Sam Harris's proposal of making morality scientific

[Jennywocky]

Might as well kill Turing now. Just for grins.

[Don't kill Cumberbatch by accident, he's got a little play left in him yet.]

 

[TBerg]

Don't want to have the public go Minority Report on the detectives now, for a little role reversal, would we?

 

[Brontosaurie]

you might wanna check so that the law of identity still applies whenever you opt to perform an action.

 

[Absurdity]

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.

Am I the only one who thinks he gave a horribly bumbling answer that didn't even address the guy's point? Kvothe is right in that he's basically advocating an incoherent form of teleology. He can't seem to make any argument that isn't at its core just an appeal to common sense.

His 23-minute long TED talk is pretty good.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right

This video isn't much better (although to be fair I gave up halfway through from boredom). Predicating your "scientific" morality on the lack of human suffering seems misguided - I don't see how that could go anywhere other than wireheading.

I think the real way out of the is/ought morass is teleological but does not take individual humans as its atomic unit. Extropy production seems like a better, or at least more interesting, candidate.

Pleasure is a trap. We should strive for order.

Edit: Now that I think about it a bit more, extropy and the absence of suffering could be thought of as synonymous or at least mutually reinforcing. Maybe my criticism is just a misunderstanding of his position.

 

[The Introvert]

It seems to me that his argument is founded on two general ideas:

1. There is a biological context to morality, if we understand morality to be a subset or collection of emotions.

2. Because we don't yet understand morality in full, we can gather information not only through technological advancements and science on human emotion, but also by weeding out the "easy" answers to questions of morality, ie the lowing-hanging fruit acid-in-the-face question.

His premise (as I understand it) is basically: since there is some biological context to morality, we should eventually be able to put together all the small little pieces we gather over time and piece together right and wrong answers to moral issues.

However...

I'm not convinced that morality is even significantly influenced by human emotion. I think the case needs to be made first on the question of whether or not there even is a biological context to answering questions of morality. I think in some way Kvothe has addressed this in his likening of Harriss's proposition to a form of teleology.

 

[TBerg]

It is clear that INTPs use emotion as the basis of what they value: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=21345

It is clear that values are intricately connected to questions of morality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology

Happiness to morality is as good taste is to culinary arts.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Fallacious induction my friend, an attempted provocation or both.

 

[TBerg]

I am just trying to get across the connection that we should just see in our lives.

 

[The Introvert]

You've still failed to address the first point adequately, as that thread talks about how emotion influences our actions... still nothing on morality, in other words what ought to be done.

 

[TBerg]

INTPs tell us that emotions inform them about what ought to be done. Without the emotional impulse, how could there ever be any "ought"? It would all be analysis and synthesis. We know humans are not robotic like that.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

INTPs tell us that emotions inform them about what ought to be done. Without the emotional impulse, how could there ever be any "ought"? It would all be analysis and synthesis. We know humans are not robotic like that.

perhaps you're confusing decision making with morality...?

 

[TBerg]

perhaps you're confusing decision making with morality...?

If INTPs don't value anything, then they cannot make decisions. If they make decisions, that means they value things. If they value things, then they must have emotional impulses that ground this axiology.

 

[The Introvert]

So you're saying that without a value system, no decisions can be made.

I don't buy it. I can easily think of situations in which I can make a decision without feeling any sort of emotion at all, and simply using reason and logic to come to a conclusion.

 

[JimJambones]

Creating morality based purely on science seems like a narrow position to adopt.

 

[TBerg]

We value certain logical principles because they provide us with a certain emotional state. Irrationality arouses a sense of distrust. How do we decide which logical principles we value?

 

[The Introvert]

I'm not adopting the position that morality should be based purely on science, I'm questioning it. I also just happen to be questioning the assumption that morality should be based purely on our emotions, or that there is even a direct relationship between the two. I guess I'm asking what morality even is.

TBerg, don't know if you're trolling or not, but I'll reply with what I deem to be appropriate. We decide which principles are valued based on the relative stupidity of the conclusions they inevitably reach.

 

[TBerg]

Sam Harris wants us to consider subjective well-being as the empirical basis of scientific morality. Based off of our emotions we will lay a scientific morality that will give our well-being the fullest expression. In this way, our logic is the slave to our passions, but it is logic that refines our passions to the highest potential. INTPs, for example, use their powers of reason in order to keep them away from emotional dangers. In this way, they know what might be considered immoral emotions they need to rationalize away.

 

[Black Rose]

TBerg, don't know if you're trolling or not, but I'll reply with what I deem to be appropriate. We decide which principles are valued based on the relative stupidity of the conclusions they inevitably reach.

i value that 1 + 1 = 3
i know that 1 + 1 = 2

i think that this not really compatible to anything
emotion is not truth it is a state or condition relative to truth

morality based on rationality would not base itself on arbitrary conditions because emotions can be wrong only if they preclude the invariable state of affairs.

 

[The Introvert]

i value that 1 + 1 = 3
i know that 1 + 1 = 2

i think that this not really compatible to anything
emotion is not truth it is a state or condition relative to truth

What do you mean by you "value" 1+1=3? Maybe we're misunderstanding what each other means when we say "value". All I was trying to say is that, when comparing logical conclusions, we should place a higher value on the logic that produces a less stupid result. In your example, 1+1=2 is valued higher than 1+1=3 because the latter is stupid (and not even logical, but you get the point I hope).

morality based on rationality would not base itself on arbitrary conditions because emotions can be wrong only if they preclude the invariable state of affairs.

This sentence doesn't make sense to me. The two clauses don't seem to be related. Plus I don't know what you mean by arbitrary conditions.

Sam Harris wants us to consider subjective well-being as the empirical basis of scientific morality. Based off of our emotions we will lay a scientific morality that will give our well-being the fullest expression. In this way, our logic is the slave to our passions, but it is logic that refines our passions to the highest potential. INTPs, for example, use their powers of reason in order to keep them away from emotional dangers. In this way, they know what might be considered immoral emotions they need to rationalize away.

That makes a bit more sense to me. But I still don't understand why you can't just have a moral system based on relative outcomes rather than how something makes you feel. I guess what I'm saying is that even if there is a biological context to morality (which in some way I admit there probably is), I think the goal with science should be to avoid those kinds of subjective opinions as much as possible and focus on what is objective. That, to me, is what the goal of science should be (although it is clearly driven by personal motives, emotion, etc. and that's a good thing... if not abused).

 

[TBerg]

One paradoxical question to consider: Could you say that it is objectively wrong to make everyone objectively miserable without considering their subjective feelings? Would their subjectivity be on fact the final arbiter of the matter, for how could you tell someone is miserable without asking them about their subjective feelings? How could you know that what we call misery is a bad thing without a having an emotional aversion to it?

 

[Hadoblado]

@Abs

Am I the only one who thinks he gave a horribly bumbling answer that didn't even address the guy's point? Kvothe is right in that he's basically advocating an incoherent form of teleology. He can't seem to make any argument that isn't at its core just an appeal to common sense.

It’s not an appeal to common sense in the fallacious sense. It’s using the beliefs we have in common to set the stage for distilling core principles and then applying them to that which is not in common.

This video isn't much better (although to be fair I gave up halfway through from boredom). Predicating your "scientific" morality on the lack of human suffering seems misguided - I don't see how that could go anywhere other than wireheading.

I haven’t read his thoughts on wireheading, but I infer that he doesn’t conclude it.

1) He espouses honesty in everything. At a Kantian level.

2) He thinks beliefs play an important part in how pleasure and misery are experienced. The example he used iirc was the pain of labour being a far more happy experience than if that same pain were elicited by a torturer.

C) It follows that, if wireheading is believed to not be a satisfactory solution to ethics, people will believe it so. The outcome would be inferior to a more natural outcome that experiences less raw pleasure. The honesty part is important because that means we know he wouldn’t push to have people deceived into thinking wireheading was anything more than what it is.

I can see why you think he'd go there, but I don't think he'd go there.

@Introvert
Is it important that the motivator is an emotion, or that it’s subjective? We can avoid what seems like a red herring entirely by speaking in terms of the latter IMO. Can we agree that while maybe not every decision requires an emotion, every decision does require a value?
Either way, to me it seems like you underestimate the extent to which emotions influence action. Logic is great, but it’s usually used in conjunction with an emotional masterplan.

@Zerkalo
Not all decision making is morality, but all morality is decision making. Maybe.

@JimJamBones

Creating morality based purely on science seems like a narrow position to adopt.

Well… What other alternatives do we have? At the very least, I think it should have jurisdiction over the domain of ‘is’. Since any morality is playing sly with Hume’s guillotine, science would at least have as solid a foundation as any to then address ‘ought’.
I guess I can understand not wanting science to be the only place we go for morality. But I think it’s really rather strange that people want to keep it out of morality entirely.

@Introvert once more
Well-being is a thing that can be observed, we’re not kicking it out of science. If you’re doing it scientifically, you should be objective in how you quantify well-being, but just because something is a subjective experience doesn’t mean it can’t be studied in an objective fashion. That’s like… most of psychology… Well-being is an objective outcome that can be measured in a variety of ways, though mostly through the blurry lens of statistics.

 

[Black Rose]

What do you mean by you "value" 1+1=3? Maybe we're misunderstanding what each other means when we say "value". All I was trying to say is that, when comparing logical conclusions, we should place a higher value on the logic that produces a less stupid result. In your example, 1+1=2 is valued higher than 1+1=3 because the latter is stupid (and not even logical, but you get the point I hope).

This sentence doesn't make sense to me. The two clauses don't seem to be related. Plus I don't know what you mean by arbitrary conditions.

you can value something that is not true but you can not know something is true if it is not true. i can value untrue things such as 1 + 1 = 3 but reject the mechanism by which i would conclude that it is untrue. if i value truth then truth and value are compatible but if i only value emotion i will not determine my values in relation to truth. truth is a constant, values can be arbitrary. their alignment mean i can value truth such that 1 + 1 = 2 but if they are arbitrary i can also value stupid things such as 1 + 1 = 3. in the condition that i want to know truth values are no longer arbitrary. 1 + 1 = 3 is not stupid to a person who values 1 + 1 = 3. they would say you are stupid for valuing 1 + 1 = 2 and your belief that they are stupid is stupid. they want 1 + 1 to equal 3 so they value it that way. if the conditions make it so they can change something to be how they want it to be it is not a principle but a variable. values are variables not principles. if someone does not like the state condition they change it. the only principle to be followed and is what i meant was that if you want to change state / a condition it must be possible not impossible. if i want to wear blue shoes i can wear blue shoes but if i want 1 + 1 = 3 it is impossible therefore it is not a value because it is not a variable i can change to a preferable state. values are the preferences i want not the principles that are invariable. i can not change a principle to what i want it to be, i can only know that it is true. i can want to know truth but truth is a true regardless of my preferences/emotions/values/wants. values and principles are separate categories so some principles are stupid and others are not based on possibility and impossibility well objects of value are stupid if they are something i do not want.

 

[Rualani]

We already have natural processes that guide what we ought to do. It will just take a bit of synthesis with other principles and values. Also, exceptions to the rule frequently exist in nature, therefore there is no such thing as a pure "ought" for everyone. The best we can do is determine the course of actions that fulfills that most oughts for our race.

I think I agree with what Tberg is saying, but I am note sure 'emotions' completely grounds it. I would say that there is a way to evaluate the qualia, or subjective experience on it's own to make a decision on morality. Objective indicators are simply guideposts to determine what this experience is. We consistently use our own subjective experience to make is/ought comparisons about the people around us. Like, I really don't want to be in pain all the time, and If I can determine a biological basis for this aversion in my species, I can then assume that they have the same experience towards pain. They ought not to feel pain, because I realized that I ought not to feel pain. This could be argued as an emotionalal state, but I feel like that is rooted in biology. If those are emotions, then I suppose I am simply in full agreement.

I am more unclear on the synthesis between this and peoples values. For example, I heard from Robert Sapolsky that there is a certain personality that modifies the view of the world in a way that makes it a better experience. When measuring stress levels, the person is still way stressed out as a consequence of this mental trick, but that person will consistently tell you how fantastic everything is. So an objective indicators -stress- doesn't work in this scenario if I am to make the subjective experience the determining factor of morality. I don't think this exception breaks the rule, but it brings up points on the subjective experience versus the biology of the situation.

 

[ZenRaiden]

lol sam harris what a joke fart jokes are smarter than him

 

[RaBind]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=550nhrMNImI

Here's the full video that might provide more context to the video.

 

[RaBind]

@JimJamBones

Well… What other alternatives do we have? At the very least, I think it should have jurisdiction over the domain of ‘is’. Since any morality is playing sly with Hume’s guillotine, science would at least have as solid a foundation as any to then address ‘ought’.
I guess I can understand not wanting science to be the only place we go for morality. But I think it’s really rather strange that people want to keep it out of morality entirely.

Yes especially so when science has had such success in the empiric truths part of knowledge.

Science itself at it's foundation is only philosophy after all, so the same things that you could use to criticize scientific morality are also ones that apply to science in general. SO basically empiricism is a foundation of science, which all other claims are judged on, but empiricism itself doesn't have any proof by which it claims it's truthfulness, other then the very results it produces, which is compatible to a book being true because it says so in the book.

You do not see literate societies doubting the superiority of their scientific philosophies to the truth investigate methodologies of illiterate societies. No one in their right minds is confused about whether the scientific method is better than voodoo/witchcraft are they? Yet people can be illogically opposed to the idea of the superiority of one set of morals to another set, even though the tangible results in terms of well being are clearly there for everyone to see, just as in the same way science is favored by showing results. Moral relativism is just baffling.

 

[Hadoblado]

Moral relativism is incredibly powerful. It's a simple and accessible position that prevents false perspectives from causing harm. It's generally superior to all positions but one: the truth. When truth is attainable however, it becomes an enormous burden by safe-housing bad ideas.

My mother is a moral relativist; it drives me nuts.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think one weakness that 'scientific morality' would have is the amount of data that would be required to make the moral decision. It's not like we're going to have time to go to the lab and analyse everything we do, and not to mention there might be a shortage of data, as in similar moral cases which we would analyze. Some decisions have to be made on the spot, you just don't have time or resources sometimes to check up with science. Some moral cases are too singular in themselves. Too much perspectives and factors to consider.

Not to name bash or anything, but I don't take Sam Harris that seriously- he doesn't do well in discussions and debates with spritualists and religious apologists, namely William Lane Craig.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Moral relativism is incredibly powerful. It's a simple and accessible position that prevents false perspectives from causing harm. It's generally superior to all positions but one: the truth. When truth is attainable however, it becomes an enormous burden by safe-housing bad ideas.

My mother is a moral relativist; it drives me nuts.

So assuming there's an universal morality that most chose to agree with and trust as truth. Does it have any right to call every other perspective a "bad idea" or force the morality on others? Because I'd presume that individual preference is at heart of any such system. To the extent that truth is always less important than individual freedom of choice.

 

[Hadoblado]

So assuming there's an universal morality that most chose to agree with and trust as truth. Does it have any right to call every other perspective a "bad idea" or force the morality on others? Because I'd presume that individual preference is at heart of any such system. To the extent that truth is always less important than individual freedom of choice.

Do the people holding such a belief have the right to call other perspectives bad? IMO Yes.

Do those same people have the right to then force their morality on others? Well... that would depend on the nature of that universal truth, but as a guess I'd go with no.

I trust it's not lost on you that the prioritisation of individual freedom of choice is an example of just such a universal morality? And that moral relativism as a position is impotent to criticise anything that would infringe on said freedom (as well as itself)?

I think one weakness that 'scientific morality' would have is the amount of data that would be required to make the moral decision. It's not like we're going to have time to go to the lab and analyse everything we do, and not to mention there might be a shortage of data, as in similar moral cases which we would analyze. Some decisions have to be made on the spot, you just don't have time or resources sometimes to check up with science. Some moral cases are too singular in themselves. Too much perspectives and factors to consider.

That could certainly be a limitation, but I wouldn't call it a weakness. Every bit of data that takes time to analyse is simply being ignored by other approaches (to the extent that your criticism applies). If you don't have time then sure use something else, but the number of times this comes up for the regular person is very rare.

Not to name bash or anything, but I don't take Sam Harris that seriously- he doesn't do well in discussions and debates with spiritualists and religious apologists, namely William Lane Craig.

Could you please link to the specific debates etc. that you're talking about?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I trust it's not lost on you that the prioritisation of individual freedom of choice is an example of just such a universal morality? And that moral relativism as a position is impotent to criticise anything that would infringe on said freedom (as well as itself)?

It is not universal, it is my personal universal belief, I wouldn't accept any universal claim that didn't include it. It is possible to criticise actions based on perspectives (sets of assumptions), this way it's no different from what Harris does, only assumptions are different, not the process. Usually it's the victim's pov.

I think it's more about knowledge vs agnosticism and about defining what humans are. If you define what someone is, does it still count as morality or is it simply the right of the powerful to enforce rules according to the laid out mechanics? All the accompanying names then are obfuscating the reality of submitting to the winner. Any immoral action requires force or prevention to stop it.

With that:
Either any immoral action is insane, requires treatment, or any immoral action invalidates the universal morality.

 

[Hadoblado]

It is not universal, it is my personal universal belief, I wouldn't accept any universal claim that didn't include it. It is possible to criticise actions based on perspectives (sets of assumptions), this way it's no different from what Harris does, only assumptions are different, not the process. Usually it's the victim's pov.

Agreed.

I think it's more about knowledge vs agnosticism and about defining what humans are. If you define what someone is, does it still count as morality or is it simply the right of the powerful to enforce rules according to the laid out mechanics? All the accompanying names then are obfuscating the reality of submitting to the winner. Any immoral action requires force or prevention to stop it.

Well... this is getting difficult not to text-wall...

I am agnostic as to universal truths, but find most I talk to far too reluctant to dismiss opposing views, especially memetic aggression. You talk about defining people, and to be honest I'm not sure precisely what you mean by that, but my admittedly limited perspective on this is that defining ideas is far more important than defining people.

I have no intention of forcing my views on others. I do however think it a good thing to curtail the spread of ideas that fail to justify themselves beyond their ability to replicate, and to promote the accessibility of ideas that have been shown to be robust to criticism.

 

[Black Rose]

Either any immoral action is insane, requires treatment, or any immoral action invalidates the universal morality.

there is a misconception on what morality is. at its most basic is self restraint knowing the consequences of your actions. when we call something immoral usually it is because we know that the person committing an immoral act knows they are doing the wrong thing on purpose. and at that point we have to ask what are they thinking that makes them do so. if someone does something we disagree with such as conservatives thinking homosexuals are immoral then in this instance conservatives don't understand morality at all. we would normally be convinced conservatives are immoral in opposition but in reality they they are amoral or morally unaware. we should apose them but not based on their immorality but on their amorality. now when it comes to sadism this is clearly immoral based on them knowing the consequences. you and i might not respect the fact that they do this but they are fully aware and it is not something you or i would do ourselves because of our moral restraint but then it comes to if conservatives think abortion is sadism. its not but in their minds and in the minds of anyone what constitutes immorality is knowingly doing the wrong thing on purpose. and how do we know it is wrong? for conservatives wrong comes from the amygdala and in liberals it comes from the anterior cingulate. a universal morality is not possible if we use different parts of the brain to know what is wrong but we do know that the intention or lack of restraint comes from the brain and the awareness of your own moral commitments(internal moral restraints).

 

[onesteptwostep]

Could you please link to the specific debates etc. that you're talking about?

Posted on your wall thingy. They're pretty long though; hope you enjoy them.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I am agnostic as to universal truths, but find most I talk to far too reluctant to dismiss opposing views, especially memetic aggression. You talk about defining people, and to be honest I'm not sure precisely what you mean by that, but my admittedly limited perspective on this is that defining ideas is far more important than defining people.

Right, senseless propagating aggression and the rest of hate league. I deem it wrong, though I don't deem wrong those that are neutral/undecided about it.

I have no intention of forcing my views on others. I do however think it a good thing to curtail the spread of ideas that fail to justify themselves beyond their ability to replicate, and to promote the accessibility of ideas that have been shown to be robust to criticism.

The grounds for justification are subjective. I'd say everything on a private personal level is acceptable, still can be proven wrong noninvasively. Everything that leaves the privacy can be subject to criticism and protection of public interest.

(...)

So you draw two cases:
1.Amorality as the lack of awareness to the distinction or fork in a more general moral stance.
2.Immorality as being aware of the fact of going against conventions, other's moral views, et al.
--
1. They are aware of the conflict of values and are claiming that the other group is wrong. You might say that outsider or another group might think of them as unaware of each other's merits.

2.It can be said, they have a different morality/values that allow them to accept what they do. (Or they are mad, (criminal intent) or made a bad decision/error)

It's a bit muddled between ethics for the society and personal morals, there is a distinction which your post didn't make from what I've read.
I can't tell where the particular reactions are forming, how does different biological functioning not make a perfect case of different "subjectively universal" views co-existing. Anything that arises physically is legal by definition imo.
That's what I understand from your post, if there is anything I missed please point it out.

Still I wouldn't want to discuss things here, best if it's done outside this thread, which should stay on topic.

 

[Black Rose]

if the subjective moral character lack empathy of the supposed immoral judgments of another's framework then immoral behavior would be from that perspective an aversion to understanding or a pure emotional need to dislike it. what is bad is bad and what is good is good but at this level it can only be characterized by emotion and so if immorality is the person doing bad to your framework it is because they prioritize theirs above yours i.e. selfishness. and so the intention of what is prioritized diminishes a compromise. anyone who blatantly subjugates to their framework other people intentionally would do so based on emotion or self interests. a characterization of an immoral person then is a lack of self control or a deemphasis others needs. with this situation rational people would reject provisioning people who exacerbate the control mechanisms of subjugation. an equality empathy among people would produce disadvantage to some peoples self interests. empathy can be used for subjugation. my self interests at your expense is wrong if i only do so intending myself arbitrary gains (i hurt you and i did not have to). as perceived self interest is an attribute of morality where conflict arises. Is mine yours?

Scientific morality must deal with conflicts of interests i.e. politics

https://prezi.com/5wby6zuudxql/jane-loevingers-theory-of-ego-development/

 

[RaBind]

I think I've managed to write about my thoughts on morality in a more clear cut manner, which I've been intending to do.

Objective morality exists in the same sense that numbers exist. Now even how numbers exist is up to debate, however that doesn't stop numbers from being of practical use. This is the same for morality, the bits that we do have knowledge of can be utilized for good.

Objective morality is needed to fight moral relativism, which is used by many to profess that there is no point in making progress with moral philosophies, in fact the idea of progress itself cannot exist in the face of moral relativism, as all philosophies are equally but differently moral/immoral/indifferent.

However this wholly separates morality/moral philosophies from their consequences, specifically how they affect well being, and in this sense morality not only is of no use, but the whole concept itself is rendered meaningless and pointless.

-What is morality? why is this morality?
If there is one thing that morality is relevant to it is the well being of sentient beings. If any other types of moralities exist then they are irrelevant or incorrect in terms of what we mean when we talk about morality.

-Existence of moral objectivity
If you agree that morality is relevant to the well being of sentient beings then we know that morality exists. It exists as a spectrum of possibilities in which the state of well being, of sentient beings, can exist. This is the objective morality that's out there. Just as there is a spectrum of possibilities in which the state of human knowledge can exist.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I've thought about it yesterday and correct me if I'm wrong:

The entire Harris's/others proposal is to:

1. Agree that morality as values/principles leading/pertaining to well being. (That's what it is essentially by definition)
2. Attempt to define or propose a model of general morality that satisfies the above condition for everyone in a scientific manner (that is, the model is subject to criticism, is a working theory and does get updated/changed once new information or results are provided)

So my problem was with claiming universality/lack of feedback on a personal level, which isn't true from what I read.

I completely agree with any attempts at creating consistent, self-improving frameworks of social and interpersonal co-existence on this planet. I also agree that any opposing view can be compared in relation to the laid out rules.

By no means does it create anything true or universal (well it does but in a more fuzzy transcendent way), but it makes a worthwhile attempt at building the correct perspective for any would-be universal moralist to follow, and for the mankind to rely on until something better is created.