word 'bad' in two different senses. Its one of the oldest tricks in the book.

And ye are falling for it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Exactly how and what science has to offer on this is the subject of his book and will be what I am looking for when I read it.

I'm afraid I'll be rotating the tyres on my car. But I'm sure Sam would agree that promoting uniform tyre wear is an objective moral good.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Objective constraints yes. Objective morality no.

I actually don't see how that statement contains any meaning. There's a physical reality that presents certain physical constraints. But there's no moral content in that.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nemi wrote: »

There's a thought experiment used on one of the OUP Philosophy modules, asking if there would be any moral implications of the last man alive thrashing the Earth. In other words, questioning the point you are raising, rather than accepting it as a given.

So the answer to my question is "none" then?

Nemi wrote: »

If you're linking morality to consciousness, how much consciousness needs to exist before morality comes into being?

Enough to come up with the concept of morality in the first place I warrant. As far as I know "human consciousness" is the only source of it that we know of, given the lack of any other source or evidence for deities.

Therefore when it comes to moral discussions, given we have to use SOME subjective basis on which to base all the rest, I find that it is as good as any to use "human consciousness" as as starting point. I have yet to hear of a better one anyway.

As I have said on other threads, given that it is the source of where morals come from, what they will be, who will get them, how they will be enforced... I find it not a small leap to suggest it is TO that we assign it too. I just work from there.

Nemi wrote: »

Does conscious creatures include the people who made those statues? Are there still moral obligations to them?

Exactly my point! Well done you got it! The obligations to the makers, and owners and enjoyers of the statues are why the incident does not, as you put it, have " no moral content?" and this is exactly why this is not what Sam was saying at all when you said "Does this mean the Taliban destroying the statues deemed to be a World Heritage site has no moral content?"

Nemi wrote: »

But I'm using Sam's patented scientific method. The evidence I gathered in that 8 minutes and 40 seconds accurately predicted that my wellbeing could only be reduced by watching more of it.

As you wish. I have made it clear what I think of people who comment on peoples positions without actually considering them in their entirety. That is my opinion of you and people who operate like that. Take it or leave it, it is not my concern.

Just make sure you expect that if you cant be bothered to consider someones argument in its entirety before commenting, you will likely be quite wrong quite often.

Nemi wrote: »

I think what's more correct is that, in his blurb and associated material posted earlier, he absolutely is suggesting that science can provide answers to good and evil.

You may think so but I have found nothing in what he is saying (and unlike you I have listened to all there is to hear from him on the subject without turning it off and making my opinions based on nothing) to suggest that he thinks anything of the sort. Nor have you provided anything to support that notion.

Nemi wrote: »

Because the moral question isn't whether poison is a better nutrient than food. The moral question is can I poison these people, and still not be a bad person.

Again not what the analogy to food was meant to portray. The point of the analogy is to show there is no one “right” food in human nutrition. There is a plethora of them, and combinations of them, all of which interact differently when differently combined.

This however does not mean science can not say a lot about the realm in which we can discuss human nutrition and define objective facts to form a landscape in which to have that conversation. Alcohol is, after all, a poison. This does not say much about whether it is objectively right or wrong to consume it.

This is all he is saying about science and morality. Science can not talk about objective morality because there is thus far ZERO reasons on offer to think such a thing exists. This does NOT mean science can not define objective parameters to the landscape in which we can discuss morality.

All of this you would know if you were, as I said, the kind of person to listen to someones arguments in their entirety before choosing to comment.

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Speaking of "easy“… it is easy to simply call ideas and arguments rubbish and sit back content as if you have added something useful. Alas one has not. The second step of taking an argument that a person made and explaining WHY it is rubbish is useful, but alas harder to do.

We can all call things all the names under the sun. Actually establishing why one of those labels fit is the hard part. Simply saying it never has, and likely never will, make it suddenly and magically acquire the characteristic you are flinging at it.

It's also easy to quote a single sentence out of context and then pretend as though this was the entire argument. Sentences out of context is my favourite argument, and any criticism of such a tactic is personal abuse.

Nemi

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So the answer to my question is "none" then?

Clearly not.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Therefore when it comes to moral discussions, given we have to use SOME subjective basis on which to base all the rest, I find that it is as good as any to use "human consciousness" as as starting point. I have yet to hear of a better one anyway.

Oh, absolutely. I expect morality is just a human construct.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I have said on other threads, given that it is the source of where morals come from, what they will be, who will get them, how they will be enforced... I find it not a small leap to suggest it is TO that we assign it too. I just work from there.

I'm afraid I just don't follow the point you are making here.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Exactly my point! Well done you got it! The obligations to the makers, and owners and enjoyers of the statues are why the incident does not, as you put it, have " no moral content?" and this is exactly why this is not what Sam was saying at all when you said "Does this mean the Taliban destroying the statues deemed to be a World Heritage site has no moral content?"

Well, no, because the makers are dead. How is an obligation to a corpse a concern about the well-being of a conscious being? Does that mean fossils have rights?

Plus, you have to consider what's present in the situation. If a security guard shoots you because you are trying to steal the Mona Lisa, you can argue that he's shooting you because he's protecting the well-being of art lovers. But, more immediately, he's shooting you because your life is less valuable than a picture..

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Just make sure you expect that if you cant be bothered to consider someones argument in its entirety before commenting, you will likely be quite wrong quite often.

I stick by my assessment, for the reasons stated.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You may think so but I have found nothing in what he is saying (and unlike you I have listened to all there is to hear from him on the subject without turning it off and making my opinions based on nothing) to suggest that he thinks anything of the sort. Nor have you provided anything to support that notion.

(Sigh). I haven't listen to all he said. I've listened to some which means I'm not basing my opinion on nothing.

He simply does make the claim that science can decide on questions of good and evil, in the same way as it can decide matters of human health. He does it in the material quoted on this thread. I'll mark it out for you.

Sam Harris wrote:

Moral truth entirely depends on actual and potential changes in the well-being of conscious creatures. As such, there are things to be discovered about it through careful observation and honest reasoning. It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values -- allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals -- is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do.

So the situation is exactly as I said. He make an outlandish claim that science can decide what evil is, but backs away from it in that youtube video.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is all he is saying about science and morality. Science can not talk about objective morality because there is thus far ZERO reasons on offer to think such a thing exists. This does NOT mean science can not define objective parameters to the landscape in which we can discuss morality.

Which, as I've said, is contributing nothing to the discussion. Its equivocation. The 'right' food is a different concept of 'right' to whether its 'right' to steal food. And that's all there is to see in that material. He's adding nothing to the discussion.

Science can add to understanding of the physical world, but can't say a damn thing about morality.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All of this you would know if you were, as I said, the kind of person to listen to someones arguments in their entirety before choosing to comment.

But you're only confirming exactly what I've said. You haven't raised any point which suggest that Sam Harris is doing anything apart from milking a few bob out of equivocation.

Nemi

raah! wrote: »

It's also easy to quote a single sentence out of context and then pretend as though this was the entire argument.

I'd have to agree. And, all the time, there's a complete suspension of critical analysis of the material presented. Was Sam born in a stable, or something?

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

It's also easy to quote a single sentence out of context and then pretend as though this was the entire argument. Sentences out of context is my favourite argument, and any criticism of such a tactic is personal abuse.

There is no context in which an “argument” that consists solely and wholly out of derision is out of context. If you have relevant arguments about the thesis at hand then feel free to present them. Your post #12 contained nothing of the sort and hence my quote was entirely relevant.

You simply called his arguments weak and short sighted. Not a word as to why. Not a counter argument in sight. Not a citation or display of scholarship. Just name calling, no more, no less.

So maybe you can inform me as to how my quote was out of context, or how what I said about it was in error.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nemi wrote: »

Clearly not.

Clearly yes, the answer is “none”. The question was “What moral content do you think was there, in that incident you link to, that was not concerned with the well being of a conscious creature exactly?“ and you have not shown anything in that context of a moral subject that had nothing to do with conscious creatures.

There is nothing moral or immoral in the incident in question which you have listed that had nothing to do with conscious or once conscious creatures. Or, as I asked, are you worried the statues feelings were hurt or that statues have rights????

The fact is, moral concerns only applies to conscious creatures at the end of the day.

Nemi wrote: »

I'm afraid I just don't follow the point you are making here.

The point is that morality is an entirely subjective construct, as you said yourself. Each of us has a basis for how and when to apply it. You asked me if I was linking morality to consciousness. Of course I am. It is inextricably linked to consciousness given that it is consciousness that comes up with the concept in the first place. How can something NOT be linked to the very thing that creates it?

Nemi wrote: »

Well, no, because the makers are dead. How is an obligation to a corpse a concern about the well-being of a conscious being? Does that mean fossils have rights?

So you have no respect for say "Last wills and testaments" given that corpses have no moral obligations for us to be concerned with? Wow.

Respect for the memory and the wishes of the dead actually make up a huge part of the subjective morality of most of us, I am sorry to hear this is not so for you but grateful you are in an insignificant nonvocal minority.

Anyway, try to reply to my entire argument, not just part of it. The makers of the statues were only one of a list of people I said were relevant in this context and your reply is irrelevant if taken against the entirety of what I listed and not just one part of it.

But YET AGAIN it seems your forte is to base your opinion on only a portion of what someone says. This is becoming the norm with you.

Nemi wrote: »

But, more immediately, he's shooting you because your life is less valuable than a picture..

Err no he is shooting you because your life is less valuable than the established law adhered to by the entirety of society. Such a theft in the eyes of the law makes your life forfeit if indeed shooting you is the only method of enforcing the law and protecting other peoples property.

Of course whether shooting you was the right course of action will be up to the tribunal. It sounds like an overuse of force to me.

Nemi wrote: »

He simply does make the claim that science can decide on questions of good and evil, in the same way as it can decide matters of human health.

He simply does no such thing, nor I note have you quoted him doing any such thing. Again what he IS doing is saying science has a lot to say on the framework in which we should have the conversation about what is right and wrong, good and evil. Not that it tells us exactly what is right or evil.

Nemi wrote: »

Science can add to understanding of the physical world, but can't say a damn thing about morality.

Of course it can, depending on how we subjectively define morality. For example if we define morality as being inextricably linked to "well being" then science would have much to say as it is even now beginning to map the physical states of the brain linked with feelings of well being. Data which can then be used to form the framework in which we have our moral discussions on what right and wrong may be.

Nemi

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fact is, moral concerns only applies to conscious creatures at the end of the day.

The point you are missing in all that is, indeed, only conscious creatures can have moral concerns. But they will very likely have moral concerns about things that are not conscious creatures - like whether they should honour Uncle George's dying wish that they look after his clock colllection, instead of putting it up on eBay.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But YET AGAIN it seems your forte is to base your opinion on only a portion of what someone says. This is becoming the norm with you.

I'm not sure you've quite caught up on this whole scientific method business.

Have you an opinion on whether the Bible is the word of god? Have you read it all? Including all the 'Cush begat Nimrod' stuff?

Maybe you have. If you haven't, you might start to appreciate why 8 minutes and 40 seconds is plenty of attention to give to Sam.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

nor I note have you quoted him doing any such thing. Again what he IS doing is saying science has a lot to say on the framework in which we should have the conversation about what is right and wrong, good and evil. Not that it tells us exactly what is right or evil.

To me, in that section that I quoted, he is quite clearly saying that questions of good and evil have answers in the same way as questions of human health. That's what he says, and that's pants..

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Of course it can, depending on how we subjectively define morality.

Absolutely. Without an objective definition of well-being, in the sense of moral wellness (given the equivocation issue is here again), there is nothing for science to study or pronounce upon.

But, absolutely, once I decide that I can poison those people and still be a good person, so long as I'm not caught, I'm sure science can tell me much of interest.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nemi wrote: »

The point you are missing in all that is, indeed, only conscious creatures can have moral concerns.

How can I be missing the point that I am in fact making? That WAS my point, which is exactly why the statement about the statue incident having no moral content was entirely useless and a misrepresentation of Sams Thesis.

Nemi wrote: »

Have you an opinion on whether the Bible is the word of god? Have you read it all?

Avidly, it is a very important book. I am with Atheist Ireland on their planned "Read the Bible campaign" where they will be trying to get more and more people to read the bible.

I am not sure what this tangent serves however, but given that there is no evidence, argument data OR reasons on offer to me EVER that there even IS a god entity, my opinion on its divine authorships of one of our books should be clear.

Nemi wrote: »

To me, in that section that I quoted, he is quite clearly saying that questions of good and evil have answers in the same way as questions of human health.

To you maybe. Thankfully not to many other people, nor have you given any reasons, short of saying it over and over again, why this is a valid interpretation.

Nemi wrote: »

Without an objective definition of well-being, in the sense of moral wellness there is nothing for science to study or pronounce upon.

Like all our morality, a subjective definition of well being defined within a scientific landscape would be more than enough. I do not know where this assumption we need an objective "well being" comes from.

Subjectively defining morality, and indeed well being, against a landscape defined by the language of science is all Sam Harris is advocating.

Nemi

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

How can I be missing the point that I am in fact making?

I've a feeling that the source of your confusion is my punctuation. The point you are missing is that, while only conscious creatures can have moral concerns, they will very likely have moral concerns about things that are not conscious creatures.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure what this tangent serves

I'd say the point is clear enough. Just as there's no particular need to read the whole Bible to form an opinion on it, there's no particular need to listen to all of Sam's video to decide its a waste of time.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

nor have you given any reasons, short of saying it over and over again, why this is a valid interpretation.

I didn't think that a reason was needed, as the facts of the matter were so clear.

Just for clarity, my reason for contending that Sam Harris says questions of good and evil have answers in the same way as questions of human health is because I can make a direct quote from the material posted here where he says

Sam Harris wrote:

It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values -- allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals -- is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do.

I frankly don't see where the scope is for misinterpretation there, but I'd be glad if any other poster would point in out to me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Subjectively defining morality, and indeed well being, against a landscape defined by the language of science is all Sam Harris is advocating.

That's pretty much the position that he backtracks to within 8 minutes and 40 seconds to that video. Which, as I've said, means that science contributes little of use.

The key issue in human morality is how or why individual self interest can be aligned to public self interest. Science can tell us precisely diddly squat about that, and I can tell you that with the same certainty that you can tell me about the authorship of the Bible.

But I'm sure Sam will enjoy spending your money.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nemi wrote: »

I've a feeling that the source of your confusion is my punctuation. The point you are missing is that, while only conscious creatures can have moral concerns, they will very likely have moral concerns about things that are not conscious creatures.

I am afraid the confusion lies with you because once again that is exactly the point I am making and you are making the same point back at me again.

You seem to think that if someone replied to you on this forum they must be disagreeing with you somehow and so are leaping to disagree with me but end up agreeing with me entirely. We are saying the exact same thing here.

Since as you put it... “while only conscious creatures can have moral concerns, they will very likely have moral concerns about things that are not conscious creatures“... this is EXACTLY why your comment of “Does this mean the Taliban destroying the statues deemed to be a World Heritage site has no moral content?” is ludicruous. Clearly Sams words do NOT indicate he thinks the incident in question is devoid of moral content and to even ask what you asked is a blatant mis-representation of what he is saying.

Simply apply both of your quotes above to each other and my point is made for me.

Nemi wrote: »

I'd say the point is clear enough. Just as there's no particular need to read the whole Bible to form an opinion on it

Again, if you want to comment on something without considering it in its entirety then fine, just be aware that other people do not operate that way and that more often than not it results in erroneous and incomplete opinions on matters. At least while engaging in such practices you are honest about it. Not many people admit to not having all their facts straight or not having considered the argument they disagree with in it's entirety. More often than not it is up to others to expose the fact that people are lying about what they have read/considered etc. by showing their ignorance of the material in question. You simply openly admit yours, which is refreshing.

Nemi wrote: »

I didn't think that a reason was needed, as the facts of the matter were so clear.

Only to you alas. I see nothing which supports the claims you are making no matter how "clear" you think it is. Alas the problem of conversation can often be the people who think that what is clear to them is automatically clear to everyone else and so somehow they need not back up what they are claiming at all.

Nemi wrote: »

I frankly don't see where the scope is for misinterpretation there, but I'd be glad if any other poster would point in out to me.

Of course they have answers. The misinterpretation is when people think that Sam is saying Science will give us those answers when in fact he is saying Science will give us the framework in which we discuss those answers.

Another misinterpretation of his words which is common is to think that saying they have answers means that he is saying they have one right answer and all others are wrong. The reason for the analogy to human nutrition is to show that within the frame work of what science has told us is "good nutrition" there are a vast multitude of "right answers" to how to go about it. This is exactly what Sam is saying about Morality.

So although you are quoting the right thing, I see nothing in that quote to back up your issues with him, nor is it apparent what you see wrong with the quote in question.

Nemi wrote: »

That's pretty much the position that he backtracks to

How can one back track to a position one has been expressing all along?

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So maybe you can inform me as to how my quote was out of context, or how what I said about it was in error.

It actual contained reference to arguments made by other people, and was made in the context of my thanking of other posts, and also preceeding responses to any defences made of sam harris' book

Anyway, it still stands, he's said nothing new or revolutionary. As nemi said, he's pretending that moral questions can be answered by science through use of equivocation. If he's not saying this, but saying only "science can inform moral descisions", then that's not really anythin of worth, and certainly not as revolutionary as himself and some of his new atheists buddies are claiming.

Things like that have been around for as long as people knew fire was hot. An example, fire burns things, setting people on fire kills them. This isn't showing that science solves moral problems, it shows fire burns people.

I have argued all these points with another poster from here in anohter thread, but it comes down to Hume's Gap (I didn't now about this at the time, but another poster told us about it, and that's what I was arguing) "it is a logical impossibility to travel from an is to an ought".