• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Sam Harris's proposal of making morality scientific

RaBind

sparta? THIS IS MADNESS!!!
Local time
Today 12:02 PM
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
664
---
Location
Kent, UK
I've been have a conversation on YouTube about the topic and it's pretty interesting. Reading opinions would be interesting.

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

By the way I haven't read his book and so pretty much all my thoughts are conjectures, so maybe someone who has read the book give some opinions.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 6:02 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
I haven't read his book about this particular issue, but I have followed his public appearances pretty closely. I think his opinion regarding the is/ought distinctions as arbitrarily distinct categories is persuasive, and his comparison of morality to health pretty apt. People use relativism and nihilism against morality more often they do against health.
 

RaBind

sparta? THIS IS MADNESS!!!
Local time
Today 12:02 PM
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
664
---
Location
Kent, UK
I haven't read his book about this particular issue, but I have followed his public appearances pretty closely. I think his opinion regarding the is/ought distinctions as arbitrarily distinct categories is persuasive, and his comparison of morality to health pretty apt. People use relativism and nihilism against morality more often they do against health.

I see. I agree on the health thing, can you expand on the is/ought distinctions bit.

The video that I've linked is more so to do with the fact that people can't seem to reconcile that science can possible act as a significant authority in the subject of morality.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 6:02 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
He claims that you can only know certain facts if you value certain ways of seeing the world. If you want to see, then you ought to use your eyes. If you want to see reality, then you ought to value reason and evidence. If life is good, then you ought to value it.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 5:02 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,431
---
Location
with mama
He claims that you can only know certain facts if you value certain ways of seeing the world. If you want to see, then you ought to use your eyes. If you want to see reality, then you ought to value reason and evidence. If life is good, then you ought to value it.

under circumstances and finite knowledge we move based on biological drives. ambiguity does not allow for action with certainty so causes disjunction. only then we question but otherwise we follow biology so reasoning in accordance with biology. is ought is the continuation of survival where is is knowledge of environment and ought is survival. i can make society better for everyone by providing optimization of needs which contain unambiguous determinants that makes my life better in that cooperation.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 12:02 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,384
---
Scientists often propose radical ideas that are complete rubbish, and change their minds on them every 10 years. Sam Harris forgets that the same people he wants to put in charge of morality, used to say that introverts like him are mentally ill, and used to lock up the people they considered mentally ill in a padded cell for the rest of their lives.

Let scientists put him in a padded cell for 3 years, and then let's see if he still holds to his ideas.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 9:32 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
7,065
---
Is the mere notion of science tackling a question so offensive you'd want someone to be locked up for it?
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
Yes, that is why the rule of law exists. It ensures that the actions of individuals falls in line with the morality a society has chosen to follow. If you ask two different people what is morally right you will get two different answers. If you do not follow the collectively chosen morality you are punished(prison), so people have to follow it or be exiled. They don't have to believe in it but someones belief only hurts others when translated into action. Individuality and deviation from the norm is only a problem when there are actionable consequences in which case we have systems in place already.

The idea proposed is thought policing, a la psycho-pass(an anime were they read your mind for law breaking tendencies). There is so much wrong in this, it stifles creativity, it makes you live in constant fear of thinking the wrong thing (something you have no control over) and of course it doesn't allow for free thought to reach your own conclusions. The only reason I would prefer to live in psycho pass universe over NK is the fact that thier prison cells are nicer, at least NK isn't capable of monitoring my thoughts... yet.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
Seteleechete: you're wrong. a rational morality does not entail thought policing. instead, its method consists in reflection and argument. thought policing is one of the first things typically realized to be unhealthy and counterproductive from this perspective. to have an opinion is not the same as forcing others to share it.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
No, it is the act of forcing it upon others that does. We agree lol, oh well.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
you say "the idea proposed is thought policing", ostensibly referring to harris' idea. did you change your mind since then? otherwise we're not in agreement.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
Scientists often propose radical ideas that are complete rubbish, and change their minds on them every 10 years. Sam Harris forgets that the same people he wants to put in charge of morality, used to say that introverts like him are mentally ill, and used to lock up the people they considered mentally ill in a padded cell for the rest of their lives.

Let scientists put him in a padded cell for 3 years, and then let's see if he still holds to his ideas.

The argument was a continuation of this train of thought.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
Now that I had time to think. By making morality a "health issue" it implies that it is something that should be treated which is thought policing. Unless it transfers into actual consequences(breaking the law) it shouldn't be treated as such.
 

kvothe27

Active Member
Local time
Today 5:02 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
382
---
Based on what I'm seeing in this video, Amazon reviews of his book, interviews, and various discussions regarding this book, it doesn't appear his book is worth reading. It sounds like Aristotelianism (his talk of human flourishing) with a consequentialist bent. Instead of talk of teleology, he talks of well-being and flourishing, which sounds an awful lot like teleology. Instead of providing us with a theoretical framework, he avoids the task of providing one by making an analogy with economics. But, if we want data on how to increase our well being such that we can flourish, we already have that with psychology.

If you want to read a decent attempt to get around the is/ought problem with a reconstructed moral system arising from it, I'd recommend After Virtue by MacIntyre. If anyone else knows of other modern decent attempts to circumvent the is-ought problem and the disordered nature of modern morality, I'm open to recommendations.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 5:02 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,431
---
Location
with mama
If you want to read a decent attempt to get around the is/ought problem with a reconstructed moral system arising from it, I'd recommend After Virtue by MacIntyre. If anyone else knows of other modern decent attempts to circumvent the is-ought problem and the disordered nature of modern morality, I'm open to recommendations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue

what of the problem of feudalism?
the king is not God so if best to be society pre enlightenment where does science come in where the barbarism of Crucifixion or torture as capital punishment means the state has authority by mob rule. the individual is not safe from immoral groups that claim authority by force not reason gives rise to war. the individual and the mob both need reason or they are using emotivism pre enlightenment just under the control of the kings propoganda so organization based on reason gives the individual a chance to reason in a free society because ideas of freedom are needed for progress. if morality is based on Darwinism which is hobs war against all the science is the relinquishment of animal-ism. if war is good man is what he is is a creature of slaughter of man. to begin as a killing hunting animal. this is not moral. why say that reason = emotionalism when collective emotionalism is hyper evil pre enlightenment. reason replaced emotivism by giving the authority to mans reason as an individual who does not need a king who is ruled by his emotivism himself is not immune to human flaws. man kills man is immoral so authority is not mans allegiances but to reason that abridges bad relationships or cruelty authorized by others to others. fall of rome ?
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 6:02 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
Now that I had time to think. By making morality a "health issue" it implies that it is something that should be treated which is thought policing. Unless it transfers into actual consequences(breaking the law) it shouldn't be treated as such.

You are not forced to follow the doctor's advice, but no one disputes that there are some things the doctor just knows.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
We already force treatment on mentally unstable people. The line between questionable morality and mental instability is blurry and I think it should be drawn based on the actions one commits rather than the mentality one has. Otherwise we might as well do away with the concept of personal responsibility.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 6:02 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
We are talking about epistemology, not enforcement. Whether we are forced to be good is a completely different matter. Whether it is good to be forced to be good is a completely different question from whether you are told that something is indeed good.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
Labels and enforcement correlate. By calling something a "mental" or "health" issue it implies enforcement may be needed. While "a different disagreeble way of thinking" doesn't. On that note I feel I don't have enough info on this topic so I will be stepping away now.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 6:02 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
Thought and behavior are different categories. To paraphrase Saul of Tarsus, your soul belongs to Jesus but your ass belongs to me.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
i have seen a clip called: are you base belong to us

which was made from an old video game
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 12:02 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
---
Location
stockholm
Sam Harris FTW. No science isn't perfect, science couldn't exist without scientists and scientists are humans. What Harris proposes is just way better than what we have today anyway.

Morality is already in the hands of things which have done much worse than science ever did.
 

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:02 PM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
---
Didn't the scientific progress enable all the horrors of the WW2, Stalinism, Maoism and terror?
Obviously science isn't to blame but why should we accept the mere projection that science did anything or will do anything?
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 6:02 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
Didn't the scientific progress enable all the horrors of the WW2, Stalinism, Maoism and terror?
Obviously science isn't to blame but why should we accept the mere projection that science did anything or will do anything?

You claim that it enabled atrocity without enabling anything else?

Stick with one line of reasoning, please.
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 12:02 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
---
Location
stockholm
Of course science enables greater atrocities, and there's always a risk of science being abducted and twisted by other ideologies, however there's a much clearer distinction between science and ideology nowadays than there was back in the early days of darwinism
 

J-man

Cobra Kai
Local time
Today 6:02 AM
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
201
---
You are not forced to follow the doctor's advice, but no one disputes that there are some things the doctor just knows.
The internet is a much better doctor than any doctor I've ever been to.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 6:02 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
The internet is a much better doctor than any doctor I've ever been to.

That was not necessarily in dispute, and I tend to agree. But I don't impugn the knowledge of doctors categorically. There are a few things they just know.
 

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:02 PM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
---
You claim that it enabled atrocity without enabling anything else?

Stick with one line of reasoning, please.
I don't claim this, I used the word enable.

Also, why would I stick to a single line of reasoning?
I see no reason to do that.

Not implying that I did use more than one line of reasoning but I see no downside to that.

For example why would I have to add that science enables positive things?
Isn't it obvious by my second sentence alone? Why would I waste time like that?
Of course science enables greater atrocities, and there's always a risk of science being abducted and twisted by other ideologies, however there's a much clearer distinction between science and ideology nowadays than there was back in the early days of darwinism
Agreed I just don't see what he says being much different from utilitarianism, etc. Also science is based on assumptions as is the case with any ideology.

For example I don't see how would human biology be normative to human conduct since it can be altered and adjusted to human needs.

Can anyone link the list of his claims? That video does a poor job of organising his position and the wikipedia just gives random bits of his science of morality.

Maybe if we get to the point when all these processes that govern the emergence of well being are described and modeled then we can say it is directly beneficial, or objective for that person. Until then it is a mere speculation or theory.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 6:02 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
Either science enabled those things, in which case it had indeed "done something" as you say, or it didn't, in which case it did nothing, including the development of nuclear weapons. You imply that it produced amazing effects and then immediately backtrack, implying the exact opposite. Either it is amaIng or not.

Science is actually the opposite of some of the implications of being an ideology. Ideology implies certain dogmas that remain fixed, and are ideas about the world's facts. Science on the other hand is not an ideology like this but is instead a method by which we process these ideas for verification of their logical and empirical reality. Ideology can be a product of this process; but if science had been a rigid ideology, then it would have not succeeded as a method in the past centuries. You can't really pick and choose science as a mere item in a catalog of worldviews because the worldviews with which it would share a category would rest on content rather than process.
 

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:02 PM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
---
Either science enabled those things, in which case it had indeed "done something" as you say, or it didn't, in which case it did nothing, including the development of nuclear weapons. You imply that it produced amazing effects and then immediately backtrack, implying the exact opposite. Either it is amaIng or not.

Enabling in a sense: allowed. If you still don't understand that doing is not enabling then I will leave that.

I disagree, science can be amazing and horrible at the same time and it isn't a contradiction, I just don't use/accept the law of excluded middle.

Science is actually the opposite of some of the implications of being an ideology.
To certain extent science is a process of forming and updating a progressive ideology, or a progressive belief in empiricism that was started by Newton.
You can't argue it is different since there are many other ideologies which evolve and adapt with time, for example Christianity changes its core assumptions and adjust to the modern times, we can see this process and its recent and past developments.

Wouldn't a prophet and his written words be in principle the same source of information to christianity as the empirical experiment is to science?

The real world experiments don't necessarily have some overruling say in this case that would allow beliefs based on assumptions of such to place it above different assumptions of reality, only including at least those that hold true in both ideologies or are unprovable.

And here we are again, what and where and how it should be decided what is true or not.

Things can be true in some applications, but false or irrelevant in others, this goes for any set of axioms or assumptions about reality or about a human being.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
Blarraun: i think we should focus less on science and its community, and more on the bridging of the is-ought gap in principle. that's what this is about. it's not mere vanilla utilitarianism because the values/ends/goals are negotiable too. harris' proposal may not be original but he does a good job emphasizing it imo.
 

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:02 PM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
---
Blarraun: i think we should focus less on science and its community, and more on the bridging of the is-ought gap in principle. that's what this is about. it's not mere vanilla utilitarianism because the values/ends/goals are negotiable too. harris' proposal may not be original but he does a good job emphasizing it imo.
I don't disagree. I just don't see how it's possible at this stage of development. Regardless of what is nothing ought to be, even things that are don't necessarily ought to exist, they just do.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
Okay, now that I actually read about his proposal (yes I post first, seek facts later; sue me). I find an issue in nature vs nurture. While we may find common morality based on the former, the later prevents a common ground from being reached. Our values are heavily influenced by nurture and the differences gained here can be enormous. We could potentially find common ground on some issues that are mostly influenced by our nature, I can agree with that.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 12:02 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,384
---
You are not forced to follow the doctor's advice, but no one disputes that there are some things the doctor just knows.
Argument from authority. That's why they have to go to school, so they can learn to explain why they believe what they believe, and why we have lab tests, so we don't have to just assume they are omniscient prophets of an infallible god of medical science.

Sam Harris FTW. No science isn't perfect, science couldn't exist without scientists and scientists are humans. What Harris proposes is just way better than what we have today anyway.

Morality is already in the hands of things which have done much worse than science ever did.
So you think that chemistry and physics aren't science? You think that a plumber developed Xyklon B, the V1 and V2 rockets, biological WMDs, chemical WMDs and nuclear warheads?

Besides, the whole point of scientists relying on experiments and evidence, is so you don't need to trust them. If they were trustworthy, that wouldn't be an issue. The point of scientific experiments and scientific evidence, is to have things that are reliable enough, that even if ISIS claimed they were true and all scientists said they were false, we could verify them independently. If we need to start taking scientists' word for it, we really are going back to the days when a small more educated elite group dictated everything that other people thought, i.e. the feudal age when religions held sway over most of Europe.

You claim that it enabled atrocity without enabling anything else?

Stick with one line of reasoning, please.
So if a rapist donates half a million dollars to a university, we should not charge him with rape, but praise him, and give him a seat next to your sister?

Perhaps we should give credit where credit was due. The Nazis funded Von Braun's research, and pushed him to make better and better rockets that could go farther and farther, and it was his work in America that enabled NASA to go into space. Thanks to NASA developing rockets to go into space, we could put satellites into orbit, that could establish world-wide communications, GPS, and mobile phone networks. You have mobile phones, sat navs and worldwide communications over such things as the internet,. thanks to that.

Would you like to thank Mr Hitler now for making your modern world so great? Perhaps you'd like to shake the hand of a neo-Nazi? Would you like more? Just need another world war.

I'd rather have skipped World War 2. If that meant I'd have to do without a mobile phone or a GPS, people managed for many years before without one. I figure that I could manage.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
scorpiomover: i think harris too sees science as an inquisitive mindset rather than an authoritative body of knowledge or privileged domain.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 6:02 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
Yeah, it seems scorpiomover missed where I was coming from, and then goes on to blame science for WWII. I blame people for that war, but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate our existence. I guess if we nipped the evolution of people in the bud, then none of this would have happened. It was not science that was the driving force behind the madness of the Twentieth Century, but the conceit of humankind to know before investigating. The Nazis and the Mother Russians and the Land of the Rising Sun slaughtered millions of people because of hatred of the complexity of the modern world, not because they found it interesting. And Nixon and Kissinger were far from being scientifically objective. You would also have to give up more things than NASA without science. Think back to the barbarity of tens of thousands of years ago before even a trace of scientific method was applied to human society.

Scorpio also neglects my further clarifications of my absence of absolute faith in doctors. I am not saying that they are always right, but I know they know something.
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 12:02 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
---
Location
stockholm
No, scorpio, I don't think that. I think that science didnt launch those missiles and you know that so why the fervous strawman? Same shit with your reply to Tberg. Man youre a drag.

Who is talking about taking anybodys word for it? Not Harris or anybody in this thread. Thats what were doing now anyway, taking peoples word for morality.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 6:02 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
That's pretty funny. You'll notice that my argument goes beyond that, though.

We should so blame the velociraptors!
 

Jennywocky

Creepy Clown Chick
Local time
Today 7:02 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,739
---
Location
Charn
^^ They're crafty bastards, I'm sure.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 6:02 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
Damn. I can't deal with life without my Google Maps. I guess I can just seethe with anger on the inside.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 1:02 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
be careful not to do what you could've done instead, or we may have a future lacking in the technologies which result from the previous ones.
 
Top Bottom