Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[Egg]

Well, science cannot answer the question of precisely which colors should fall under the term 'orange'. It's a useless question. Ultimately, what we choose to call 'orange' is arbitrary.

I agree that it's arbitrary, but having a shared idea of what the term "orange" refers to would strike me as having some utility. On what grounds would you call that a useless question?

[JJM 777]

This is so typical JREF forumming. 44 pages of debate on "science can do this", without actually doing what is claimed to be doable. Why not use your energy and time for doing it then.

[fls]

What I should have said is that Harris is being claimed to have argued that.

Ah yes. That's a good analogy, then.

Linda

[fls]

Useless in what way? I would think many people find use in having principles which they try to live by. Unless by "useless" you just mean "questions that science cannot answer" and solve the is/ought problem by dismissing ought questions as invalid in some way.

JoelKatz had a good way of putting it. It is fairly useless to argue about an exact definition for "orange" (good) once you understand what is going on in the world which accounts for and explains what humans are attempting to judge.

We don't have to pretend that principles come from a magical being instead of understanding what it is they are representing, in order to find them them useful.

Linda

[JoelKatz]

I agree that it's arbitrary, but having a shared idea of what the term "orange" refers to would strike me as having some utility. On what grounds would you call that a useless question?I agree that it is useful for us to have a shared understanding of what range of colors to call 'orange'. But the particular range selected and the label used is inherently arbitrary. It is to some extent informed by the colors we actually need to distinguish.

It's kind of like the question of how tall someone must be to be "tall". It's more useful to actually be able to measure and report height accurately. And where you make the cutoff is inherently arbitrary, but it will be informed based on things like average height.

The question in these cases is more about what's most useful rather than what's correct.

[JoelKatz]

This is so typical JREF forumming. 44 pages of debate on "science can do this", without actually doing what is claimed to be doable. Why not use your energy and time for doing it then.Even before we understood evolution, it was important to establish that the origin of life was capable of a scientific understanding. To some extent, it was a precondition of obtaining such an understanding.

The two things are mutually reinforcing and working on one works on the other. If you look at many other things once considered outside the scope of science (from disease to the origin of life to the origin of the universe), scientific understanding and the framework for such understanding alternated advances. And stalls could come from either front.

Right now, with a scientific understanding of morality, the main stalling point is on the framework side -- scientists don't know what to study or how to study it or even whether such studying is possible. So that's where people like me are devoting our efforts.

We will get there when we get there. Right now, the important thing is to sweep the roadblocks out of the way and refute any pseudo-science that pops up to fill the vacuum.

[AlBell]

We don't have to pretend that principles come from a magical being instead of understanding what it is they are representing, in order to find them them useful.

Linda
I doubt anyone posting in this thread thinks our principles came from a magical being, understanding that they came from elders of social groups codifying 'acceptable' vs 'not-acceptable' behaviors as seemed best for their specific social group. As generations came and went elders from various social groups came into contact and further discussed these matters.

Some of the first good con-games -- religions -- arose when various elders discovered that invoking the supernatural helped group cohesion and adherence to The Rules lessening the need for 'might' to enforce those rules, with the added benefit of enriching the shamans with little labor on their part needed.

Harris has now stepped up to the plate with Science (and more correctly, all-to-human scientists) to replace the supernatural.

[Paulhoff]

Yes, one knows what real scientist are, a bunch of old farts in white coats that are clueless to the real world................

That somehow sounds familiar...............

Paul

:) :) :)

[annnnoid]

Yes, one knows what real scientist are, a bunch of old farts in white coats that are clueless to the real world................

That somehow sounds familiar...............

Paul

:) :) :)


Noam Chomsky…a minor figure in the world of cognitive science...had this to say about old farts in white coats offering opinions about human nature:


On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world.





Right now, with a scientific understanding of morality, the main stalling point is on the framework side -- scientists don't know what to study or how to study it or even whether such studying is possible. So that's where people like me are devoting our efforts.



…people like you??? What the hell does that mean? Who are 'people like you' and what are these efforts ‘people like you’ are devoting yourselves to?

Harris sure seems to think that it’s possible (…science can answer moral questions… wasn’t that explicitly what he claimed ???...). You seem to have an awful lot of awfully big questions for someone who insists that something can actually be answered. We don’t know what, how, or even if…isn’t that just about everything? What, then, do we know…. ….as in, scientifically?

[fls]

I doubt anyone posting in this thread thinks our principles came from a magical being, understanding that they came from elders of social groups codifying 'acceptable' vs 'not-acceptable' behaviors as seemed best for their specific social group. As generations came and went elders from various social groups came into contact and further discussed these matters.

Some of the first good con-games -- religions -- arose when various elders discovered that invoking the supernatural helped group cohesion and adherence to The Rules lessening the need for 'might' to enforce those rules, with the added benefit of enriching the shamans with little labor on their part needed.

And given the results, this process hardly recommends itself.

Linda

[annnnoid]

And given the results, this process hardly recommends itself.

Linda


….and so now we have his holiness Harris. Somehow claims that ‘moral rules’ exist that govern human conduct (and something called ‘science’ can adjudicate them). What, though, are the origins of these ‘rules’ (and the thing ‘science’ that mediates them?) ? What, even, are ‘moral rules’ and what is the ontology of the phenomenon that is a function of them (or the epistemology of moral action itself?) ? Doesn’t ‘morality’ dictate (intrinsically) that we ‘understand’ morality? (saying that we, and it, just pooped out of thin air hardly qualifies as understanding for the foundation of human meaning)

These questions are better not asked….for the answers are lost in the fathomless depths of universal truth. Mysteries they’ll called. The ‘universe’ creates the rules. Nuff said.

What?????????????? What the hell does that mean? What the hell is a universe, and what is this thing ‘consciousness’ that is a function of it?

Ask not! Only….hail the universe from which ‘moral rules’ ensue….and bow down before the high priest Harris who is the voice of the universe and articulates It’s purpose for the ignorant.

….what’s his name…Harris???...isn’t he a scientist?....what was it Chomsky had to say about scientists adjudicating human activity?

Hmmmmmmmmmm…..sound familiar? If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and is stupid like a duck….must be a duck! Science can pretend till it’s blue in the face that it ‘understands’ what’s goin on. Fact is, when we’re talking stuff as fundamental as human existence, meaning, and morality….we’re talking mysteries. You can play the indignant skeptic all you want fls….but religion evolved as a response to the most relevant human realities. It’s a monumentally substantial and complex issue. Reducing it to simplistic…’…yaaah, it’s all garbage…’ statements hardly does your credibility any good.

[AlBell]

And given the results, this process hardly recommends itself.

Linda
Let us know when you and/or Harris science out an overwhelmingly convincing answer as to when human life begins.

ps. So far, Harris is just running a newer con.

[JoelKatz]

…people like you??? What the hell does that mean? Who are 'people like you' and what are these efforts ‘people like you’ are devoting yourselves to?In this context, people like me are people who maintain that rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable. The efforts are primarily in defending science's competence to address any issue that involves understanding the world and how it works, refuting claims that certain areas are off-limits to science, and refuting claims that there's some other tool that justifies beliefs. The stakes are high, as rejection of precisely these claims has been and continues to be responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths.

[fls]

Let us know when you and/or Harris science out an overwhelmingly convincing answer as to when human life begins.

Why do you want to know?

Linda

[fls]

….and so now we have his holiness Harris. Somehow claims that ‘moral rules’ exist that govern human conduct (and something called ‘science’ can adjudicate them). What, though, are the origins of these ‘rules’ (and the thing ‘science’ that mediates them?) ? What, even, are ‘moral rules’ and what is the ontology of the phenomenon that is a function of them (or the epistemology of moral action itself?) ? Doesn’t ‘morality’ dictate (intrinsically) that we ‘understand’ morality? (saying that we, and it, just pooped out of thin air hardly qualifies as understanding for the foundation of human meaning)

Exactly. There are no moral rules.

These questions are better not asked….for the answers are lost in the fathomless depths of universal truth. Mysteries they’ll called. The ‘universe’ creates the rules. Nuff said.

What?????????????? What the hell does that mean? What the hell is a universe, and what is this thing ‘consciousness’ that is a function of it?

Ask not! Only….hail the universe from which ‘moral rules’ ensue….and bow down before the high priest Harris who is the voice of the universe and articulates It’s purpose for the ignorant.

….what’s his name…Harris???...isn’t he a scientist?....what was it Chomsky had to say about scientists adjudicating human activity?

Hmmmmmmmmmm…..sound familiar? If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and is stupid like a duck….must be a duck! Science can pretend till it’s blue in the face that it ‘understands’ what’s goin on. Fact is, when we’re talking stuff as fundamental as human existence, meaning, and morality….we’re talking mysteries. You can play the indignant skeptic all you want fls….but religion evolved as a response to the most relevant human realities. It’s a monumentally substantial and complex issue. Reducing it to simplistic…’…yaaah, it’s all garbage…’ statements hardly does your credibility any good.

I'm happy to leave you to your elaborate stories. There's just no point in pretending that they are accessing this non-existent moral truth.

Linda

[Beth]

In this context, people like me are people who maintain that rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable. The efforts are primarily in defending science's competence to address any issue that involves understanding the world and how it works, refuting claims that certain areas are off-limits to science, and refuting claims that there's some other tool that justifies beliefs.

You don't find art to be a useful tool in understanding our world?

The stakes are high, as rejection of precisely these claims has been and continues to be responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths. I don't think this is true. Can you justify it using science?

[Paulhoff]

It seems a lot of humans want and need to think that they are not in any predictable, well that's nice.

Paul

:) :) :)

[JoelKatz]

You don't find art to be a useful tool in understanding our world?As I said, there's no science without sensory input. Art is definitely a useful subject for scientific study.
I don't think this is true. Can you justify it using science?Yes, but probably not without hijacking this thread.

[Dani]

Yes, but probably not without hijacking this thread.

I think this is on topic. And I'm curious.

[AlBell]

Why do you want to know?

Linda
Evasion --as usual-- noted.

Maybe an easier one for practice? What does Science tell us about the immorality of burkas?

[Beth]

In this context, people like me are people who maintain that rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable. The efforts are primarily in defending science's competence to address any issue that involves understanding the world and how it works, refuting claims that certain areas are off-limits to science, and refuting claims that there's some other tool that justifies beliefs. You don't find art to be a useful tool in understanding our world? As I said, there's no science without sensory input. Art is definitely a useful subject for scientific study.
You misunderstand. I’m not talking about studying art with science. I’m talking about using art as another tool to understand our world.

You said that rationality is our only means of understanding our world and that such a viewpoint is indisputable. I’m disputing that and saying that art is also a means of understanding our world. Do you disagree?


The stakes are high, as rejection of precisely these claims has been and continues to be responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths.
I don't think this is true. Can you justify it using science?
Yes, but probably not without hijacking this thread.
Not a hijack at all, but precisely the topic of this thread. Please at least outline your thoughts on the matter. How would you scientifically justify the idea that belief in the ability of art to help us understand our world has contributed to human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths?

[Paulhoff]

What does Science tell us about the immorality of burkas?

Where else does one see women cover themselves completely for fear that men will not be able to control themselves but for religion. I don’t know how that idea would ever come about thru science to begin with let alone ask what science has to say about it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[AlBell]

Where else does one see women cover themselves completely for fear that men will not be able to control themselves but for religion. I don’t know how that idea would ever come about thru science to begin with let alone ask what science has to say about it.
Agreed. "Nothing" is the answer.

[Paulhoff]

Agreed. "Nothing" is the answer.
It depends on the reason, covering completely makes sense when one goes out into space, but than it is the same for men too. But has for the other, if the base line for the burkas is based on a false idea, then science can say it shouldn't be done.

Paul

:) :) :)

[JJM 777]

What does Science tell us about the immorality of burkas?
Anonymous polls would tell us that nearly all people in the West, and many, while not all, men and women in ME
- have avoided being brainwashed to believe in the rightness of the burka rule
- feel that the burka rule restricts life and makes it less joyful
- have the opinion that the burka rule should be abolished

These are the objective findings that science can provide.

[Beth]

Anonymous polls would tell us that nearly all people in the West, and many, while not all, men and women in ME
- have avoided being brainwashed to believe in the rightness of the burka rule


Whether or not a person has been or avoiding being 'brainwashed' to believe something is not a judgement science makes nor is it something that can be deduced from poll results.


- feel that the burka rule restricts life and makes it less joyful
- have the opinion that the burka rule should be abolished

These are the objective findings that science can provide.

These are objective findings about the opinions of people, not findings about the immorality of the burka.

[Egg]

Anonymous polls would tell us that nearly all people in the West, and many, while not all, men and women in ME
- have avoided being brainwashed to believe in the rightness of the burka rule
- feel that the burka rule restricts life and makes it less joyful
- have the opinion that the burka rule should be abolished

These are the objective findings that science can provide.
I wonder what a poll from the middle-east would say about the way Western women dress. Is there any scientific reason why we should draw conclusions from one poll and not the other?

[Dani]

Anonymous polls would tell us that nearly all people in the West, and many, while not all, men and women in ME
- have avoided being brainwashed to believe in the rightness of the burka rule
- feel that the burka rule restricts life and makes it less joyful
- have the opinion that the burka rule should be abolished

These are the objective findings that science can provide.

Agreed.

[Dani]

In this context, people like me are people who maintain that rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable.

I completely agree that rationality is our only means of understanding the universe. Sensory input is our main starting point, but without a priori knowledge such as induction or deduction, sensory input is useless.



The efforts are primarily in defending science's competence to address any issue that involves understanding the world and how it works, refuting claims that certain areas are off-limits to science, and refuting claims that there's some other tool that justifies beliefs.
You say that you defend science's competence to address any issue that involves understanding of the world and how it works, so you're precisely defining the limits of science: understanding of the world and how it works.

My position is that moral claims are beyond that line you just described. They are not rational (or, at least, not entirely rational) and therefore not scientific (or entirely scientific). Not because they're irrational, but because they're not intended as such. They don't describe reality, they just describe how we would like reality to be. I doubt you would accept "dada dudu" or "I like the brown coat better" as scientific statements. Here you have evidence of areas that are off-limits to science.

I haven't seen any refutation of this position.

The stakes are high, as rejection of precisely these claims has been and continues to be responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths.As I said, this is relevant to the discussion. In fact, this misconception has been an important inspiration to Harris.

I'd like to see your argument, but I think you're confusing normative moral relativism with the position that moral claims are not entirely scientific. This would a non sequitur, and a pretty obvious one.

[JoelKatz]

You misunderstand. I’m not talking about studying art with science. I’m talking about using art as another tool to understand our world.You are talking about studying art with science. It's just such an obvious and broadly-accepted aspect of science that it almost seems like something else.

When you use art to understand our world, you are doing nothing different from what you do when you read a scientific paper. The primary difference is that the emphasis is usually on the thought processes of the writer rather than quite so directly on the content. But this is merely a difference in emphasis.

Looking at what something has produced to understand both the producer and the raw materials on which it operated is a scientific process.

You said that rationality is our only means of understanding our world and that such a viewpoint is indisputable. I’m disputing that and saying that art is also a means of understanding our world. Do you disagree?Art is just another thing we can look at.

Not a hijack at all, but precisely the topic of this thread. Please at least outline your thoughts on the matter. How would you scientifically justify the idea that belief in the ability of art to help us understand our world has contributed to human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths?That's not what I said. You created this false dichotomy between science and art, not me.

[Beth]

You are talking about studying art with science. It's just such an obvious and broadly-accepted aspect of science that it almost seems like something else.

When you use art to understand our world, you are doing nothing different from what you do when you read a scientific paper. The primary difference is that the emphasis is usually on the thought processes of the writer rather than quite so directly on the content. But this is merely a difference in emphasis. I think we'll just have to disagree then.

Looking at what something has produced to understand both the producer and the raw materials on which it operated is a scientific process. Yes. But that is not what is commonly referred to as art.

Art is just another thing we can look at. Sure. And we can also look at the scientific process as an art. But that isn't what I was talking about. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

That's not what I said. You created this false dichotomy between science and art, not me.

I didn't create it, I observed it as a consequence of your position. I think both art and science qualify as tools we use to understand our world. I understand that you don't agree they are two tools, but consider art to be a subset of science. (Is that a correct paraphrase?)

Can you please explain what you talking about when you say

rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable....The stakes are high, as rejection of precisely these claims has been and continues to be responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths.

What do you think qualifies as explaining the world in a non-rational way if art does not? And how has that approach led to a "significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths"?

[JoelKatz]

What do you think qualifies as explaining the world in a non-rational way if art does not?Any system based on beliefs that are not rationally justified.

And how has that approach led to a "significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths"?You can start with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The hijackers were motivated by the belief that if you think god wants you to do something, you should do it.

[annnnoid]

Explain precisely and explicitly how art and the process of creating it are rationally justified.

[Beth]

Any system based on beliefs that are not rationally justified.
???? - That's all systems of belief. Every system of belief must begin with at least one axiom about the way the world is that cannot be rationally or empirically justified. You'll have to get a bit more specific than that. Perhaps you could explain how you delineate between rational tools, like art and science, and non-rational tools?

You can start with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The hijackers were motivated by the belief that if you think god wants you to do something, you should do it.

That's a good answer. I'll accept Islam as an example of a non-rational tool to understand our world. But Islam is also a tool with which we humans shape our world.
The U.S. determination to spread democracy has led to our involvement in a number of wars. Democracy isn't so much a tool for understanding our world as it is for shaping it. Perhaps that is what motivates men to kill others for the sake of their beliefs?

Now, given Islam as an example, how do you scientifically and rationally justify your belief that:

rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable....The stakes are high, as rejection of precisely these claims has been and continues to be responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths.

Giving an example of the misery and death like 9-11 no more justifies your belief than the nuclear crisis in Japan would justify someone making such a statement about science.

[JoelKatz]

???? - That's all systems of belief.No, it's not.

Every system of belief must begin with at least one axiom about the way the world is that cannot be rationally or empirically justified.You can start with any axioms you want. Axioms need not be justified because results are always conditional on the truth of the axiom.

There is nothing irrational about choosing axioms that are not true or cannot ever be true. For example, every mathematician who says "let X be a prime number" is beginning with an axiom that is not "true".

To put it another way, rationality specifically permits arbitrary axioms provided they are properly carried through. It's the same way "x=(x+1)-1" permits any arbitrary value for x.

You'll have to get a bit more specific than that. Perhaps you could explain how you delineate between rational tools, like art and science, and non-rational tools?I don't think it's possible for you and I to have that kind of discussion when we have so many much more fundamental disagreements.

Giving an example of the misery and death like 9-11 no more justifies your belief than the nuclear crisis in Japan would justify someone making such a statement about science.Oh, I agree, it doesn't do it by itself. I'm not claiming that I'm presenting the entire reasoning chain that leads to my conclusions. You and I are way too far apart on fundamental issues to do that.

In fact, though, the nuclear crisis in Japan does permit people to make many rational statements about science. For example, it's indisputable that science has given human beings the capability to do massive amounts of harm in addition to good. That is a rational lesson to take from the crisis in Japan (though it's certainly not anywhere near the best example of that lesson).

I'm not so much talking about the specific conclusions people reach from the specific bits of evidence. I'm arguing for the ground rules. If a person argues that the terrorist attack of 9/11 can be blamed on Islam or that the Japanese nuclear crisis means that deployment of nuclear power should be halted or anything else for that matter, the question is what the ground rules should be for analyzing that claims? What tools are legitimate to use?

[JoelKatz]

Explain precisely and explicitly how art and the process of creating it are rationally justified.I don't believe that I said either of those things required any such justification. But seeing that question, it's obvious that you and I are too far apart on what rationality *is* to have that conversation.

But, to put it simply, if a person feels a need to express themselves, and art fulfills that need, that is a rational justification for creating art. One need not have a full scientific understanding of how or why something works to use the scientific observation that it does in fact work.

[fls]

Evasion --as usual-- noted.

I wasn't evading. I asked you to clarify your question. Asking when human life begins isn't a particularly useful question because the answer depends upon in what way it becomes relevant to a judgement.

Maybe an easier one for practice? What does Science tell us about the immorality of burkas?

I suspect that the immorality of a burqa would depend upon whether there was force or strong coercion behind its use, rather than the garment itself.

Linda

[AlBell]

Evasion --as usual-- noted.

I wasn't evading. I asked you to clarify your question. Asking when human life begins isn't a particularly useful question because the answer depends upon in what way it becomes relevant to a judgement.
I actually don't see the question needing any particular context for Science to answer it. Of course Science can't answer it in a way that suits everyone with or without context.


Maybe an easier one for practice? What does Science tell us about the immorality of burkas?

I suspect that the immorality of a burqa would depend upon whether there was force or strong coercion behind its use, rather than the garment itself.

Linda
I see. You and I are subject to rather significant coercion that we should appear in public 'appropriately dressed'. That must be immoral too.

[Paulhoff]

Of course Science can't answer it in a way that suits everyone with or without context.
If I understand this right, what moral idea does suits everyone now?

Paul

:) :) :)

[AlBell]

He who has the gold makes the rules.

In modern society that buys the might to make it right.

[CapelDodger]

I wonder what a poll from the middle-east would say about the way Western women dress. Is there any scientific reason why we should draw conclusions from one poll and not the other?

No, and JJM 777 didn't sugget there would be. The subject in hand was the burka, immorality thereof.

I imagine there are polls available on the middle-eastern view of Western women's garb, and no doubt they're interesting. And whether one should draw conclusions from polls is an interesting question.

Science has provided statistics to evaluate polls. That's something it can do.

Since morality is the summed opinion of a group at some point in time, I'm not sure there's much more science can do. Sam Harris is full of it, in my opinion.

[CapelDodger]

I actually don't see the question needing any particular context for Science to answer it. Of course Science can't answer it in a way that suits everyone with or without context.

Science can answer the question in a context. For instance, science can tell us when a foetus is potentially independently viable. Not to the minute, nor day, even in a particular case, but certainly a fertilized egg-cell isn't it. A baby emerging from the birth-canal is.

No other system can do any better, and most can't even do that well.

[CapelDodger]

He who has the gold makes the rules.

In modern society that buys the might to make it right.

When bankers and billionaires swing from lamp-posts with the crowd cheering along, there will be a new modern morality.

The mutability of morality is what makes history such a fascinating subject. Imagine the history of an intelligent hive-species, where morality would never come up as a concept. Their scientists (chemists, biologists, statisticians) could actually explain the entire meaning of life and behaviour. Dull history though.

[CapelDodger]

You can start with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The hijackers were motivated by the belief that if you think god wants you to do something, you should do it.

I could argue that they were motivated by self-glorification, for whom a supreme being was merely an audience. It's a motivation which has long been exploited by old men sending young men to die for them. While they hide down holes, and ensure their own deaths are shrouded in mystery, and even doubt. Osama bin Laden, the first Sunni Hidden Imam.

Most people of belief are easily persuaded that their god wants them to do pretty much what they are doing day-to-day. Now that it's all going off in the Arab world, where are the jihadists? And who really cares?

[Paulhoff]

He who has the gold makes the rules.

In modern society that buys the might to make it right.
well than............

He who has the guns makes the rules.............


Paul

:) :) :)

[CapelDodger]

The U.S. determination to spread democracy ...

There is not, and never has been, any US determination to spread democracy. Nor even defend it.

Democracy isn't so much a tool for understanding our world as it is for shaping it.

Of course.

Perhaps that is what motivates men to kill others for the sake of their beliefs?

If those beliefs are that they're killing to protect kith and kin, hearth and home, and their way of life, then beliefs have been a motivation for a very long time.

Going to war for profit and for self-glorification are of equally long standing.

[Beth]

No, it's not. I'm afraid I must differ with you on that matter.

You can start with any axioms you want. Axioms need not be justified because results are always conditional on the truth of the axiom. That is not what I mean by axioms. I mean statements that are assumed true because some such axiom is necessary in order to develop any type of explanatory system to explain how the world works.
Axioms such as "The universe is governed by consistent rules that humans can deduce through observation and experiment." or "The universe is governed by a capricious god that can send earthquakes and hurricanes to punish those he/she considers evil."

ALL such explanatory systems require at least one such axiom.


There is nothing irrational about choosing axioms that are not true or cannot ever be true.

Interesting. Why do you consider Islam an irrational tool then?

I don't think it's possible for you and I to have that kind of discussion when we have so many much more fundamental disagreements. I think that how you are defining what is rational and what is not may be the fundamental disagreement.

For example, I've already discovered that while I see art as non-rational, you see art as rational.


Oh, I agree, it doesn't do it by itself. I'm not claiming that I'm presenting the entire reasoning chain that leads to my conclusions. You and I are way too far apart on fundamental issues to do that.
We don't need agreement for me to follow your logic. I just need to understand your fundamental definition of things like 'rational'.

I'm arguing for the ground rules. If a person argues that the terrorist attack of 9/11 can be blamed on Islam or that the Japanese nuclear crisis means that deployment of nuclear power should be halted or anything else for that matter, the question is what the ground rules should be for analyzing that claims? What tools are legitimate to use?

Very good questions indeed. And what do you think the answers are?

[Beth]

morality is the summed opinion of a group at some point in time

That's a nice concise definition of morality. I like it!

There is not, and never has been, any US determination to spread democracy. Nor even defend it. I won't argue that, I can only say that is what I was taught in Junior High. I now suspect that much of what I was taught in those social studies classes bears little resemblance to reality as I perceive it today.


Of course.

If those beliefs are that they're killing to protect kith and kin, hearth and home, and their way of life, then beliefs have been a motivation for a very long time.

Going to war for profit and for self-glorification are of equally long standing.

Quite true. We seem to be mostly in agreement on this thread.

[Dragoonster]

I don't believe that I said either of those things required any such justification. But seeing that question, it's obvious that you and I are too far apart on what rationality *is* to have that conversation.

But, to put it simply, if a person feels a need to express themselves, and art fulfills that need, that is a rational justification for creating art. One need not have a full scientific understanding of how or why something works to use the scientific observation that it does in fact work.

So if a person feels a need to express themselves, and torture-murder fulfills that need, that is a rational justification for torture-murder?

You can start with any axioms you want. Axioms need not be justified because results are always conditional on the truth of the axiom.

There is nothing irrational about choosing axioms that are not true or cannot ever be true. For example, every mathematician who says "let X be a prime number" is beginning with an axiom that is not "true".

To put it another way, rationality specifically permits arbitrary axioms provided they are properly carried through. It's the same way "x=(x+1)-1" permits any arbitrary value for x.

I agree. So what is it about Harris' axioms that makes you think they are based on or can be validated by science, versus Dahmer's or Bundy's axioms?

Note, I'm not asking for a moral answer, ala "Harris' axiom gives more well-being to more conscious creatures than Dahmer/Bundy's axioms". I'm asking for how science distinguishes these axioms (and, apparently, says Harris' axiom is scientifically "right" whereas Dahmer/Bundy's axioms are scientifically "wrong").

This thread is kind of hilarious. Full of people pimping Harris and claiming science can answer moral questions, yet not offering a single (cogent) example of science answering a moral question.

In this context, people like me are people who maintain that rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable.

Uh, okay...Ted Bundy desired to rationally understand the Universe; he relied on sensory input; his sensory input noted women he wanted to rape and kill; his rational approach led to "rape and killing is good". Is his view inherently indisputable?

p.s. if you dispute this due to sensory input not equalling morality, then you may not be believing your own thesis. Where is morally derived? Sensory input? Brainstates?

Where else does one see women cover themselves completely for fear that men will not be able to control themselves but for religion. I don’t know how that idea would ever come about thru science to begin with let alone ask what science has to say about it.

Hrm? If it can't ever come about by "science", then your/Western morals/practices cannot ever come about by "science" either. Right? Wrong? Only the preferred culture is blessed with using "science" as a crutch?

"I don't know how women dressing in bikinis showing midriff and faces would ever come about thru science." ---Islamic Scientist Fundamentalist/Idiot.

[AlBell]

Only the preferred culture is blessed with using "science" as a crutch?


Nah. The gold -- and guns -- will be used to ensure preferred "Science" demonstrates a culture to be the preferred one.

[fls]

I actually don't see the question needing any particular context for Science to answer it. Of course Science can't answer it in a way that suits everyone with or without context.

Can you give me an example where an action would be distinguished on the basis of the presence of human life? For example, would you distinguish between the theft of human embryos and the theft of human eggs from a cold storage unit? Or would you distinguish between the theft of human embryos and a failure to select human embryos for implantation?

I see. You and I are subject to rather significant coercion that we should appear in public 'appropriately dressed'. That must be immoral too.

Well, it turns out that my daughter does not get beaten if she happens to wear something which doesn't conform to her school's dress code. And if a fire starts in my house while I'm in the shower, I'm not obliged to burn down with my house, rather than escaping to the street, because I happen to be naked.

Linda

[AlBell]

Can you give me an example where an action would be distinguished on the basis of the presence of human life? For example, would you distinguish between the theft of human embryos and the theft of human eggs from a cold storage unit? Or would you distinguish between the theft of human embryos and a failure to select human embryos for implantation?
Good questions. An even better one is the morality of possessing human embryos not in a womb.



Well, it turns out that my daughter does not get beaten if she happens to wear something which doesn't conform to her school's dress code.
Yet if inappropriate adherence to dress code becomes a habit, the school may well expel her.


And if a fire starts in my house while I'm in the shower, I'm not obliged to burn down with my house, rather than escaping to the street, because I happen to be naked.

Linda
Yeah, I did mention "appropriate" which to most implies situation dependent.

[Paulhoff]

Hrm? If it can't ever come about by "science", then your/Western morals/practices cannot ever come about by "science" either. Right? Wrong? Only the preferred culture is blessed with using "science" as a crutch?
Why is it so hard for you to get by this simple idea, Sam Harris never ever said that science was the only way to come to morals.

Did you know that a tool-box doesn't just have hammers in it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[fls]

Good questions. An even better one is the morality of possessing human embryos not in a womb.

In what way would that be seen as immoral? We distinguish between ways in which reproduction is achieved?

Yeah, I did mention "appropriate" which to most implies situation dependent.

Apparently not. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm)

Linda

[AlBell]

In what way would that be seen as immoral?
You suggest this moral / immoral question can be answered by Science? I suspect not.

We distinguish between ways in which reproduction is achieved?
Some appear to: At least that's my interpretation of the current state of world-wide opinion.



Apparently not. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm)

It doesn't require Science for most who are not strict wahhabists to agree that was both immoral, and should be illegal.

Feel free to start a thread bashing radical Islam; Science won't be needed to detect the immoralities-by-acclaim therein.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why is it so hard for you to get by this simple idea, Sam Harris never ever said that science was the only way to come to morals.

Did you know that a tool-box doesn't just have hammers in it.

Paul

:) :) :)

Isn't Harris implying that when he thinks science has answered a moral question that the answer it provides should trump answers provided by any other methods which result in behaviours that he believes are not supported by science?

[JoelKatz]

I mean statements that are assumed true because some such axiom is necessary in order to develop any type of explanatory system to explain how the world works.That's not an axiom. That's the same misuse of the term 'axiom' I was talking about earlier in this thread.

Axioms such as "The universe is governed by consistent rules that humans can deduce through observation and experiment."That's not an axiom. That's a conclusion. It's one that's very well validated. But it's one for which contrary evidence could, theoretically, arise in which case science would have to reject it.

or "The universe is governed by a capricious god that can send earthquakes and hurricanes to punish those he/she considers evil."That was an assumption made at one time and scientific evidence has helped us to reject it.

ALL such explanatory systems require at least one such axiom.No, that's false. There is no requirement for 'axioms' of that type, and that is not what people ordinarily mean by an 'axiom'.

I think that how you are defining what is rational and what is not may be the fundamental disagreement.Something is rational if its belief is justified by a reasoning chain ultimately linked to perception.

For example, I've already discovered that while I see art as non-rational, you see art as rational.

We don't need agreement for me to follow your logic. I just need to understand your fundamental definition of things like 'rational'.Actually, you're quite right. But it's not about definition, it's about how things actually work. You think that scientific systems are built upon assumptions whose truth is outside of question.

And it's true that any particular scientific experiment is based on certain assumptions. For example, if we measure the effect of penicillin on the growth of a bacterium, we might assume that it doesn't matter what day of the week we start the experiment. Or we might assume that labeling the petri dishes in marker on the outside won't have any effect on the growth.

But, and this is the important part, we fully recognize that the conclusions of this experiment are valid if, and only if, those assumptions are factually correct.

Science involves no 'assumptions' or 'axioms' of the type you are referring. That the universe is regular and predictable is a scientific conclusion, not an axiom. (And see my earlier post upthread for the proper use of axioms.)

[Paulhoff]

Isn't Harris implying that when he thinks science has answered a moral question that the answer it provides should trump answers provided by any other methods which result in behaviours that he believes are not supported by science?
It seems you like many that read the bible have a filter, I have not in anyway read or heard him say that science was the only way to find morals. Please point to a quote by him that says what you think it says that science is the only way.

Please.

Paul

:) :) :)

[fls]

You suggest this moral / immoral question can be answered by Science? I suspect not.

Science can recognize needless suffering.

Linda

[Beth]

That's not an axiom. That's the same misuse of the term 'axiom' I was talking about earlier in this thread. I don't think that's a misuse of the term, but I'm not interested in debating that. Whatever you wish to call it, some such assumption is needed in any system that attempts to explain the world.
The universe is governed by consistent rules that humans can deduce through observation and experiment.
That's not an axiom. That's a conclusion. It's one that's very well validated. But it's one for which contrary evidence could, theoretically, arise in which case science would have to reject it. We'll simply have to disagree again. Calling the statement a conclusion is just wrong IMO. How could such a statement ever be proven false?

If a statement can't be proven false under any circumstances, how can it be considered a scientific conclusion?

That was an assumption made at one time and scientific evidence has helped us to reject it. Certainly scientific evidence has helped many people in modern society to reject that axiom. However, there are still humans who hold it to be true. Further, like the first axiom (BTW I don't mind using another term rather than axiom if you like, but I can't call it 'conclusion' without feeling like a liar), it cannot be proven to be true or false. At least not without some rather rigorous definitions for things like 'gods' and 'evil' that are notoriously slippery to get specifics on.

No, that's false. There is no requirement for 'axioms' of that type, and that is not what people ordinarily mean by an 'axiom'. Yet, apparently I'm not the only person who has used axiom in that manner. And apparently professional philosophers would beg to differ with you regarding the requirement of some sort of starting assumption. After all, that's why Harris is getting all that flack about getting an ought from an is.

Something is rational if its belief is justified by a reasoning chain ultimately linked to perception. So you would agree that belief in ghosts and bigfoot is justified by those who have perceived them? Is that correct? Or did you mean something else by that statement?

Actually, you're quite right. But it's not about definition, it's about how things actually work. You think that scientific systems are built upon assumptions whose truth is outside of question. That's not quite what I think because I don't consider any assumptions as outside of question. I just think it's important to be aware of what the assumptions and conditions are. If you are unaware of them, you won't think to question them.

BTW, I can't help but notice you've failed to provide the logical argument that was requested to support your original statement.

Science involves no 'assumptions' or 'axioms' of the type you are referring.

No thanks. This thread is far too long to go searching for some previous post of that nature. I'll simply think you are pedantic about the use of certain terms and simply agree to disagree about whether some such assumption underlies the system of thought that we term "science".

[AlBell]

Science can recognize needless suffering.

Linda
So can I, or you. So what?

[CapelDodger]

Nah. The gold -- and guns -- will be used to ensure preferred "Science" demonstrates a culture to be the preferred one.

That job will devolve, as usual, on theology and philosophy.

[CapelDodger]

Good questions.

Which you're going to ignore.

An even better one is the morality of possessing human embryos not in a womb.

While you pose another one.

So in what way is it a better question? And is that a good question, in your judgement? Perhaps an even better one than yours?

[CapelDodger]

Isn't Harris implying that when he thinks science has answered a moral question that the answer it provides should trump answers provided by any other methods which result in behaviours that he believes are not supported by science?

Not unless he explicitly sets his "scientific" method above others, such as philosophy, or gut-feeling, or the "eeeeeew!" factor.

[annnnoid]

Not unless he explicitly sets his "scientific" method above others, such as philosophy, or gut-feeling, or the "eeeeeew!" factor.


...does he? I would suspect that would be his goal...implicitly or explicitly? Methinks he wants an objective morality...something that renders 'religion' obsolete. If his science-based morality claims that ability, then trumping mere philosophy, gut-feeling, or personal opinion is child's play.


Recently read Scott Atrans review of Harris book: http://nationalinterest.org/bookreview/sam-harriss-guide-nearly-everything-4893

…one of the better quotes:

You can bet the bank that Harris’s committee of moral experts would not come down on the side of the French or Mark Twain. (“The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don’t want, drink what you don’t like, and do what you’d rather not.”)

Another interesting quote was this (for those who so enjoy accusing religion of being responsible for so many wars throughout history…doubtless one of the motivations for Joel’s crusade to rid the world of something he regards as "responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of deaths".......I guess you got that one wrong Joel):

In the Encyclopedia of Wars, Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod surveyed nearly one thousand eight hundred violent conflicts throughout history, and less than 10 percent were religious. Religious motives accounted for few of the more than 100–150 million deaths in twentieth-century wars (mostly caused by World Wars I and II, Russia’s and China’s civil wars, along with Stalin’s and Mao’s purges).

[CapelDodger]

...does he? I would suspect that would be his goal...implicitly or explicitly?

When we get to what's implicit we hit the swamp.

Methinks he wants an objective morality...something that renders 'religion' obsolete.

This may well be the case. He certainly seems to want attention.

If his science-based morality claims that ability, then trumping mere philosophy, gut-feeling, or personal opinion is child's play.

You've not taken on many hardball philosophers, I suspect. They've been creaming Sam Harris for decades now. I think he enjoys it, frankly.

[Dragoonster]

It seems you like many that read the bible have a filter, I have not in anyway read or heard him say that science was the only way to find morals. Please point to a quote by him that says what you think it says that science is the only way.

Please.

Paul

:) :) :)

So these following statements DON'T imply that their answers are priviledged over any other sort of answer (?):

"Islam can answer moral questions"

"Christianity can answer moral questions"

"Hedonism can answer moral questions"

If they don't, then what sort of moral answers that are not-science would Harris accept as trumping science's take on morality? What examples of this does he cite in his book or TED speech? (well, okay, he does have a fetish for Buddhism, so you may be right)

But would Harris have been better served/understood if he'd said "Science can answer moral questions, except when other moral systems answer them better." You really think he believes this and isn't trying to put Science in the sole driver's seat re: morality question-answering?

[fls]

So can I, or you.

Apparently not. Otherwise, why come up with ways to cause needless suffering, like withholding medical advances for the sake of religious rules?

Linda

[AlBell]

I don't. Why do you?

And of course your statement implicitly suggests that if Science (in your case case medical science) can do something of course it must be moral.

[Paulhoff]

So these following statements DON'T imply that their answers are priviledged over any other sort of answer (?):

"Islam can answer moral questions"

"Christianity can answer moral questions"

"Hedonism can answer moral questions"

If they don't, then what sort of moral answers that are not-science would Harris accept as trumping science's take on morality? What examples of this does he cite in his book or TED speech? (well, okay, he does have a fetish for Buddhism, so you may be right)

But would Harris have been better served/understood if he'd said "Science can answer moral questions, except when other moral systems answer them better." You really think he believes this and isn't trying to put Science in the sole driver's seat re: morality question-answering?
Fetish for Buddhism, that is funny.

Please tell me where you morals come from?

And of course we all know that Science is all inflexible and never ever changes when new information is learned, unlike the above religions.

Paul

:) :) :)

[fls]

I don't.

Then why did you even bring up the idea that the use of human embryos outside of the womb could be 'immoral' instead of asking about something like the morality of possessing antibiotics?

And of course your statement implicitly suggests that if Science (in your case case medical science) can do something of course it must be moral.

Even a little bit of thought shows that this is not the case. There are all sorts of things which technology has made possible which are not pursued as preferred courses of action.

Linda

[Dani]

Useless in what way? I would think many people find use in having principles which they try to live by. Unless by "useless" you just mean "questions that science cannot answer" and solve the is/ought problem by dismissing ought questions as invalid in some way.

This comment in response to Linda grabbed my attention.

After all, Linda seems to agree with Hume.

Hume's ought is equivalent to Linda's useless.

Hume's is is equivalent to Linda's useful.

[JJM 777]

science can tell us when a foetus is potentially independently viable. (...) certainly a fertilized egg-cell isn't it. A baby emerging from the birth-canal is.
Long time ago I thought about this aspect. (In a different context, speculating how big population should have the right to claim independence as a people, nation and state.)

I was honest enough to ask, can I survive independently, without help from other humans? While eating my microwave pizza and sipping some Pepsi Max, I concluded that not with the skills that I have now, even less with the skills that I would have learned without any human teaching me ever about anything, and in this northern part of the world where I am, not through the winter anyway.

From this viewpoint the answer (call this a scientific answer or not) to the question, when a human is potentially independently viable without any help from other humans, seems to be: when he is at least 7 years old or so (you can make it 10 or 12 if you want) and has received intensive scout training so he can make a living from the wild. Except if he is lucky enough to be adopted by a swine or ape or something, as has happened in a few cases I guess. But does that really count?

[AlBell]

Then why did you even bring up the idea that the use of human embryos outside of the womb could be 'immoral' instead of asking about something like the morality of possessing antibiotics?
Likely because a number of people in the US do find the use of human embryos immoral; more so I suspect than find the use of antibiotics immoral.



Even a little bit of thought shows that this is not the case. There are all sorts of things which technology has made possible which are not pursued as preferred courses of action.
I note you failed to address the issue of morality as to deciding preferred courses of action re technologically possible actions.

[JJM 777]

I wonder what a poll from the middle-east would say about the way Western women dress. Is there any scientific reason why we should draw conclusions from one poll and not the other?
A democratic reason, be it scientific or not, would be to count the heads and draw conclusions from the most populous opinion.

I would rather use multi-democracy, be it even more scientific or not, and listen to each major opinion group separately, allowing them all to do as they wish in their separate geographical areas.

Or then you can put it in this way:
Task: maximize the happiness of global population.
Different offered solutions will be compared by calculating the total happiness of global population, the highest value wins.
The winner would not be a solution where one most popular option is forced upon everyone on the planet. The winner would be something similar to what I call multi-democracy, using multiple solutions to cater to the various preferences of individuals in large populations. Call it scientific or not.

[AlBell]

Which you're going to ignore.
Ignore "How would you distinguish between the theft of human embryos and the theft of human eggs from a cold storage unit? Or would you distinguish between the theft of human embryos and a failure to select human embryos for implantation?



While you pose another one.
Yup. "An even better one is the morality of possessing human embryos not in a womb."

So in what way is it a better question? And is that a good question, in your judgement?
Your question? Not particularly.


Perhaps an even better one than yours?
I think not; prior to examining the morality of embryo or egg theft or failure to implant, I'd say we need to examine the morality that allows possession of those items in the first place.

[Paulhoff]

I think not; prior to examining the morality of embryo or egg theft or failure to implant, I'd say we need to examine the morality that allows possession of those items in the first place.
The morality of a non-being, oh my.

Paul

:) :) :)

[AlBell]

The non-being judgment on your part is of course the actual question.

[Paulhoff]

The non-being judgment on your part is of course the actual question.
The judgment on an non-being is what?

Paul

:) :) :)

[AlBell]

I now have no idea what you are talking about.

[Paulhoff]

I now have no idea what you are talking about.
How dose one make a moral justment about something that isn't a being, as in an embryo.

Paul

:) :) :)

[AlBell]

Some apparently do.

I guess you can ask Science if you haven't found an answer.

[Paulhoff]

Some apparently do.

I guess you can ask Science if you haven't found an answer.
Please tell me why if there was a study done, that an answer would not be found. Are you telling me that humans can not in anyway be studied.

Paul

:) :)

[AlBell]

Ask Science; and no.

[annnnoid]

Please tell me why if there was a study done, that an answer would not be found. Are you telling me that humans can not in anyway be studied.

Paul

:) :)


Seriously….how long have you been at JREF Pauloff? Do you honestly not understand that the question ‘what is the “being” of a human being’ has yet to be scientifically answered (even remotely actually)?

Perhaps I should offer a quote…..yours:

A society fails when ignorance outweight knowledge.

…or maybe a society fails when skeptics forget how to spell.

[Paulhoff]

Seriously….how long have you been at JREF Pauloff?

JREF has nothing to do with this talk, in fact, I know Randi and that is non sequitur too.

Do you seriously think that there can never be a set of rules and/or guidelines that can be used for morals? People’s general reactions to anything in daily life can be studied and conclusions and ideas for morals can be made from them. Or do you prefer to have some church etc make up morals for you and their only authority is “They Say So”.

Paul

:) :) :)

[fls]

Likely because a number of people in the US do find the use of human embryos immoral; more so I suspect than find the use of antibiotics immoral.

Only if you think that religious rules are somehow moral principles, when clearly they are not. I realize that we are obliged, from a socio-political standpoint, to address the fact that people think they have been offered morals. But if you are talking about how science would address questions of human values, your questions are non-starters.

I note you failed to address the issue of morality as to deciding preferred courses of action re technologically possible actions.

There isn't anything special about technologically possible actions - that is, they don't need to be addressed any differently from deciding other preferred courses of action.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

JREF has nothing to do with this talk, in fact, I know Randi and that is non sequitur too.

Do you seriously think that there can never be a set of rules and/or guidelines that can be used for morals? People’s general reactions to anything in daily life can be studied and conclusions and ideas for morals can be made from them. Or do you prefer to have some church etc make up morals for you and their only authority is “They Say So”.

Paul

:) :) :)

Which group do we study? White middle-class Americans? Poor uneducated Indians? Rich people who own yachts and pay little if any tax?

Do you think what people believe is acceptable behaviour is dependent on their circumstances?

[Paulhoff]

Which group do we study? White middle-class Americans? Poor uneducated Indians? Rich people who own yachts and pay little if any tax?

Do you think what people believe is acceptable behaviour is dependent on their circumstances?
Daaaaaaaaaaa, all so-called groups, daaaaaaaaaaa.

Lets see, does anyone think that it is OK to just murder anyone, please raise you hand if yes.


Paul

:) :) :)

[Ivor the Engineer]

Daaaaaaaaaaa, all so-called groups, daaaaaaaaaaa.

How large do you think the intersection of all those different groups' points of view on the right way to behave is going to be?

Lets see, does anyone think that it is OK to just murder anyone, please raise you hand if yes.


Paul

:) :) :)

It's okay to murder anyone so long as they're believed to be the enemy (at least today).

[qayak]

Some apparently do.

I guess you can ask Science if you haven't found an answer.

You forget one thing. If morality is subjective and science doesn't have anything to say about it, that doesn't mean that religion does.

Science is the only system we have for figuring things out. Religions still haven't figured out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Religion has nothing to say about morality, and more often than not, makes the poorest moral guide.

Another supposedly subjective area that science shouldn't be able to say anything about is art and yet . . . science has told us a lot about art and why people like certain works over others. (Salvador Dali's Last Supper comes to mind.)

The idea that science has nothing to say about morality is a myth that will soon be debunked. It doesn't matter that believers want to protect their precious gods and beliefs . . . science marches on without them just like it has in so many other areas.

[qayak]

It's okay to murder anyone so long as they're believed to be the enemy (at least today).

So wrong. All societies believe murder is wrong. Some don't believe killing enemies is wrong.

Killing enemies =/= murder

[JoelKatz]

So you would agree that belief in ghosts and bigfoot is justified by those who have perceived them? Is that correct? Or did you mean something else by that statement?It's hard to reply seriously to you when you say something like that. I would agree that something must explain those perceptions, I do not agree that the explanation is ghosts or bigfoot. I did not say that *every* reasoning chain that has perceptions at its root is necessarily valid. I just said that's a key requirement for being valid.

[AlBell]

Only if you think that religious rules are somehow moral principles, when clearly they are not.
Clear to you, Paul, and Harris at least.

And again, although The Rules may be subsumed with religious veneer they were formulated by men; likely very intelligent men.


I realize that we are obliged, from a socio-political standpoint, to address the fact that people think they have been offered morals.
We are?

But if you are talking about how science would address questions of human values, your questions are non-starters.
Yes I notice you've been unable so far to formulate any question for Science to address that actually addresses hot-button topics involving "moral" choices.



There isn't anything special about technologically possible actions - that is, they don't need to be addressed any differently from deciding other preferred courses of action.
Thanks for your usual non-answer off-on-a-tangent (in fact belonging in some other thread) response.

[Ivor the Engineer]

So wrong. All societies believe murder is wrong. Some don't believe killing enemies is wrong.

Killing enemies =/= murder

That's mostly a convenient fiction. A lot of "enemies" who have been killed are of no immediate threat to the people who murder them.

[Paulhoff]

How large do you think the intersection of all those different groups' points of view on the right way to behave is going to be?



It's okay to murder anyone so long as they're believed to be the enemy (at least today).
Do you think all morals are voted on.

And if your enemy is unarmed, do you think you have the right to now murder them.

Paul

:) :) :)

[qayak]

That's mostly a convenient fiction. A lot of "enemies" who have been killed are of no immediate threat to the people who murder them.

But you are not looking at the words you use in context. If a society says it is okay to kill your enemies it is not, nor can it ever be, murder.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. For thousands of years killing an enemy wasn't murder. It was a matter of people killing "enemies" because they were of a different tribe, race, religion, skin colour, sex, etc. That is what an enemy was. It wasn't necessarily that they were a threat to you in any manner at the time of their killing.

Science stepped in on this one and showed through genetics that there are no sub-humans, no "us and them" only us. So, right there science had something to say about morality. Science says that killing enemies because they are from another tribe, race, religion, etc. is MURDER because they are not your enemy, they are you . All societies believe murder is wrong, science just shows that the old ideas of what an enemy is have no basis in reality, and therefore, no moral ground to stand on.

[AlBell]

Do you think all morals are voted on.

And if your enemy is unarmed, do you think you have the right to now murder them.

Check with the scientists who've worked on those problems, and get back to us with The Answers.

Ktxby.

[Paulhoff]

Check with the scientists who've worked on those problems, and get back to us with The Answers.

Ktxby.
Scientist may vote on a term, like "planet", but theories are not voted on.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

Check with the scientists who've worked on those problems, and get back to us with The Answers.

Ktxby.

And what is you answer to where these morals should come from?

Paul

:) :) :)

[bigred]

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


This is Sam Harris at TED. Can science answer moral questions? Does Sam Harris even answer that question in this talk?

What do you think?
I think he's a narrow-minded idiot and the very idea is laughable. Morality cannot be dissected or measured in a test tube kinda way.

[Paulhoff]

I think he's a narrow-minded idiot and the very idea is laughable. Morality cannot be dissected or measured in a test tube kinda way.
Geee, really, narrow-minded............

And you are right, science only works with test tubes.

Sure it does.

Paul

:) :) :)

[bigred]

Yeah, he really is.

No idea what your 2d remark meant-

[Paulhoff]

Yeah, he really is.

No idea what your 2d remark meant-
Mmmmmmmmmmm, it means you are wrong.

Paul

:) :) :)

[bigred]

Can't argue with that dazzling logic.

[Paulhoff]

Can't argue with that dazzling logic.
You have made up your mind, so I should waste my time.

Paul

:) :) :)

[JoelKatz]

And what is you answer to where these morals should come from?The same place all other observations and judgments come from.

[Dragoonster]

Fetish for Buddhism, that is funny.

Yes, it is. Funny and true.

Please tell me where you morals come from?

From my brain and experiences. They trump any science, religion, and any other attempt to tell me my brain and experiences are somehow (objectively) faulty.

And of course we all know that Science is all inflexible and never ever changes when new information is learned, unlike the above religions.

Paul

:) :) :)

Yeah...Christianity still espouses keeping slaves, killing witches, paying a neighbor 100 currency if you kill his goat, etc.

Religions do change with the times/social bent, believe it or not. Sure, they suck and are completely irrational. But Harris sucks and is completely irrational. I don't see any reason to pay attention to him over any Pope simply because his basis for idiocy is atheism/science instead of theism/God.

As for science changing, I earlier wrote about how science often changes what foods are healthy to eat. Bread, eggs, occasional wine, etc. Science also gets other things wrong, even astronomy--"we never expected this"; "we need to recalculate our variables".

If science can't actually answer moral questions once and for all, but instead is just another random, ignorant system changing every week/year, why should it be respected any more than any other "solution" that doesn't actually solve anything?

[Dragoonster]

You forget one thing. If morality is subjective and science doesn't have anything to say about it, that doesn't mean that religion does.

So? Maybe NOTHING has anything objective to say about morality. Maybe morality is purely subjective.

Science is the only system we have for figuring things out. Religions still haven't figured out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Religion has nothing to say about morality, and more often than not, makes the poorest moral guide.

How many angels dancing on a pin is a moral question? Religion has figured out many ways to describe and formalize morality.

"Religions still haven't figured out how murders is immoral". Actually, most religions have.

Another supposedly subjective area that science shouldn't be able to say anything about is art and yet . . . science has told us a lot about art and why people like certain works over others. (Salvador Dali's Last Supper comes to mind.)

You're bringing aesthetics into this?

I'll just mention that psychology and sociology have also "told us a lot" about art and why people like certain works over others. Does this mean psychology is an objective science?

The idea that science has nothing to say about morality is a myth that will soon be debunked. It doesn't matter that believers want to protect their precious gods and beliefs . . . science marches on without them just like it has in so many other areas.

Of course science has something to say about morality. Many disciplines do. This isn't disputed, as has been noted time and time again in this thread. What's disputed is that "science can answer moral questions". Not "have something to say about moral questions". "Answer moral questions". There actually is a difference between these claims.

[JoelKatz]

You forget one thing. If morality is subjective and science doesn't have anything to say about it, that doesn't mean that religion does.So? Maybe NOTHING has anything objective to say about morality. Maybe morality is purely subjective.Actually, science can tell us everything there is to know about things that are subjective. For example, ice cream preferences are purely subjective. Tell me anything useful about ice cream preferences that science cannot (in principle, we may not have figured it out yet) tell us.

Science can figure out what happens when different people taste ice cream. They can assess ice cream preferences in the population. They may find correlations between ice cream preferences and mental states. They may be able to measure how much pleasure different people experience when they try different ice creams and tell us why some people like vanilla more than chocolate. They may be able to scan my brain and craft the ultimate ice cream flavor for me or tell me why and how much I will and won't like all flavors.

There is nothing useful about something subjective that science cannot (at least in principle, we may not know yet) tell us. I think you'll find that anything that would actually be useful would necessarily be amenable to scientific study for precisely the same reason it would be useful. If it has effects, we can study them scientifically. If it has no effects, what difference does it make?

Also, Dragoonster, subjective things are a type of objective thing. "Subjective" and "objective" are not opposites. Everything subjective is also objective, but not everything objective is subjective. For example, the size of a mountain is purely objective. But how big a mountain looks to a particular person from a particular point of view is subjective. Nevertheless, it is also objectively determined by the person's location, the nature of human vision, their distance from the mountain, and so on.

Subjective properties are completely amenable to objective analysis and understanding. We can understand the input objectively, we can understand the process objectively, we can understand the output objectively. What is left that we can't understand scientifically? There is nothing beyond the input, the processing, and the output.

[Kuko 4000]

From my brain and experiences. They trump any science, religion, and any other attempt to tell me my brain and experiences are somehow (objectively) faulty.


What does your brain and your experiences say about this picture without applying any scientific inquiry?

http://www.eyetricks.com/3401.jpg

Here's the url in case the picture doesn't show up:

http://www.eyetricks.com/3401.jpg


If science can't actually answer moral questions once and for all, but instead is just another random, ignorant system changing every week/year, why should it be respected any more than any other "solution" that doesn't actually solve anything?


Really?

:boggled:

[cyborg]

We can understand the input objectively, we can understand the process objectively, we can understand the output objectively. What is left that we can't understand scientifically? There is nothing beyond the input, the processing, and the output.

Well, what is left is the only question of relevance in a discussion that asserts science can answer moral questions.

Being able to understand the process of why someone prefers an ice cream flavour or a moral decision doesn't answer the question of why someone should prefer it.

There's no way science can answer a question like "should I kill that man?" because there is nothing in science that could fundamentally care one way or the other whether or not that man is alive or dead. You have to invent moral systems for that.

[JoelKatz]

There's no way science can answer a question like "should I kill that man?" because there is nothing in science that could fundamentally care one way or the other whether or not that man is alive or dead. You have to invent moral systems for that.In other words your argument is not that morality is subjective or has any general property that makes it so that science can't understand it. Your argument is that morality alone is special in some way that uniquely makes it, and only it, somehow exempt from scientific analysis. The entire rest of the universe is open to scientific understanding, but human morality is somehow different.

In any event, the flaw in your argument is that you think that caring is fundamentally needed to reach moral conclusions. But I can reach moral conclusions about what you should do even if I don't give a damn about you. Caring about yourself is how you make moral decisions for yourself. But there's no reason to think it wouldn't be possible to objectively make moral decisions for others without any caring. It's like arguing that computers can't add because they have no concept of a number. We add with number concepts. Computers add without them.

The crux is simply to understand precisely what is going on when humans make moral decisions. We can then track the input through the process to the output, and then replicate the process. If we discover limitations from the way humans do it, there's no reason to think we couldn't remove those limitations. Human moral decisionmaking is no different in principle from human mathematical problem solving. We just don't know the problems that are being solved. And we're occasionally confounded by the errors people make.

To put it simply, we have to understand the precise question that is being asked, and then how to get the right answer will come. Just as once you understand what 'addition' is, you can replicate a human doing addition problems, build a computer to do the same thing, and even catch the human in a mistake or two. But you have to understand the question, and we don't understand that yet. We don't yet know what 'should' really means.

But to argue that science can never get the "right" answers to moral questions because there is no scientific notion of "right" would also argue that computers can't get the "right" answers to addition problems. There is nothing special about moral questions compared to mathematical questions. (Except we know precisely what is being asked when someone asks for a 'sum' or 'product'.)

[JJM 777]

Science can study human behaviour.
Science can study human decision-making.
Science can study human emotions.
Science can study human moral behaviour, feelings, and decision-making.

This was post #1864 (Still in square #1 though)

[cyborg]

Your argument is that morality alone is special in some way that uniquely makes it, and only it, somehow exempt from scientific analysis.

I fail to see how you could possibly infer that from an argument that analogises from ice cream flavour preference.

You are reading a lot of stuff I haven't written.

In any event, the flaw in your argument is that you think that caring is fundamentally needed to reach moral conclusions.

Fundamentally you need to prefer the state of the universe to be one way or the other and fundamentally science is not a method of inquiry designed to make assertions about how the universe should be but about how the universe is.

Science doesn't and can't answer the question as to whether or not I should exist in the universe.

It's like arguing that computers can't add because they have no concept of a number.

No it isn't.

It's arguing that just because computers can add doesn't mean that they can know what to add.

The crux is simply to understand precisely what is going on when humans make moral decisions. We can then track the input through the process to the output, and then replicate the process.

Understanding the moral program doesn't tell you whether or not the moral program is "right".

If your moral program says murder is "wrong" and my moral program says murder is "right" via this analysis where are you left? You are left appealing to something that isn't part of either system.

Human moral decisionmaking is no different in principle from human mathematical problem solving.

No, it isn't - the fact that you understand this makes your argument even more perplexing.

But to argue that science can never get the "right" answers to moral questions because there is no scientific notion of "right" would also argue that computers can't get the "right" answers to addition problems.

No it isn't for the reasons outlined above.

The questions are not being asked about the same type of thing.

One is a simple question of whether or not an operation is possible.

The other is a question of whether or not an operation is applicable.

There is nothing special about moral questions compared to mathematical questions. (Except we know precisely what is being asked when someone asks for a 'sum' or 'product'.)

But do you know when to use a sum or a product?

Mathematical precision doesn't help if you use a plus when you wanted a minus.

As it is with moral reasoning.

[Paulhoff]

Religions do change with the times/social bent, believe it or not. Sure, they suck and are completely irrational. But Harris sucks and is completely irrational.

I know religions have changed, but it was from outside pressure, and that was many times came from science understanding. It was posted before that religion pigeons holes people, and science has shown that humans are very much the same throughout the world, and more so than a clan of chimps are to each other.

But to say Harris sucks and is irrational is way over the top and only shows me that you don't have a so-called open mind. I can't see anything at all that was said by him that makes him this. I wonder if it is just people hearing that science can't do something and believing it because it makes them feel better and so-called more than they seem to be. Many think that science is only cut and dry and it can be at first, but anytime it is applied it only shows how deep, how un-dry and uncut the world really is. Religion had humankind as the center of the universe, that sounds sweet at first but it is very limiting to ones knowledge, where science has shown that everywhere is the center of the universe and is mind opening.

Science has and will make mistakes, but those mistakes can help to come up new ways of thinking about a problem, and it seems many here don’t understand that.

Paul

:) :) :)

[annnnoid]

Actually, science can tell us everything there is to know about things that are subjective.
.


As Wolfgang Pauli put it….’NOT EVEN WRONG’. This is so stupid it’s hard to believe anyone with a brain could believe it, let alone commit it to a public forum. I’ll have to conclude you made a typo otherwise you’ve lost all of whatever little credibility you had left.


Tell me anything useful about ice cream preferences that science cannot (in principle, we may not have figured it out yet) tell us.
.


…aaah…here we have a minor qualification. “…in principle…”. And what ‘principle’ would that be Joel? That science can figure out everything? Please identify where this axiom has been established.

I’ll wait.

Perhaps a little reminder from Robin on the limitations of science:

What methods do we have of investigating the metaphysical/ontological questions that science cannot ask?

I would say that we have none.

What you do not seem to comprehend Joel, is that there exist questions that science cannot ask. Perhaps you should apply some of your scientific zeal to understanding why Scott Atran concluded that based on ALL evidence and reason life is fundamentally irrational. He’s an atheist and one of the most highly respected cognitive scientists in the world….and he very likely understands the issue infinitely better than you do.


Science can figure out what happens when different people taste ice cream
.


Wrong….again. Seriously Joel. This is blatant pseudo-science. Science can figure out SOME things to SOME degrees. You are becoming a parody, which is regrettable, because you’re obviously not stupid. You sound far more like some religious disciple (of, in this particular case, science) than a sensible atheist.


They can assess ice cream preferences in the population.
.


…big deal.


They may find correlations between ice cream preferences and mental states. They may be able to measure how much pleasure different people experience when they try different ice creams and tell us why some people like vanilla more than chocolate.
.


….and then we’ll have scientists telling us we’d better eat vanilla if we want to be happier? Again….a steaming pile of rampant speculation. IOW...science-FICTION!


They may be able to scan my brain and craft the ultimate ice cream flavor for me or tell me why and how much I will and won't like all flavors.
.


….I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. How can anyone think such nonsense. ‘They may be able to…’. Why not just plug yourself in and let ‘them’ live your life for you since you seem to have completely forgotten what it means to have one. And how do we decide whether or not what 'they' may be able to do is appropriate or not? Oh yeah, we plug ourselves in and 'they' will tell us....after 'they' plug themselves in to determine if 'they' are accurately adjudicating their conditions. And who's going to be adjudicating the adjudicators....omniscient scientists guided by his holiness Pope Harris the first.


Joel….no offence but your entire argument seems to boil down to “…science can figure some things out….so it must be possible for science to figure everything out…” Talk about flagrant scientism! Your argument is nothing but epileptic hand waving and epic wishful thinking.

Sorry, but your explanations are vague, often nonsensical, and…sometimes…downright worrisome. Your rational utopia would not only be utterly unworkable and blatantly immoral (ever heard of the fundamental morality of free will?....why do you suppose free will / personal responsibility has been recognized as the most fundamental moral imperative?)…it would be a fascist nightmare. Ever heard of the Borg? I’ll take religious uncertainty any day.



What is left that we can't understand scientifically? There is nothing beyond the input, the processing, and the output.


I’d suggest you take some anti-rational pills Joel. If that’s all a human being is to you then you seriously need to get out more.



Perhaps a few credible reminders from some actual scientists of what the state of things actually is and will likely be for quite some time.

Professor Geraint Rees, Director… Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London

“ Brain reading will be restricted to simple cases with a fixed number of alternatives...for all of which training date are available....because of the all but infinite number of cognitive states and necessarily limited training categories. “

And Noam Chomsky:

" It should be obvious to everyone that by and large science reaches deep explanatory theories to the extent that it narrows its gaze. If a problem is too hard for physicists, they hand it over to chemists, and so on down the line until it ends with people who try to deal somehow with human affairs, where scientific understanding is very thin, and is likely to remain so, except in a few areas that can be abstracted for special studies.

On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world. "


It was posted before that religion pigeons holes people, and science has shown that humans are very much the same throughout the world, and more so than a clan of chimps are to each other.



….who was that guy who tried to use science to argue that entire categories of human beings deserved to die….Hitler I think was his name. Wonderful dude. A credit to science and atheism. The world definitely needs more like him.

[Beth]

So you would agree that belief in ghosts and bigfoot is justified by those who have perceived them? Is that correct? Or did you mean something else by that statement?It's hard to reply seriously to you when you say something like that. I would agree that something must explain those perceptions, I do not agree that the explanation is ghosts or bigfoot. I did not say that *every* reasoning chain that has perceptions at its root is necessarily valid. I just said that's a key requirement for being valid.
This seems more like an excuse for not responding to my post than a legitimate gripe. I was serious about the point here, as I was about the others I made in that post.

It’s a fair point that perceptions are a necessary but not sufficient justification for belief. Personally, I think that a belief of that nature can be justified by such perceptions. That doesn’t make them correct, but it is quite possible to construct a valid chain of reasoning based on the perception. My question was not regarding your opinion of the accuracy of their belief, but whether you think they are justified in their belief. Based on your previous post, it would seem the answer should be yes. Based on this post, it would seem the answer is no. So what is your opinion?

Actually, science can tell us everything there is to know about things that are subjective. For example, ice cream preferences are purely subjective. Tell me anything useful about ice cream preferences that science cannot (in principle, we may not have figured it out yet) tell us.
Okay, it’s that in principle part that relates back to the axiom we were discussing.
The universe is governed by consistent rules that humans can deduce through observation and experiment.

If you accept this axiom, then your statement is correct. But this axiom cannot be proven true or false. Do you still claim that it is a conclusion rather than an axiom?
In other words your argument is not that morality is subjective or has any general property that makes it so that science can't understand it. Your argument is that morality alone is special in some way that uniquely makes it, and only it, somehow exempt from scientific analysis. The entire rest of the universe is open to scientific understanding, but human morality is somehow different. No, that isn’t the argument that has been made. People in this thread are not arguing that science cannot assist humans in making the correct choices to adhere to an ethical system. The argument relates to whether science can do so without requiring some fundamental axiom that the moral system will be built upon. To define ethical as increasing or maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures is an example of such an axiom.
But to argue that science can never get the "right" answers to moral questions because there is no scientific notion of "right" would also argue that computers can't get the "right" answers to addition problems. There is nothing special about moral questions compared to mathematical questions. (Except we know precisely what is being asked when someone asks for a 'sum' or 'product'.)
Well, yes. But there are different systems of mathematics whereby a ‘sum’ or ‘product’ may be defined differently. We have to specify to the computer what the mathematical system is that a problem must be solved within. Likewise, for science to help us humans make moral choices, we will have to define what ethical system to use. That is the ‘ought’ that must be defined prior to being able to make use of science to solve ethical dilemmas.

[Dani]

But to argue that science can never get the "right" answers to moral questions because there is no scientific notion of "right" would also argue that computers can't get the "right" answers to addition problems. There is nothing special about moral questions compared to mathematical questions. (Except we know precisely what is being asked when someone asks for a 'sum' or 'product'.)

This is an equivocation.

Morally right doesn't mean factually right. They are different concepts.

[AlBell]

At least no one has blurted out "category error"!

Oops. I just did.

[Paulhoff]

….who was that guy who tried to use science to argue that entire categories of human beings deserved to die….Hitler I think was his name. Wonderful dude. A credit to science and atheism. The world definitely needs more like him.

Geezzz, it has gotten how to Hitler. His is Christian no less, and not an atheist. He misuse science, and of course that is the fault of science, not the men misusing and using religion as their back up for morals.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9684168/hitler8.jpg


"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Adolph Hitler



Paul

:) :) :)

[fls]

Clear to you, Paul, and Harris at least.

And again, although The Rules may be subsumed with religious veneer they were formulated by men; likely very intelligent men.

Does that matter? They didn't do a good job of it.

We are?

Yes, we are. We are offered the excuses that at least religion offers us a way to package morals, that morals are the purview of religion since science cannot address them, that there would not be morals without religion, etc.

Yes I notice you've been unable so far to formulate any question for Science to address that actually addresses hot-button topics involving "moral" choices.

You haven't actually brought up substantial moral choices, though. The questions of prohibiting human embryos outside the womb or forceable burqa use are trivially easy for science to answer - they needlessly increase suffering and are unjustified.

Thanks for your usual non-answer off-on-a-tangent (in fact belonging in some other thread) response.

Don't blame me. It was your idea to treat actions which depend on new technology as somehow exempt from consideration, which I disagreed with.

Linda

[Egg]

The questions of prohibiting human embryos outside the womb or forceable burqa use are trivially easy for science to answer - they needlessly increase suffering and are unjustified.

This is true. However, for the purposes of what we're discussing in this thread, the kind of questions we'd be concerned with might be something like:

Can science tell us that needlessly increasing suffering should be generally considered as ethical priority number 1?

Can science give us a basis for ranking which persons or creatures we should assign more importance to reducing needless suffering, in cases where we need to make a choice?

How does science tell us what classifies as "needless"?

[JoelKatz]

This is an equivocation.

Morally right doesn't mean factually right. They are different concepts.I can't figure out how to parse this. If someone says "X is morally right", they're arguing that it is a fact that X is morally right. They're asserting that action X in fact has a particular property.

[AlBell]

Does that matter? They didn't do a good job of it.
What specific evidence do you have this is a widespread, citizens rioting in the street, problem? Or a problem at all for that matter -- except to Harris and you?



Yes, we are. We are offered the excuses that at least religion offers us a way to package morals, that morals are the purview of religion since science cannot address them, that there would not be morals without religion, etc.
Be darned. Here I thought secular humanists have come up with moral systems. Agreed all ignore them.



You haven't actually brought up substantial moral choices, though. The questions of prohibiting human embryos outside the womb or forceable burqa use are trivially easy for science to answer - they needlessly increase suffering and are unjustified.
Who gets their needless suffering increased, and why should you or I care if it does?

And exactly what are the Answers via scientists using Science to evaluate these questions? How did they arrive at all that increased, needless, suffering?

And I remain curious; which is worse, stealing embryos or eggs?



Don't blame me. It was your idea to treat actions which depend on new technology as somehow exempt from consideration, which I disagreed with.

Linda
Your comprehension comes & goes, doesn't it? The discussion concerns technology that raises moral issues in its use.

[Dani]

I can't figure out how to parse this. If someone says "X is morally right", they're arguing that it is a fact that X is morally right. They're asserting that action X in fact has a particular property.

Take any dictionary, and you'll see the two different meanings I'm referring to. It's either an equivocation, or a particular semantic view. It's either a fallacy or misleading.

[annnnoid]

I should apologize Joel…I think I was a bit harsh in my last post. Sorry…but your conclusions just annoy me somehow.

I can't figure out how to parse this. If someone says "X is morally right", they're arguing that it is a fact that X is morally right. They're asserting that action X in fact has a particular property.


…the property of compelling a conclusion of moral veracity / certainty. The property of being factual.

But….no, they’re asserting that they believe action X has a particular property (there are degrees of interpretation involved). You are assuming that there is some definitive (and scientifically intelligible) normative process by which that conclusion is arrived at. The fact is that how anyone achieves any conclusion about anything is an utter mystery (I think Hegel tried to comprehensively illuminate the human landscape in The Science of Logic but who understands Hegel???...and Shopenhauer thought he was an idiot anyway) …and not only that, but people often reach similar conclusions in different, sometimes vastly different, ways (like Atran said, life is irrational). And then…whatever condition of ‘moral certainty’ is achieved itself varies according to a wide range of issues ….most of which are in no way scientifically quantifiable.

You’re expecting this ‘property’ to be not only consistent and rational but also somehow scientifically intelligible. I don’t think this in any way shape or form reflects the reality of subjective experience and the infinite variety of ways individuals achieve identity.

Thus the moral condition of dude A who ‘feels’ squashing frogs is wrong may bear little resemblance to the moral condition of dude B who ‘feels’ the same thing. Geraint Rees (the cognitive scientist I’ve quoted a bunch of times) has referred to this when he says that reverse inferencing is an extremely dubious process. Reverse inferencing is the process of taking a previously adjudicated neural process (for example: fMRI state X is equivalent to Sally saying hallo to a large orange cat) and assuming that the same ‘readings’ can be applied to Jennifer (IOW….if a similar fMRI reading is achieved with Jennifer does it mean she is also saying hallo to a large orange cat?....the answer is no). Actually, he’s established that the same readings cannot often even be applied to the same person at a later date, let alone to anyone else.

IMO….you are extrapolating that there should be some intelligible / quantifiable process involved based on an over-rationalization of human nature and a wildly optimistic extrapolation of science’s ability to adjudicate neural correlates.

[fls]

This is true. However, for the purposes of what we're discussing in this thread, the kind of questions we'd be concerned with might be something like:

Can science tell us that needlessly increasing suffering should be generally considered as ethical priority number 1?

I think we would identify those properties which have the greatest import, like for health where quality adjusted life years give us more relevant information than just mortality.

Can science give us a basis for ranking which persons or creatures we should assign more importance to reducing needless suffering, in cases where we need to make a choice?

This seems to relate to the extent to which we think various creatures can have experiences similar to those that are important to us - pain, pleasure, sorrow, etc. This is reflected in the ethical guidelines for the treatment of animals in research, where we are careless about undergraduate labs using fruit flies, but have stricter requirements for the use of rats and very rigid criteria for primates. Persons are generally treated as indistinguishable.

How does science tell us what classifies as "needless"?

No benefit is derived or benefit could be obtained without the suffering.

Linda

[fls]

What specific evidence do you have this is a widespread, citizens rioting in the street, problem? Or a problem at all for that matter -- except to Harris and you?

Be darned. Here I thought secular humanists have come up with moral systems. Agreed all ignore them.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm just pointing out very common arguments which take place in the public arena and here to some extent. If you have not encountered them, I'm surprised and a bit envious. However, it doesn't really matter - just like the presence of quack medicine does not serve to make medicine any more or less useful.

Who gets their needless suffering increased, and why should you or I care if it does?

Couples with the strong desire to have a child who need the help medical advances provide. Woman killed or maimed for not wearing a burqa. We don't have to care, just like I don't have to care whether you die from a heart attack in order for an aspirin a day to effectively prevent that heart attack.

And exactly what are the Answers via scientists using Science to evaluate these questions? How did they arrive at all that increased, needless, suffering?

One good indicator is the value of the resources couples will put towards fertility technologies.

And I remain curious; which is worse, stealing embryos or eggs?

I don't know if that question has been posed in a study. I wanted you to think on it a bit and to hear some other opinions. My guess is that most people wouldn't make much of a distinction between them.

Your comprehension comes & goes, doesn't it? The discussion concerns technology that raises moral issues in its use.

Right...but it doesn't alter those properties we are looking for - suffering, pleasure, autonomy, etc. It's not like it's suddenly okay for people to die because we can perform liver transplants.

Linda

[CapelDodger]

I know religions have changed, but it was from outside pressure ...

More usually through internal pressure and schism, often accompanied by violence. The only thing an outside force can do to a religion is suppress it. I'm working on an app for that.


... and that was many times came from science understanding.

Nope. Luther did not nail 95 Equations to a cathedral door, and as I understand it there weren't even any diagrams in his Theses.

It was posted before that religion pigeons holes people, and science has shown that humans are very much the same throughout the world, and more so than a clan of chimps are to each other.

People (and chimps) naturally like there to be an in-crowd and an out-crowd. It's not an instinct we've come close to shedding, even after thousands of years of civilisaton. Religion is just another way to delineate the ins and the outs.

But to say Harris sucks and is irrational is way over the top and only shows me that you don't have a so-called open mind.

I've looked at it, and he's rubbish. Just consider the trite "Great Questions" he introduces, with the implication that these are the sort of questions science can ... ummm ... something someday.

"Values are facts". Puhleease. Values are subjective, individual, consciously or unconsciously held concepts, and that's a fact. Pick Harris's verbiage apart and it all turns to smoke.

Presentable guy, great hair, strides about stage spouting profound inanities to a rapt audience. Seen it before.

I can't see anything at all that was said by him that makes him this.

He is a less than profound thinker.

[CapelDodger]

I think he's a narrow-minded idiot and the very idea is laughable. Morality cannot be dissected or measured in a test tube kinda way.

I wouldn't say narrow, but shallow, definitely.

Why are we still talking about this?

[cyborg]

This seems to relate to the extent to which we think various creatures can have experiences similar to those that are important to us - pain, pleasure, sorrow, etc.

That doesn't sound much like an empirical method of deciding that these experiences should or should not be experienced.

[Dragoonster]

Actually, science can tell us everything there is to know about things that are subjective. For example, ice cream preferences are purely subjective. Tell me anything useful about ice cream preferences that science cannot (in principle, we may not have figured it out yet) tell us.

As annnoid has noted, this qualification is very telling.

Why haven't we "figured it out yet"? When will we "figure it out"?

Also...tell my anything even in principal MORE useful concerning individual humans' ardor for various types of ice cream that Science can answer better than these individuals saying "I like the taste of this ice cream!"

Science can figure out what happens when different people taste ice cream. They can assess ice cream preferences in the population. They may find correlations between ice cream preferences and mental states. They may be able to measure how much pleasure different people experience when they try different ice creams and tell us why some people like vanilla more than chocolate. They may be able to scan my brain and craft the ultimate ice cream flavor for me or tell me why and how much I will and won't like all flavors.

"can"
"may be able"
"may be able"

Various religions can also "may be able" to assign an objective component to ice cream taste, even if they can't yet.

There is nothing useful about something subjective that science cannot (at least in principle, we may not know yet) tell us. I think you'll find that anything that would actually be useful would necessarily be amenable to scientific study for precisely the same reason it would be useful. If it has effects, we can study them scientifically. If it has no effects, what difference does it make?

As I've said/asked before, show one moral question answered by Science that is scientifically indisputable. All the "in principle" and "may in the future" qualifications in the world are and should not convince any theist or atheist rationalist that Science can actually come up with a definitive answer.

Is scientific study of the brain and morality interesting? Could it possibly develop into groundbreaking, revolutionary territory? Sure. "In time" it could. This doesn't seem to be the time though.

Subjective properties are completely amenable to objective analysis and understanding. We can understand the input objectively, we can understand the process objectively, we can understand the output objectively. What is left that we can't understand scientifically? There is nothing beyond the input, the processing, and the output.

Okay. Declare an objective moral certitude with this, from input to processing to output. Obviously this declaration shouldn't rely on any subjective axioms, such as "well-being" being preferred.

Really?

Uh...yeah. If I'm going to be convinced by some new morality, it needs to deliver NOW and be ironclad. Why would I or anyone go all-in on a moral system that is based around "coulds" "cans" and "in the future"s? It could be in 40 years Science does actually answer moral questions. It doesn't now though.

What does your brain and your experiences say about this picture without applying any scientific inquiry?



Here's the url in case the picture doesn't show up:

http://www.eyetricks.com/3401.jpg

The URL led me to some Kardashian sisters or something video so I immediately clicked it off. Sorry.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Paul/Linda/Joel,

As a morality based on science does not yet exist, which of the ethical systems based on axioms that do exist do you currently use to decide what the right thing to do is?

And Joel, given your "input, processing and output" comment, you may be interested in this wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence), particularly the following section:

Emergent properties and processes

An emergent behavior or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective. If emergence happens over disparate size scales, then the reason is usually a causal relation across different scales. In other words there is often a form of top-down feedback in systems with emergent properties.[4] The processes from which emergent properties result may occur in either the observed or observing system, and can commonly be identified by their patterns of accumulating change, most generally called 'growth'. Why emergent behaviours occur include: intricate causal relations across different scales and feedback, known as interconnectivity. The emergent property itself may be either very predictable or unpredictable and unprecedented, and represent a new level of the system's evolution. The complex behaviour or properties are not a property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities: they are irreducible. No physical property of an individual molecule of any gas would lead one to think that a large collection of them will transmit sound. The shape and behaviour of a flock of birds [1] or school of fish are also good examples.

One reason why emergent behaviour is hard to predict is that the number of interactions between components of a system increases combinatorially with the number of components, thus potentially allowing for many new and subtle types of behaviour to emerge. For example, the possible interactions between groups of molecules grows enormously with the number of molecules such that it is impossible for a computer to even list the arrangements for a system as small as 20 molecules.

...

[Kuko 4000]

The URL led me to some Kardashian sisters or something video so I immediately clicked it off. Sorry.


Can anyone confirm this? It works perfectly for me. Thanks. Maybe you can try again and answer my question.

http://www.eyetricks.com/3401.jpg

[fls]

That doesn't sound much like an empirical method of deciding that these experiences should or should not be experienced.

That description referred to which creatures potentially have these experiences, which could be gathered empirically. As to determining which properties are reflected in our moral intuitions, that is also information which can be gathered empirically. And then the consequences of choosing on these properties is also gathered empirically to some extent.

Linda

[fls]

As annnoid has noted, this qualification is very telling.

Why haven't we "figured it out yet"? When will we "figure it out"?

I suspect ice cream flavor research has low priority. :)

However, I think we already use science to determine moral choices, we just don't identify it as such. For example, a lot of questions are answered by reference to health, our tendency to distinguish 'the other' on the basis of similarity of appearance or disgust turns out not to be so useful for selecting relevant characteristics, the products of pathophysiology are distinguished from the range of functional physiology, etc.

Linda

[AlBell]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm just pointing out very common arguments which take place in the public arena and here to some extent. If you have not encountered them, I'm surprised and a bit envious. However, it doesn't really matter - just like the presence of quack medicine does not serve to make medicine any more or less useful.
I see. The probablity that few are concerned with existing morality as they understand it makes it probable that Harris' proposals should be mandated by the elite like yourself who do take Harris seriously.



Couples with the strong desire to have a child who need the help medical advances provide. Woman killed or maimed for not wearing a burqa. We don't have to care, just like I don't have to care whether you die from a heart attack in order for an aspirin a day to effectively prevent that heart attack.
Since neither of us care, who is supposed to?

Do you blindly prescribe aspirin regimens for patients?



One good indicator is the value of the resources couples will put towards fertility technologies.
The only thing that indicates is that those with the gold make the rules. You seem to think all agree the fertility tech is "moral"; some don't agree.

As to needless suffering, why aren't those resources being directed to help existing babies in great need?



I don't know if that question has been posed in a study. I wanted you to think on it a bit and to hear some other opinions. My guess is that most people wouldn't make much of a distinction between them.
Especially since the actual moral questions involved remain in dispute.



Right...but it doesn't alter those properties we are looking for - suffering, pleasure, autonomy, etc.
Tell me again where and over what time-span we are looking for suffering, pleasure, autonomy, etc., and why we "ought" to be?


It's not like it's suddenly okay for people to die because we can perform liver transplants.

So what?

I do agree that few moral dilemmas appear related to liver transplants; just more gold makes the rules.

[cyborg]

That description referred to which creatures potentially have these experiences, which could be gathered empirically. As to determining which properties are reflected in our moral intuitions, that is also information which can be gathered empirically. And then the consequences of choosing on these properties is also gathered empirically to some extent.

That dances around the central point - by what empirical basis do you determine that an experience should or should not be experienced?

Invoking "moral intuition" hardly nails down anything resembling an answer free of bias does it?

[Egg]

That description referred to which creatures potentially have these experiences, which could be gathered empirically. As to determining which properties are reflected in our moral intuitions, that is also information which can be gathered empirically. And then the consequences of choosing on these properties is also gathered empirically to some extent.

Linda
As has been pointed out a few times already, nobody is disagreeing that science can help us to determine the consequences of various choices. There seems to be some assumption here that once we know all the possible outcomes, we would all make the same choices, but this isn't always the case. Different values would lead to people making different choices, even if the consequences were precisely known.

The only way in which science tackles the is/ought issue in the case of having identified the consequences of choices, is if we insert a moral axiom (eg. well-being of conscious creatures is #1 priority). But it's precisely this moral axiom that we're asking science to find if we are going to claim to have solved the is/ought problem.

[Egg]

Can science tell us that needlessly increasing suffering should be generally considered as ethical priority number 1?
I think we would identify those properties which have the greatest import, like for health where quality adjusted life years give us more relevant information than just mortality.
That health example includes a non-science value judgement. How would science begin to determine which properties have the greatest import without starting with some moral axiom?


Can science give us a basis for ranking which persons or creatures we should assign more importance to reducing needless suffering, in cases where we need to make a choice?

This seems to relate to the extent to which we think various creatures can have experiences similar to those that are important to us - pain, pleasure, sorrow, etc. This is reflected in the ethical guidelines for the treatment of animals in research, where we are careless about undergraduate labs using fruit flies, but have stricter requirements for the use of rats and very rigid criteria for primates. Persons are generally treated as indistinguishable.
I would agree with your assessment, but not for any scientific reasons. So we determine an ape feels less sorrow than a rat. What's the empirical reason for putting a value on sorrow? How does science determine that it's okay to test our drugs on the rat?

As far as persons being treated as indistinguishable, that may the case (and hopefully is) in our modern, western society, but it's not always been the case and probably still isn't in some parts of the world. Sure, science can determine that we're genetically all very similar, but we're not culturally. How does science tell us that we should treat all people the same?


How does science tell us what classifies as "needless"?

No benefit is derived or benefit could be obtained without the suffering.

How does science determine what we should class as "benefit" without assuming a moral axiom? What's the empirical basis for why we should care about suffering?

[Paulhoff]

How does science determine what we should class as "benefit" without assuming a moral axiom? What's the empirical basis for why we should care about suffering?

Do you know that “science” is a tool and people use it. Science is not a thing unto itself.

Paul

:) :) :)

[JoelKatz]

And Joel, given your "input, processing and output" comment, you may be interested in this wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence), particularly the following section:This doesn't present any fundamental limitation, it just shows why some problems are very, very hard.

[Egg]

Do you know that “science” is a tool and people use it. Science is not a thing unto itself.

Paul

:) :) :)
Of course. And the same could be said for the title of this thread. "Science" does get used more broadly in the English language though (see WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)). If my wording is potentially misleading, allow me to clarify by a minor rephrase of the question:

How would we use the scientific method to determine what we should class as "benefit" without assuming a moral axiom?

[CapelDodger]

Do you know that “science” is a tool and people use it. Science is not a thing unto itself.

Paul

:) :) :)

The scientific method is a tool, but Science is a discipline, a pursuit, a project, a body of knowledge ... not precisely defined, I admit, but a thing nevertheless.

That knowledge, of course, does not and cannot include the Knowledge of Right and Wrong in a Biblical sense. Which Sam Harris apparently fails to grasp (unless he's just attention-seeking, in which case he wouldn't care).

[CapelDodger]

How would we use the scientific method to determine what we should class as "benefit" without assuming a moral axiom?

A good day for the lions is a bad day for the zebra ... so where, indeed, is the benefit?

I never argue with people's axioms, once they admit that's what they are. I take note of their axioms for future reference in my dealings with them, but otherwise I leave it there.

I never get drawn on my own axioms, of course :). That would be far too revealing.

[Paulhoff]

Knowledge of Right and Wrong in a Biblical sense.
Biblical Sense.............. have you read that mess????

Paul

:) :)

[JJM 777]

Which Sam Harris apparently fails to grasp (unless he's just attention-seeking, in which case he wouldn't care).
Just attention-seeking? No other motives? I will believe that when the book is available for free online.

[Joey McGee]

I accidentally unsubscribed to this thread and forgot about my last post until I was looking through my old ones. Kevin had taken the time to reply with some good ideas so I figured that the objective, scientifically moral thing to do would be reply despite the time expired. (March 10th (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6958836&postcount=1489)) My brain did need a break from this topic and I'm fresssshhh.

I think Harris would point to religious ideas of good and bad as counterexamples to that claim. A lot of those ideas seem clearly counterproductive if the goal is the well-being of conscious creatures, yet people care a lot about them.

I would argue that they thought they were in alignment with the highest form of well-being due to their supernatural distortions. For example, if you think that God's well-being and happiness is all-important and earthy suffering leads to heavenly well-being there's nothing you won't do for him no matter how painful or destructive the actions are to conscious creatures on earth.

I'm not even sure about that. I think that I'd point to Peter Singer and the animal liberation movement as a counterexample there. Scientists were busily torturing animals for decades before Singer led the charge to get people to believe that the wellbeing of non-human conscious beings mattered.

I disagree but that's a really good point. I would argue that people who enjoy or don't care about the suffering of animals are demonstrably disturbed, it's a factor in diagnosing psychopaths. You could objectively say that it matters because being callous towards suffering causes the species to become callous towards itself. That's kind of a simplistic argument that could be elaborated upon and clarified but you see where I'm going.

Similarly the appalling state of much of the Third World isn't a scientific problem - the world has more than enough food to feed everyone, and more than enough industrial capability to give everyone in the world clean water, basic medical care, mosquito netting and so forth. Science can make it easier to fix those problems without making any real sacrifices, but another solution would be to persuade people they should make some sacrifices.


But the fact is that poverty persists because of corruption and religion. It's not the only cause, but if Canada suddenly became the leader of the NWO, everyone had their belief systems reset, and all of the corrupt people dropped dead for some reason the situation would be remedied pretty fast. The reason those people keep their power is lies about reality that their followers believe, whether they are conscious frauds or not. The lie is that there isn't a better way to conduct themselves in order to achieve objective well-being for all. It's knowing facts about reality that would make the difference. Perhaps convincing people through philosophy would be worthwhile but I would argue that exposing the lies and illuminating the facts about reality should technically be enough.

Really? What is he saying that, say, Singer and Parfit and maybe Rawls haven't said before?

I wouldn't know. I was already thinking in this way before TML and I've heard parallel ideas before. The neuroscience arguments and comparison to religion's search for well-being were two fresh perspectives I hadn't thought deeply about.

I still keep an open mind, I intend to read a lot more about this in the future, including the posts I missed. I'm sure that the Dawkins/Harris event based on TML will generate more interest and new debate. It's on the 12th and will be posted online shortly after.

[cyborg]

This doesn't present any fundamental limitation, it just shows why some problems are very, very hard.

It's irrelevant anyway - you can't extract "the" moral truth from observing an individual brain's moral processing - only "a" moral truth for that particular brain.

Really, I don't see what advantage this "scientific" analysis of brain function has over just seeing how people behave and drawing conclusions from that. It still won't tell you which behaviours are scientifically "right".

[fls]

I see. The probablity that few are concerned with existing morality as they understand it makes it probable that Harris' proposals should be mandated by the elite like yourself who do take Harris seriously.

No, it's the opposite. I'm treating it as more of a non sequitur.

Since neither of us care, who is supposed to?

Those who are affected by the experience.

Do you blindly prescribe aspirin regimens for patients?

Yes, but how can that be relevant?

The only thing that indicates is that those with the gold make the rules. You seem to think all agree the fertility tech is "moral"; some don't agree.

Are you talking about objections based on whether it follows religious rules (i.e. pretend morals) or about objections based on properties of fertility tech?

As to needless suffering, why aren't those resources being directed to help existing babies in great need?

This seems very much like a 'false dichotomy'.

Especially since the actual moral questions involved remain in dispute.

Religious rules seem to dispute the use of human embryos, but as a moral question, it seems relatively straightforward.

Tell me again where and over what time-span we are looking for suffering, pleasure, autonomy, etc., and why we "ought" to be?

Whatever is relevant to our moral question.

So what?

Exactly.

I do agree that few moral dilemmas appear related to liver transplants; just more gold makes the rules.

How so?

Linda

[fls]

That dances around the central point - by what empirical basis do you determine that an experience should or should not be experienced?

Is there a choice to be made between getting hit on the head with a hammer or not?

Invoking "moral intuition" hardly nails down anything resembling an answer free of bias does it?

I agree. Hence the suggestion to dump morals based on some sort of consensus of moral intuitions.

Linda

[fls]

That health example includes a non-science value judgement. How would science begin to determine which properties have the greatest import without starting with some moral axiom?

It doesn't. For example, quality adjusted life years came about because it is observed that years of life have different values depending upon functional status, pain/discomfort, disease, etc. This is very much observation-driven, rather than something referred to as axiom-driven. As has been pointed out, "axioms" are a philosophical concept which really has no use in science, and attempting to shoehorn observations into axioms only really ensures that you end up with something quite wrong.

I would agree with your assessment, but not for any scientific reasons. So we determine an ape feels less sorrow than a rat. What's the empirical reason for putting a value on sorrow?

Do you think that our value for sorrow would be different if it was observed that sorrow is a state of mind that is preferentially sought and is associated with gain? That is, could our perception of 'sorrow' have anything to do with observations about how we feel when experiencing sorrow and what external events it is associated with?

How does science determine that it's okay to test our drugs on the rat?

Would this be altered by discovering, contrary to what we think now, that rats have the same kinds of thought processes as humans with a rich inner life full of sorrow, schadenfreude, elation, relief, etc.?

As far as persons being treated as indistinguishable, that may the case (and hopefully is) in our modern, western society, but it's not always been the case and probably still isn't in some parts of the world. Sure, science can determine that we're genetically all very similar, but we're not culturally. How does science tell us that we should treat all people the same?

It tells us whether we can be distinguished in ways that are relevant to the question. It generally means that people are indistinguishable until they vary in ways that are relevant.

How does science determine what we should class as "benefit" without assuming a moral axiom? What's the empirical basis for why we should care about suffering?

I can see that medical research would grind to a stop under your watch. :)

Linda

[JJM 777]

Religious rules seem to dispute the use of human embryos, but as a moral question, it seems relatively straightforward.
Sounds like we will have a good practical example for discussion here, if you explain to us, and thus subject for peer review:
a) what, why and how is straightforward about the use of:
a1) human sperm or egg cells
a2) human embryos
a3) human healthy fetuses
a4) human fetuses with serious health disorders
a5) human healthy early born babies
a6) human newborn babies with serious health disorders
a7) human late term unborn babies (older than earliest born babies)
a8) human healthy children
a9) human children with serious health disorders
a10) human adults
a11) human braindead with body still alive in coma
a12) human dead bodies

[cyborg]

Is there a choice to be made between getting hit on the head with a hammer or not?

I don't know - this isn't a question of determinism.

I just want you to tell me how science can empirically tell me whether or not I should be hit on the head with a hammer - I'm saying it can't, it can only deal with things like the effect of doing so.

I agree. Hence the suggestion to dump morals based on some sort of consensus of moral intuitions.

I am left again wondering how empirical inquiry is going to help when what you are describing is just what people have been doing ever since they formed societies.

[fls]

Sounds like we will have a good practical example for discussion here, if you explain to us, and thus subject for peer review:
a) what, why and how is straightforward about the use of:
a1) human sperm or egg cells
a2) human embryos
a3) human healthy fetuses
a4) human fetuses with serious health disorders
a5) human healthy early born babies
a6) human newborn babies with serious health disorders
a7) human late term unborn babies (older than earliest born babies)
a8) human healthy children
a9) human children with serious health disorders
a10) human adults
a11) human braindead with body still alive in coma
a12) human dead bodies

I don't understand what you are asking.

Linda

[fls]

I don't know - this isn't a question of determinism.

I just want you to tell me how science can empirically tell me whether or not I should be hit on the head with a hammer - I'm saying it can't, it can only deal with things like the effect of doing so.

Are you saying that there's no way to suggest that you choose to live or die?

I am left again wondering how empirical inquiry is going to help when what you are describing is just what people have been doing ever since they formed societies.

Well, blood-letting went on for centuries before someone got the bright idea of applying the scientific method to the process of medicine. And people by and large embrace effective treatments, although one wonders why given that we are apparently obliged to pretend that we don't care whether we succumb or not.

Linda

[AlBell]

Nope, no unanswered moral questions there on JJM's list.

Although I guess we understand why stating publically that everything on the list is fair game to cut & dice as needed to further medical research isn't a position one would take lightly ... in public.

[fls]

Nope, no unanswered moral questions there on JJM's list.

Although I guess we understand why stating publically that everything on the list is fair game to cut & dice as needed to further medical research isn't a position one would take lightly ... in public.

Is that what he was asking?

Linda

[cyborg]

Are you saying that there's no way to suggest that you choose to live or die?

I'm sorry - I just don't understand the question.

Well, blood-letting went on for centuries before someone got the bright idea of applying the scientific method to the process of medicine.

Yet again I don't see how this is analogous: there's no discernible difference between asking me what my moral thoughts are and observing the mechanism my brain uses to generate them assuming I am not being deceptive. What people think is responsible for morality is not the topic of discussion here and is largely irrelevant to the question.

So: what part of the scientific method is at all useful in obtaining a "consensus of moral intuition"? How is that different to what people have just being doing ever since they started living socially - that is forming a consensus of moral intuition by just interacting with each other? I fail to see what benefit confirming that, oh yes, the way this piece of brain operates in this person under these circumstances will indeed lead to this moral decision is going to have in persuading people that this particular person's moral decision under these circumstances is the right one to make.

In short please just actually say how one is supposed to use science to decide that for a given moral situation a given moral decision is "right".

[fls]

Yet again I don't see how this is analogous: there's no discernible difference between asking me what my moral thoughts are and observing the mechanism my brain uses to generate them assuming I am not being deceptive. What people think is responsible for morality is not the topic of discussion here and is largely irrelevant to the question.

Exactly.

So: what part of the scientific method is at all useful in obtaining a "consensus of moral intuition"?

It's not. I thought I said we should dump the idea of using consensus.

In short please just actually say how one is supposed to use science to decide that for a given moral situation a given moral decision is "right".

Well, one would have to actually admit that we distinguish between getting hit on the head with a hammer, or not. Or using the health analogy, that we should use effective treatments. But this is clearly not an option.

Linda

[cyborg]

It's not. I thought I said we should dump the idea of using consensus.

Then I don't understand what you are proposing at all.

Well, one would have to actually admit that we distinguish between getting hit on the head with a hammer, or not.

What?

Or using the health analogy, that we should use effective treatments. But this is clearly not an option.

Again - what?

What is an effective "moral treatment"?

Assume I am stupid - I just don't understand what your point is as to the relevance of the scientific method to morality.

[Egg]

Well, one would have to actually admit that we distinguish between getting hit on the head with a hammer, or not. Or using the health analogy, that we should use effective treatments. But this is clearly not an option.

It strikes me that this pretty much matches the argument that Sam Harris puts forward - i.e. take an example where the majority (if not all) the listeners/readers would agree and use that agreement to suggest that science has answered the is/ought problem.

Sure, people generally don't want to suffer or die, but while we could probably confirm this to be the case using the scientific method, we can't determine whether they are right not to want to suffer. We can use this idea as a starting assumption, but that is inserting a moral axiom, however obvious that particular axiom may appear to be.

If someone put forward the idea that sometimes the wisdom of strength gained was more valuable than the suffering that led to it, that's not a value that the tools of science can show to be incorrect.

This isn't a case of pretending we don't care about suffering, it's merely a matter of recognising that such cares do not come from using the scientific method.

[fls]

It strikes me that this pretty much matches the argument that Sam Harris puts forward - i.e. take an example where the majority (if not all) the listeners/readers would agree and use that agreement to suggest that science has answered the is/ought problem.

Except, of course, that Harris and I have specifically stated otherwise - that if you are interpreting our words in that way, you have misunderstood. Except that it's obviously no longer a matter of misinterpretation, as that would imply that one reasonable interpretation of the words "consensus does not imply something is true"* is "consensus does imply something is true". We are almost up to 2000 posts where posters insist that Harris is saying something that he very specifically denies saying. It is interesting to watch how his words, and mine, are completely ignored in favor of pretending that this is a different argument.

Sure, people generally don't want to suffer or die, but while we could probably confirm this to be the case using the scientific method, we can't determine whether they are right not to want to suffer. We can use this idea as a starting assumption, but that is inserting a moral axiom, however obvious that particular axiom may appear to be.

Exactly. So as Harris and I have suggested, don't do it.

If someone put forward the idea that sometimes the wisdom of strength gained was more valuable than the suffering that led to it, that's not a value that the tools of science can show to be incorrect.

Why not?

For example, if we reduce the suffering a mother feels over the loss of her child by providing medication which obviates those feelings, it may have the effect of prolonging the grieving process. This is information obtained from scientific research.

This isn't a case of pretending we don't care about suffering, it's merely a matter of recognising that such cares do not come from using the scientific method.

Exactly.

Linda

*"The deeper issue, however, is that truth has nothing, in principle, to do with consensus: one person can be right, and everyone else can be wrong. *Consensus is a guide to discovering what is going on in the world, but that is all that*it is. *Its presence or absence in no way constrains what may or may not be true." page 30 of The Moral Landscape

[Jono]

This is Sam Harris at TED. Can science answer moral questions? Does Sam Harris even answer that question in this talk?

What do you think?

I believe it can enlighten the issue of the how's, what and why's of morality. In itself it would be without any preference in its answer, if answered coherently, because the inference of preference is something "that which is" is indifferent to. So, I say yes, but I also happend to disagree with Sam quite a lot I've found out. Then again, never met a philosopher who could consistently agree with him/her self for long.

[Beth]

Except, of course, that Harris and I have specifically stated otherwise - that if you are interpreting our words in that way, you have misunderstood. Except that it's obviously no longer a matter of misinterpretation, as that would imply that one reasonable interpretation of the words "consensus does not imply something is true"* is "consensus does imply something is true". We are almost up to 2000 posts where posters insist that Harris is saying something that he very specifically denies saying. It is interesting to watch how his words, and mine, are completely ignored in favor of pretending that this is a different argument.
Actions speak louder than words. When someone makes statements denying they are doing something that others observe them doing, the denial doesn't carry as much weight as the observation. In this case, the 'action' is the argument that is being made. Denying that your argument is based on a consensus of morality seems contradictory to observations made by the people disputing the denial.

Perhaps you could explain what why your 'hit on the head with a hammer' doesn't qualify as a consensus morality and what it is you are basing that obvious choice on instead. Then you would be explaining why your argument is not what it appears to be as opposed to simply denying what you appear to be doing.

Exactly. So as Harris and I have suggested, don't do it.
So what is being proposed instead if that isn't what you and Harris are suggesting? Because that is what your suggestions seem to be. I don't see the distinction between what you are suggesting and what you are denying your suggestion is.

This isn't a case of pretending we don't care about suffering, it's merely a matter of recognising that such cares do not come from using the scientific method.
Exactly.

If you agree that such cares do not come from the scientific method, that contradicts the argument that science can get an ought from an is, which is what you and Harris have been arguing.

[Paulhoff]

No comment on the nice picture of Hitler.

I have a lot more.............

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

The real bottom line is fls, they are just way to complex for science to figure out.

Paul


:) :) :)

[JJM 777]

A way to look at it:

Can science answer moral questions?

Can science answer any questions whatsoever?

Yes and no, and very similarly, if you compare these two thoughts above. If you ask science to tell what ought to be, you run in similar trouble in every possible topic, not just if the question is about a moral ought. If the question is about an ought how many grams a hammer should weigh.

[fls]

Then I don't understand what you are proposing at all.

What?

Again - what?

What is an effective "moral treatment"?

Assume I am stupid - I just don't understand what your point is as to the relevance of the scientific method to morality.

I realize that, but I honestly don't see how explaining it would alter the situation.

Linda

[cyborg]

I realize that, but I honestly don't see how explaining it would alter the situation.

Linda

Yes, I am sorry for being such a moron.

[fls]

Yes, I am sorry for being such a moron.

Sarcasm aside, it's a common tendency (not being a moron, but falling into old patterns of argument based on attending to key words rather than substance). I was just reading a new thread on the Monty Hall problem, and 80-90% of the posters have responded as though the OP asked the usual "I don't understand why I should switch", when she/he quite clearly stated that this was not what they were asking, in the first post.

Linda

[Dani]

xSz8kDRrdpk

Has anyone seen this debate? Not especially relevant in clarifying the core debate of this thread, but there are very interesting points. I especially liked Stephen Pinker's speech.

At minute 8:00, Sam Harris says:

We can't get is without ought.Well, he is certainly distinguishing facts from values (is from ought) so I'm not sure what he was talking about when he said that the distinction is illusory. Maybe he didn't mean it this way, but then his language is inaccurate. That's precisely what some of us are objecting to. So, for the sake of clarity, he should put order in his mishmash.

Also, what he seems to be implying here is that since we can get is from ought, then we can get ought from is. That's obviously non sequitur. Again, there's the possibility that he isn't really implying this, in which case his point is irrelevant to whether or not we can get ought from is.



Science can't justify science. That doesn't make science unscientific. I mean, science can't justify our urge to understand the universe, it can't justify our respect for evidence, it can't justify our respect for logical consistency.Then, by the same token, science can't justify morality. So he just wants us to accept his moral principle as a scientific principle? That begs the question, and I don't know if he realizes how trivial his pursuit is. He seems to think that otherwise we cannot even judge the Taliban.


That doesn't make it unscientific. Medicine can't justify not wanting to die early, but once you admit you don't want to die early, you can have a science of medicine.Exactly: "once you admit". Once you admit you want to go to Mars, you can pursue the goal "going to Mars" and use science for that purpose. Science doesn't tell us "go to Mars". That's exactly how medicine works.

These are false problems in philosophy, and that's one of the reasons why I started denigrating philosophy. You can't believe the e-mail I get from very smart and overeducated people who think that there's no way to argue against the Taliban because they've read some Hume saying you can't get an ought from an is.These overeducated people he talks about don't seem very educated though. Or maybe he should pay more attention to the people who, overeducated or not, are putting forth much better arguments than that. There are plenty of them around. I wonder why is he focusing on the weaker arguments. Maybe he doesn't value consistency, after all? Maybe he values straw man arguments? :rolleyes:

As for the "problem" (you can't get an ought from an is) I don't see it as a problem, but as an observation about the difference between describing and prescribing. Certainly, I see it is a trivial problem in practice. He seems to think that this "problem" inexorably leads to a normative moral relativist position, which again, is a non sequitur.

By the way, if he is denigrating philosophy as a whole, he is denigrating his position. What does he think he is doing?

To sum up my position: his objection to the distinction between facts and values is either wrong or trivial, or both. In my opinion, it's both. We can't get ought from is, but we get ought anyway.

[Jono]

Has anyone seen this debate? Not especially relevant in clarifying the core debate of this thread, but there are very interesting points. I especially liked Stephen Pinker's speech.



Yes, seen it a few times. And I generally tend to find Pinker's input to be high-grade.

for the "problem" (you can't get an ought from an is) I don't see it as a problem, but as an observation about the difference between describing and prescribing.

It made me think about Byron Katie's "The Work" stuff. There's that "which is", then there's yours and my thoughts about "which is", and that "which is" is ultimately indifferent in effect to our thoughts. I.e, 'ought' being the word for what we think, we need, expect, demand and desire, all while the "is" remains as it is. For me it's essentially just condensed zen-philosophy. And it's easy to make a pig's breakfast of this line of thought when taking these things to a different level.

Maybe he doesn't value consistency, after all? Maybe he values straw man arguments?

Well, if he's a non-philosopher-philosopher then it wouldn't surprise me. :p

We can't get ought from is, but we get ought anyway.

There's something to the old thought of Hume (not really his, variants of it have existed for a long, long time) though, but more within the domain of application, or speculation, that nothing man ever does is really valuable except inside our own needs and expectations for/of the moment (meaning nothing to the universe).
The "we ought to" is seperate from that "which is" in the sense of that "which is" not being a moral or cognitive entity itself, ergo indifferent to our projected urgencies based on it. Of course, as formentioned it's easy to screw up this particular thought to mean just about anything, and especially to be used as a defense in order to do, again, just about anything.

I think we should go nuts getting our pound of "ought" from "is", there's little else for us to do on this Earth than that, beyond existing.

[Kuko 4000]

Has anyone seen this debate?


Yep:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6566055&postcount=1044

[cyborg]

Sarcasm aside, it's a common tendency (not being a moron, but falling into old patterns of argument based on attending to key words rather than substance). I was just reading a new thread on the Monty Hall problem, and 80-90% of the posters have responded as though the OP asked the usual "I don't understand why I should switch", when she/he quite clearly stated that this was not what they were asking, in the first post.

Linda

Look, you can either clarify or not but placing a sarky comment out there doesn't really achieve anything does it?

Saying that one can gather more data to inform one's decisions on what a correct moral decision is not the same claim as saying science can decide morality.

[fls]

Look, you can either clarify or not but placing a sarky comment out there doesn't really achieve anything does it?

Well, it turns out trying to offer explanations to those who are already committed to a particular interpretation doesn't achieve anything, either. I didn't mean for it to be snarky. I'm just being realistic and saving you, as well as myself, from frustrating and ultimately unfulfilling argument.

Saying that one can gather more data to inform one's decisions on what a correct moral decision is not the same claim as saying science can decide morality.

I agree.

Linda

[cyborg]

I agree.

Then unless you propose the later then the former will always be open to choices without definitive answers.

[fls]

Then unless you propose the later then the former will always be open to choices without definitive answers.

That's where we disagree. But that may be because I perform medical research which suffers from the same philosophical objections, but doesn't get attention because it isn't needed for religious apologetics. :)

Linda

[Dani]

Actions speak louder than words. When someone makes statements denying they are doing something that others observe them doing, the denial doesn't carry as much weight as the observation. In this case, the 'action' is the argument that is being made. Denying that your argument is based on a consensus of morality seems contradictory to observations made by the people disputing the denial.

Perhaps you could explain what why your 'hit on the head with a hammer' doesn't qualify as a consensus morality and what it is you are basing that obvious choice on instead. Then you would be explaining why your argument is not what it appears to be as opposed to simply denying what you appear to be doing.

I couldn't have said it better myself. The fact that someone doesn't say "here goes my fallacious argument" doesn't mean that it's not fallacious. An argument doesn't need to be explictly displayed for it to be an argument. Context is key, and we have rational tools to make inferences. If Linda thinks that we wrongly inferred her argument, I suggest she clarifies why it is not an appeal to the people instead of simply denying it is. This isn't hide and seek.

By the way:

Sarcasm aside, it's a common tendency (not being a moron, but falling into old patterns of argument based on attending to key words rather than substance). I was just reading a new thread on the Monty Hall problem, and 80-90% of the posters have responded as though the OP asked the usual "I don't understand why I should switch", when she/he quite clearly stated that this was not what they were asking, in the first post.

In fact, you got it wrong in your example. That the OP didn't understand why he/she should switch is implicit in his/her posts. So, again, context is key, and in this case, clear.

[Dragoonster]

I agree.

Linda

Can you break down the phrase "Science can answer moral questions" word by word?

Or at least explain what exactly this phrase is claiming?

And again, explain how/why this differs in meaning from say, "Christianity can answer moral questions"? What do you think the intended meaning of that phrase is? Is it the same general idea/claim as "Science can answer moral questions"? Should both be respected equally? Why or why not?

[fls]

I couldn't have said it better myself. The fact that someone doesn't say "here goes my fallacious argument" doesn't mean that it's not fallacious. An argument doesn't need to be explictly displayed for it to be an argument. Context is key, and we have rational tools to make inferences. If Linda thinks that we wrongly inferred her argument, I suggest she clarifies why it is not an appeal to the people instead of simply denying it is. This isn't hide and seek.

After I've just been informed that it doesn't matter what I say, it will be assumed that I mean something else? Yeah, one has to wonder why your offer isn't tempting. :)

In fact, you got it wrong in your example. That the OP didn't understand why he/she should switch is implicit in his/her posts. So, again, context is key, and in this case, clear.

:)

Linda

[fls]

Can you break down the phrase "Science can answer moral questions" word by word?

Or at least explain what exactly this phrase is claiming?

And again, explain how/why this differs in meaning from say, "Christianity can answer moral questions"? What do you think the intended meaning of that phrase is? Is it the same general idea/claim as "Science can answer moral questions"? Should both be respected equally? Why or why not?

These are (some of) the questions I have been answering/addressing/explaining in this thread. I don't understand what offering more of the same is expected to accomplish?

Linda

[Dragoonster]

These are (some of) the questions I have been answering/addressing/explaining in this thread. I don't understand what offering more of the same is expected to accomplish?

Linda

You either haven't answered them sufficiently (whether logically, scientifically, or philosophically), and/or your answers are not in alignment with Sam Harris' answers...though you claim you and he seem to be on the same page.

All I'm trying to accomplish now is to discern whether you and/or Sam Harris believe Science Can Answer Moral Questions, and what exactly you mean by that. Do you think "Answer" means "Inform"? If not, you really need to back your claim up, amazingly and revolutionarily so.

[cyborg]

That's where we disagree. But that may be because I perform medical research which suffers from the same philosophical objections,

No it doesn't.

You have tacit assumptions about what the outcomes of medical research should be that is not shared with the much larger scope of what morals should be for.

Should we respect the individual over the group?

Is the purpose to eliminate suffering or is suffering necessary?

Etc...

This is not the same as, "get the best medical data without breaking the Hippocratic oath"

[fls]

You either haven't answered them sufficiently (whether logically, scientifically, or philosophically), and/or your answers are not in alignment with Sam Harris' answers...though you claim you and he seem to be on the same page.

All I'm trying to accomplish now is to discern whether you and/or Sam Harris believe Science Can Answer Moral Questions, and what exactly you mean by that. Do you think "Answer" means "Inform"? If not, you really need to back your claim up, amazingly and revolutionarily so.

That's what I mean. If the thousands of words I've written which very directly and explicitly answers those questions are insufficient, what is offering more of the same expected to accomplish?

Linda

[JoelKatz]

It's irrelevant anyway - you can't extract "the" moral truth from observing an individual brain's moral processing - only "a" moral truth for that particular brain.That may be the only kind of moral truth that there is. You can't extract "the" height from anything but only the height of a particular person.

Really, I don't see what advantage this "scientific" analysis of brain function has over just seeing how people behave and drawing conclusions from that. It still won't tell you which behaviours are scientifically "right".Not directly, but perhaps indirectly. For example, prior to our scientific understanding of colors, how would you study color? Since human beings are the only color discriminators you have access to, you'd study in great detail how human color vision works. Your hope would be to start with "it looks green to me", figure out how/why someone says that, and then eventually work your way to a purely objective notion of "green" and a purely objective "color measuring device".

But you're right, of course, the objective color measuring device wouldn't likely replicate human vision exactly. If it did, it would make the same 'mistakes' human vision makes and be limited as our color vision is. But you'd get the idea of what color "really is" from human color vision, and then work on measuring that in a more objective way.

It's not a straight line path. And you couldn't say ahead of time where it would lead. It's a path you have to walk to know where it goes. Right now, we understand moral judgment as something humans do that has something to do with the properties of volitional actions, just as we once understood color vision as something humans do that has something to do with properties of light. We now know, of course, that color vision is about the frequencies of light. We don't yet know what moral judgment is about.

[fls]

No it doesn't.

You have tacit assumptions about what the outcomes of medical research should be that is not shared with the much larger scope of what morals should be for.

Should we respect the individual over the group?

Is the purpose to eliminate suffering or is suffering necessary?

Etc...

This is not the same as, "get the best medical data without breaking the Hippocratic oath"

Right. When it's medicine, it's "tacit assumptions". When it's morals, it's "axioms". :)

Linda

[Kuko 4000]

No it doesn't.



Again, I don't follow, maybe you can give clearer examples? English is not my first language so please keep it simple.

Why should a doctor save the life of a patient?

My understanding is that it only makes sense if we value staying alive over being dead.

The philosophical objection seems the same to me.

[AlBell]

I realize that, but I honestly don't see how explaining it would alter the situation.

Linda

Yes, I am sorry for being such a moron.
Just guessing here, but I've concluded Harris etal have substituted Science for God, and Harris (and his Priesthood) will advise us when morals have been delineated.

It's apparently a fait accompli wrt medical ethics, but I don't know where to find the details that cover those answers.

[JoelKatz]

Why should a doctor save the life of a patient?This is the right question to ask, but realize ahead of time that the answer will have to be a reason, it cannot be that there is no reason. We perceive directly that doctors should save the lives of patients. It is a good question to ask why this is so, but it is clearly so. It's like asking "why does the sky look blue?" Whatever the answer is, it will be the reason it is so, not something like "the sky actually doesn't look blue".

My understanding is that it only makes sense if we value staying alive over being dead.Correct. So that's the question -- why do we value staying alive over being dead? We do in fact do this, that's undeniable. The question is why. If someone said they didn't, we'd respond that they are either lying or broken, just as we would if someone swore the sky didn't look blue to them (under conditions were it looks blue to everyone else).

The philosophical objection seems the same to me.What's the objection exactly? It is a fact that we value life over death, just as it's a fact that the sky looks blue. You can ask why this is so, but it *is* so. Anyone who says it is not so for them is either lying or somehow broken, like a person who is colorblind is, in a sense, broken.

[cyborg]

Right. When it's medicine, it's "tacit assumptions". When it's morals, it's "axioms". :)

Linda

Yes, that's the basic point of why they aren't different to each other despite your assertion to the contrary.

[cyborg]

It is a fact that we value life over death

Not always - sometimes we very much value death over life.

War.
Execution.
Slaughter.
Abortion.
Euthanisation.

I'm sure you can think of others.

[fls]

Yes, that's the basic point of why they aren't different to each other despite your assertion to the contrary.

:)

This is what I mean. I make the characterization "same philosophical objections", and in the space of two posts you have changed what I said to an "assertion to the contrary".

Linda

[cyborg]

:)

This is what I mean. I make the characterization "same philosophical objections", and in the space of two posts you have changed what I said to an "assertion to the contrary".

Linda

This is correct. I believe your use of emoticons is throwing me off - seriously they are confusing as I don't understand what you are smiling about and am hence inserting negations inappropriately. I am not at my optimal perceptual best due to a right side midline brain lesion.

It appears you agree with me on everything. Therefore I don't understand your objections. This only leaves me more confused.

[JoelKatz]

Not always - sometimes we very much value death over life.

War.
Execution.
Slaughter.
Abortion.
Euthanisation.

I'm sure you can think of others.That's absolutely correct. Moral judgment, like color vision, is not a simple measurement that's easily summed up. The sky is blue, except when it's filled with clouds or near sunset. Grass is green, except when it's dark or the grass is wilted, and so on.

It is what it is, and there is as yet no simple substitute for it. We understand some of how it behaves.

Our attempts to describe it as "pleasure over pain" or "thriving over failing" or the like are all approximate. It's like making a catalog of what colors people say things are and saying that this is color vision. People say grass is green, so a machine that says "green" when you put grass in it has color vision. Obviously, that's wrong.

[fls]

This is correct. I believe your use of emoticons is throwing me off - seriously they are confusing as I don't understand what you are smiling about and am hence inserting negations inappropriately. I am not at my optimal perceptual best due to a right side midline brain lesion.

It appears you agree with me on everything. Therefore I don't understand your objections. This only leaves me more confused.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Linda

[cyborg]

I'm sorry to hear that.

Linda


Thanks but don't be sorry - just remove my confusion. I wish I could have seen Sam Harris in person (since he was talking locally about this subject) - it would have been informative I'm sure.

[Dragoonster]

That's what I mean. If the thousands of words I've written which very directly and explicitly answers those questions are insufficient, what is offering more of the same expected to accomplish?

Linda

I guess it's only expected to continue this thread; as are my posts. Certainly doesn't seem to be expected to win any rational people over to your/Harris' claims.

That is: obviously I don't find your "direct and explicit" answers in past posts to have much persuading power (and/or direct and explicit challenges to these answers have been insufficent). And you seem to believe they certainly do, and should be agreed on by all of us or humanity or rationalists or something (for some reason).

So yeah, round and around we go. Not much different than any other random aggressive philosophical claims in history. As in...not at all uniquely persuasive. I'll stop criticizing your posts--I do agree this is all done to death, and neither of us appears to be able to sway the other. I appreciate your endurance and apparent strong belief in Harris' propositions. I just find them laughable.

[Dragoonster]

What's the objection exactly? It is a fact that we value life over death, just as it's a fact that the sky looks blue. You can ask why this is so, but it *is* so. Anyone who says it is not so for them is either lying or somehow broken, like a person who is colorblind is, in a sense, broken.

So all suicidees are "broken". Not just morally, but apparently scientifically. This is your claim?

Also: Your claim then is that someone being tortured/raped for decades who happens to find a vial of cyanide and uses it commit suicide thus escape pain is "broken"?

Just how factual is this "fact"? How many exceptions does it have?



Finally, is committing suicide after 25 years of being tortured and raped, with full expectations that this will continue until a natural death, a rational decision?

1. The greatest moral (eta: sorry, scientific) value is continuation of life (?)

[Kuko 4000]

So all suicidees are "broken". Not just morally, but apparently scientifically. This is your claim?

Also: Your claim then is that someone being tortured/raped for decades who happens to find a vial of cyanide and uses it commit suicide thus escape pain is "broken"?

Just how factual is this "fact"? How many exceptions does it have?



Finally, is committing suicide after 25 years of being tortured and raped, with full expectations that this will continue until a natural death, a rational decision?

1. The greatest moral (eta: sorry, scientific) value is continuation of life (?)


I can't speak for Joel Katz but it seems to me you're treating the issue too superficially. Of course people in certain situations would be better off dead than alive. I don't think anyone else than some hardcore believers would argue against this - for some people suicide is a sin no matter what.

The next question to ask in this case is:

Would they want to live if they had the chance for a better life? Would a deeply depressed person want a better life if they had the chance? Would a tortured person want a better life if they had the chance? My guess is that they would. Any ideas or data that points to the contrary?

In addition, if you have a person who only wants to die (ie. end his or her consciousness) from the very moment he or she was born, I'm pretty sure that this person would have nothing useful or meaningful to say about morals. After all, morals seem to be solely in the domain of conscious beings.

[Kuko 4000]

What's the objection exactly?


In this thread it seems to me that in science we can value good evidence all we want and no-one objects the arbitraryness of it all, but, when it comes to moral questions we suddenly have to deal with the "is-ought" problem, which to my mind is not relevant at all, since afaik, no-one has access to any kind of ultimate truth in these questions. See this post of mine:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6446029&postcount=424

+

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6544698&postcount=1030

[cyborg]

In this thread it seems to me that in science we can value good evidence all we want and no-one objects the arbitraryness of it all, but, when it comes to moral questions we suddenly have to deal with the "is-ought" problem, which to my mind is not relevant at all, since afaik, no-one has access to any kind of ultimate truth in these questions.

I don't think that really answers the question.

The name of the topic is "science can answer moral questions," not, "science can inform moral decisions," these aren't the same claims.

For example you said:

Going purely by "IS" (the way things are), there is no right or wrong, or better or worse, answer to the question: Should I choose math and physics over random guessing?

That is not a valid dichotomy - no one is proposing that random coin flips are the way to make decisions. The point is that you can't use science to answer questions with arbitrary answers.

I could choose to kill you or not - ultimately there's no scientific way of deciding whether or not you should be alive or dead so there's no scientific way of me making the decision. I don't think it gets any more complex than that.

Yes, sure there's plenty to be said as to why I should make the decision one way or another and plenty of science could be to inform that decision but ultimately your existence is not a direct scientific concern.

[fls]

I guess it's only expected to continue this thread; as are my posts. Certainly doesn't seem to be expected to win any rational people over to your/Harris' claims.

That is: obviously I don't find your "direct and explicit" answers in past posts to have much persuading power (and/or direct and explicit challenges to these answers have been insufficent).

You shouldn't expect them to. I haven't tried to persuade anyone, least of all you, to Harris' or my claims. I have tried to understand your objections, and I have attempted to persuade people to drop the straw man they are discussing instead of Harris' ideas. I wouldn't mind discussing Harris' claims, but I don't really see that happening.

And you seem to believe they certainly do, and should be agreed on by all of us or humanity or rationalists or something (for some reason).

So yeah, round and around we go. Not much different than any other random aggressive philosophical claims in history. As in...not at all uniquely persuasive. I'll stop criticizing your posts--I do agree this is all done to death, and neither of us appears to be able to sway the other. I appreciate your endurance and apparent strong belief in Harris' propositions. I just find them laughable.

Yeah, it's hard to forego the opportunity to enjoy finding someone laughable. It shouldn't be a surprise that it may be difficult to interfere with that (and I'm disinclined to, anyway).

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

You shouldn't expect them to. I haven't tried to persuade anyone, least of all you, to Harris' or my claims. I have tried to understand your objections, and I have attempted to persuade people to drop the straw man they are discussing instead of Harris' ideas. I wouldn't mind discussing Harris' claims, but I don't really see that happening.

<snip>

What are his claims? What are your claims? That there is no ought but only what is? That all humans share a substantial sub-set of values and the only reason they don't agree on what is right and what is wrong is because some people are more informed than others?

If two people have different values and experiences then there's a very high probability (in the real world rather than canned experimental scenarios) they'll disagree on the details about what the right thing to do is.

As we see time and again in threads on the access to healthcare in the US, some people are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face because of the values they hold, their prior experiences and current life circumstances.

Humans have irrationality hard-wired in their brain.

[Dragoonster]

I can't speak for Joel Katz but it seems to me you're treating the issue too superficially. Of course people in certain situations would be better off dead than alive. I don't think anyone else than some hardcore believers would argue against this - for some people suicide is a sin no matter what.

Yes, of course they do. But Joel's statement didn't allow for that, his statement is absolute:

"It is a fact that we value life over death, just as it's a fact that the sky looks blue."

My objection here may be trivial or semantic; but for a moral system claiming to be revolutionary and/or uniquely scientifically correct, the proposers of it really need to dot all their "i"s. They can't leave the slightest vagueness.

It is NOT a fact that "we" value life over death. It's also NOT a fact that "we" perceive the sky as blue. The only facts seem to be: The difference between physical life and death; and the wavelengths the sky sends to a ground-based eye. Perceptions/beliefs/individual brain interpretation of these don't seem to be "facts" in this simple sense.

At least, if the intended fact is only one perception/interpretation that is True. But the sky does NOT look blue to everyone, and science needs to explain who/how those who perceive it as orange are scientifically wrong, as much as it needs to explain who those who believe death is more value than life are scientifically wrong.

It's a fact that humans percieve the sky mostly as "blue", but some don't. It's a fact that some percieve death as bad, but some don't.

The next question to ask in this case is:

Would they want to live if they had the chance for a better life? Would a deeply depressed person want a better life if they had the chance? Would a tortured person want a better life if they had the chance? My guess is that they would. Any ideas or data that points to the contrary?

I'd submit PTSD folks who are well past their torture or other pathos but yet kill themselves 20 years later, from the memories inescapability. And prisoners who are so used to being imprisoned that they commit crimes after being released in order to get back; even though they wouldn't have prior to incarceration. Also, folks who self-sabotage, because they no longer believe a real effort for success is possible, and if it becomes close they upend it in order to return to their more comfortabe and stable misery and self-pity.

In addition, if you have a person who only wants to die (ie. end his or her consciousness) from the very moment he or she was born, I'm pretty sure that this person would have nothing useful or meaningful to say about morals. After all, morals seem to be solely in the domain of conscious beings.

Don't quite understand this. This person seems conscious until he dies, his consciousness simply wants to eliminate itself. After he offs himself sure, he has nothing to say on morals. But prior to that?

I can vaguely recall some murders of younguns by their parents because the parents didn't want to bring the child into or raise them in this "cruel" world. Some people don't believe living life is the highest moral imperative.

Some think avoiding suffering is; and if that means killing themselves or others, that's the consequence of their morality (if it can be said this is a morality, and imo it should).

Linda: I'm not being flippant or dismissive or a jerk. At least these aren't my intentions. I sincerely apologize if I've come across like that (or really been that). I greatly respect you and your incisive thoughts in this forum.

[Kuko 4000]

I'd submit PTSD folks who are well past their torture or other pathos but yet kill themselves 20 years later, from the memories inescapability. And prisoners who are so used to being imprisoned that they commit crimes after being released in order to get back; even though they wouldn't have prior to incarceration. Also, folks who self-sabotage, because they no longer believe a real effort for success is possible, and if it becomes close they upend it in order to return to their more comfortabe and stable misery and self-pity.


Am I missing something important or are you saying the same things again, but with different examples? It seems clear to me that in some cases people are better off dead than alive. I'm not disputing that. What I'm arguing is that these people would rather have a better life, than kill themselves, if they somehow magically had the chance. Are you arguing that people who are miserable to the point of suicide would not want a better life instead if it were somehow magically possible to them? Or maybe we're just talking past each other, I can't tell.


Don't quite understand this. This person seems conscious until he dies, his consciousness simply wants to eliminate itself. After he offs himself sure, he has nothing to say on morals. But prior to that?


I meant prior to death as well. What could a person like this bring to the table without arguing against his own values?

We value "the good life" over "the bad life", right?

If a person wants to be dead over anything else, we can be quite confident that this is not the best way (or even a good way) to achieve "the good life", or at least we have no convincing reasons to believe so.

What we could say is that being dead is very probably the easiest way to avoid suffering, and this is the best we can expect a dead person to achieve for himself.

At this point I ask, do we value "the avoidance of suffering" over "the good life". I don't think so, but I would like to hear reasons or potential suggestions for doing so.

Are there any better reasons than "the avoidance of suffering" for valuing being dead over being alive?

[Dragoonster]

Am I missing something important or are you saying the same things again, but with different examples? It seems clear to me that in some cases people are better off dead than alive. I'm not disputing that. What I'm arguing is that these people would rather have a better life, than kill themselves, if they somehow magically had the chance. Are you arguing that people who are miserable to the point of suicide would not want a better life instead if it were somehow magically possible to them? Or maybe we're just talking past each other, I can't tell.

Oh. I guess I'm arguing that it's an odd claim re: this topic of suicidal people wishing a better life. What does this have to do with science or anything? Why is this important to Harris' contentions?

The realistic "better life" for suicidal people is the end of life.

I meant prior to death as well. What could a person like this bring to the table without arguing against his own values?

We value "the good life" over "the bad life", right?

Uh, no. What do you mean by "we"? "We except for those of us who disagree with my values, who are not-we"?

If a person wants to be dead over anything else, we can be quite confident that this is not the best way (or even a good way) to achieve "the good life", or at least we have no convincing reasons to believe so.

Convincing reason to believe the best way to achieve the "good life", from someone who isn't suicidal: "The good life is continuing to live!"

Convincing reason to believe the best way to achieve the "good life", from someone who is suicidal: "The good life is stop living!"

Just why do you think the former has any more objective weight than the latter?

What we could say is that being dead is very probably the easiest way to avoid suffering, and this is the best we can expect a dead person to achieve for himself.

At this point I ask, do we value "the avoidance of suffering" over "the good life". I don't think so, but I would like to hear reasons or potential suggestions for doing so.

Are there any better reasons than "the avoidance of suffering" for valuing being dead over being alive?

Honestly, this discussion is getting dangerously close to actual philosophy and real-world human examples and experiences/conditions. Sam Harris shuns philosophy and insists science can answer moral questions. And that claim is why this thread exists. And entering into a philosophical debate seems anathema to his claims, as philosophy sucks and explains nothing. So perhaps you (if you are supporting Harris) should simply give the inviolable scientific answers to your own questions. [sorry if this is a massive strawman]

Do we value x over y? I think this is a sociological/psychological/philosophical/individual upbringing question. You or Harris seem to believe this is a simple science question. So, since you or Harris don't want to engage or pay any respect to my types of questions as a finder of either truth or tendency or best-explanation, you should certainly tout your scientific question/answer and this will quickly end the argument (since I'm completely willing to believe an actual well-formed scientific or logical proof is correct. All Harris needs to do is present this).

[JJM 777]

The realistic "better life" for suicidal people is the end of life.
A harem or drug cave might do as well, in case of men who are temporarily suicidal during the initial phase of a family break-up mess.

[cyborg]

I've heard/seen various things Sam Harris has done on this and I now think that the economics analogy is particularly apt - when you set up a system with rules and actors consequences are gong to unfold. Moral systems, like economic ones, can have a lot of different characteristics and rules. For any particular goal and system you can say - either by direct appeal to scientific evidence ("it happened like this before") or by analytical argument ("this is the model of how the system works") that in order to achieve a particular goal then you need to do particular things. That is the objective part of the system.

But, like economics, that still leaves us with the subjective part which is - "well, what is it we actually want to achieve with this system?"

I don't see how that's likely to go away as long as people are allowed to form their own opinions as to what's important.

[fls]

I don't think we suffer from a shortage of analogies...we can form economic systems but we can't say whether everyone ought not be impoverished, we can discover a system of medicine but we can't say anyone should be made healthy, we can formulate quantum electrodynamics but we can't say that something is green, we can make logical arguments but we can't give a justification for doing so, I can swing a hammer at your head but you can't duck, etc.

Linda

[Dani]

I don't think we suffer from a shortage of analogies...we can form economic systems but we can't say whether everyone ought not be impoverished, we can discover a system of medicine but we can't say anyone should be made healthy, we can formulate quantum electrodynamics but we can't say that something is green, we can make logical arguments but we can't give a justification for doing so, I can swing a hammer at your head but you can't duck, etc.

Linda

Did I miss something or is it just a straw man?

Who says that we can't do all those things?

[fls]

Did I miss something or is it just a straw man?

Who says that we can't do all those things?

It's just a synopsis of this thread. Apologies if I missed anyone's pet analogy.

Linda

[Dani]

It's just a synopsis of this thread. Apologies if I missed anyone's pet analogy.

Linda

You actually missed something much more important than that: the point that many of us have been making in this thread.

No one claims that we can't make moral decisions, only that ultimately they're not scientifically justified.

And nothing prevents us from doing things that aren't scientifically justified. We do them all the time.

[fls]

You actually missed something much more important than that: the point that many of us have been making in this thread.

No one claims that we can't make moral decisions, only that ultimately they're not scientifically justified.

And nothing prevents us from doing things that aren't scientifically justified. We do them all the time.

Huh?

I didn't miss that point. I've said over and over again that I understood this to be your point

Linda

[Dani]

Huh?

I didn't miss that point. I've said over and over again that I understood this to be your point

Linda

Not only my point. I'm sure it's shared by a majority of those who critisize Harris' arguments in this thread.

[fls]

Not only my point. I'm sure it's shared by a majority of those who critisize Harris' arguments in this thread.

Right. You said "us", so I figured you might take my "your" as plural without me saying so specifically. If not, consider it specified.

Linda

[Dani]

Right. You said "us", so I figured you might take my "your" as plural without me saying so specifically. If not, consider it specified.

Linda

Alright then.

You present a synopsys of the thread and when I point out that it doesn't depict our position, you say that you already know what our position is.

So you're implicitly going back on your word?

[fls]

Alright then.

You present a synopsys of the thread and when I point out that it doesn't depict our position, you say that you already know what our position is.

So you're implicitly going back on your word?

By synopsis I meant a list of the analogies used, not a list of positions taken. However, I would have guessed that you would agree with Cyborg's last post (although I would have asked first).

Linda

[Sophronius]

Okay, lemme try to freshen things up a bit:

Nozick . . . asks if it would be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of some superbeings. Provided that we take the time to really imagine the details (which is not easy), I think the answer is clearly "yes." There seems no reason to suppose that we must occupy the highest peak on the moral landscape.

This is a second hand quote from the moral landscape, so if I got it wrong or if it is not representative/misleading, do tell.

If it is, I think it clearly shows what is wrong with Harris' philosophy. He seems to think that it is "right" to maximise the total amount of happiness in the universe, that this is our ultimate objective even if no human on earth actually wants it. This does not at all follow from a charitable interpretation of his "well, it makes sense to value the wellbeing of conscious creatures." He does not seem to state where this ultimate goal comes from, and it seems kind of important.

Again, if I am misunderstanding him, please correct me.

[Dani]

By synopsis I meant a list of the analogies used, not a list of positions taken. However, I would have guessed that you would agree with Cyborg's last post (although I would have asked first).

Linda

It doesn't make any difference. People don't use analogies just because. People use analogies precisely to illustrate their position.

You just used analogies that don't illustrate anyone's position in this thread as far as I know.

[fls]

It doesn't make any difference. People don't use analogies just because. People use analogies precisely to illustrate their position.

You just used analogies that don't illustrate anyone's position in this thread as far as I know.

The first one Cyborg had just stated (damned inconvenient page break :)). The second was mine. The third was Joel Katz's. The fourth was Harris' (okay, technically not a thread participant). The last was mine again.

Linda

[Dani]

The first one Cyborg had just stated (damned inconvenient page break :)). The second was mine. The third was Joel Katz's. The fourth was Harris' (okay, technically not a thread participant). The last was mine again.

Linda

Cyborg didn't state such thing, and the second one doesn't illustrate anyone's position in this thread.

[fls]

Cyborg didn't state such thing,

Sure she/he did.

"But, like economics, that still leaves us with the subjective part which is - "well, what is it we actually want to achieve with this system?"

I don't see how that's likely to go away as long as people are allowed to form their own opinions as to what's important."

If it's our opinion, saying that everyone ought not be impoverished is not scientifically justified.

and the second one doesn't illustrate anyone's position in this thread.

Oh right. I forgot. Since I stated this it is presumed that I meant something else instead. Never mind the second and fifth, then.

Linda

[Sophronius]

"But, like economics, that still leaves us with the subjective part which is - "well, what is it we actually want to achieve with this system?"

I don't see how that's likely to go away as long as people are allowed to form their own opinions as to what's important."

If it's our opinion, saying that everyone ought not be impoverished is not scientifically justified.

This seems perfectly valid to me, actually.

There is plenty of discussion on how wealth should be divided and such. Economics certainly makes no statement on how things ought to be. And yes, asserting that everyone ought not be impoverished is, without anything to back it up, scientifically unjustified.

I don't see what the problem with any of this is.


Edit: maybe I was wrong to assume that you disagreed with it. Your post at the top of this page seemed sarcastic/incredulous to me somehow.

[Dani]

Sure she/he did.

"But, like economics, that still leaves us with the subjective part which is - "well, what is it we actually want to achieve with this system?"

I don't see how that's likely to go away as long as people are allowed to form their own opinions as to what's important."

If it's our opinion, saying that everyone ought not be impoverished is not scientifically justified.

And that is not the same as saying that we can't say whether everyone ought not be impoverished, which is what I pointed out.



Oh right. I forgot. Since I stated this it is presumed that I meant something else instead. Never mind the second and fifth, then.

LindaIf you didn't mean it, what was the intent of the analogy?

[fls]

This seems perfectly valid to me, actually.

There is plenty of discussion on how wealth should be divided and such. Economics certainly makes no statement on how things ought to be. And yes, asserting that everyone ought not be impoverished is, without anything to back it up, scientifically unjustified.

I don't see what the problem with any of this is.


Edit: maybe I was wrong to assume that you disagreed with it. Your post at the top of this page seemed sarcastic/incredulous to me somehow.

I'm sorry. I missed that you had come back and edited your response.

I don't disagree with what I said (and what you said above). It just amuses me that it is presumed to be a meaningful (in the sense that it means these things cannot be scientifically justified) discovery.

Linda

[fls]

And that is not the same as saying that we can't say whether everyone ought not be impoverished, which is what I pointed out.

Well, yes it is. That is what we have been talking about here. Whether we can form a scientific justification for statements like those I offered above (everyone ought not be impoverished, etc.).

If you didn't mean it, what was the intent of the analogy?

I did mean it. That I didn't mean it was your claim. I'm just telling you that I'm not going to ask you to support your claim.

Linda

[Dani]

Well, yes it is. That is what we have been talking about here. Whether we can form a scientific justification for statements like those I offered above (everyone ought not be impoverished, etc.).

No, it's not. You didn't mention "scientific justification". What you said was more like:

[...]we can discover a system of medicine but we can't say anyone should be made healthy[...]Again, there is a difference between saying that we can't do something and saying that there is no scientific justification for something.

Before you reply that it's obvious that you were referring to the latter expression, let me remind you that:

1) The expression you used has a specific meaning in contrast to the one you seemingly are referring to.

2) In the context of this discussion, there are sufficient reasons to think that those who defend Harris' position might be referring to the expression you used in the literal sense to describe opposing viewpoints, since Harris himself specifically said:

You can't believe the e-mail I get from very smart and overeducated people who think that there's no way to argue against the Taliban because they've read some Hume saying you can't get an ought from an is. He is covertly making a straw man argument and equating "we don't have a scientific justification for X" with "we can't X". I'm trying to figure out what kind of overeducated people can't argue against the Taliban because we can't scientifically justify oughts.

So, now that we seem to have clarified this misunderstanding, I'm glad that you were not making this straw man argument.





I did mean it. That I didn't mean it was your claim. I'm just telling you that I'm not going to ask you to support your claim.

May I ask you to clarify once again your position, if you don't mind?

When you said:


we can discover a system of medicine but we can't say anyone should be made healthyMeaning:

we can discover a system of medicine but we can't scientifically justify whether anyone should be made healthyYou really meant that? If so, what made you change your opinion?

[Dani]

This seems perfectly valid to me, actually.

There is plenty of discussion on how wealth should be divided and such. Economics certainly makes no statement on how things ought to be. And yes, asserting that everyone ought not be impoverished is, without anything to back it up, scientifically unjustified.

I don't see what the problem with any of this is.


Edit: maybe I was wrong to assume that you disagreed with it. Your post at the top of this page seemed sarcastic/incredulous to me somehow.

Just to clarify, I agree with your position. I assumed Linda disagreed with it because she's been in disagreement with this point of view in this thread.

By the way, I had thought about the hypothetic situation from your previous post in which Harris says that it would be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of some superbeings. Where is the quote from? Did he really say this? If so, I think it's consistent with his position on the well-being of conscious creatures but inconsistent with the "human universals" argument and, generally, the arguments that appeal to our biology.

[fls]

Well, yes it is. That is what we have been talking about here. Whether we can form a scientific justification for statements like those I offered above (everyone ought not be impoverished, etc.).

No, it's not. You didn't mention "scientific justification". What you said was more like:

[...]we can discover a system of medicine but we can't say anyone should be made healthy[...]Again, there is a difference between saying that we can't do something and saying that there is no scientific justification for something.

I agree and that was my point. To say that we ought (or ought not) to do something (on the basis of consensus or because it seems reasonable or because it fits with an 'axiom' like 'maximize well-being' or whatever) is not a scientific justification. That is, we can say these things but we cannot expect them to represent a scientific justification, or if we want a scientific justification it is insufficient to simply declare these things.

I did mean it. That I didn't mean it was your claim. I'm just telling you that I'm not going to ask you to support your claim.

May I ask you to clarify once again your position, if you don't mind?

When you said:


we can discover a system of medicine but we can't say anyone should be made healthyMeaning:

we can discover a system of medicine but we can't scientifically justify whether anyone should be made healthyYou really meant that?

More like...we can discover a system of medicine but it isn't a scientific justification to state that anyone should be made healthy.

Linda

[Kuko 4000]

By the way, I had thought about the hypothetic situation from your previous post in which Harris says that it would be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of some superbeings. Where is the quote from? Did he really say this? If so, I think it's consistent with his position on the well-being of conscious creatures but inconsistent with the "human universals" argument and, generally, the arguments that appeal to our biology.


Here's a quote (TML, pages 301-302, footnote 50):

50. However, one problem that people often have with consequentialism is that it entails moral hierarchy: certain spheres of well-being (i.e., minds) will be more important than others. The philosopher Robert Nozick famously observed that this opens the door to “utility monsters”: hypothetical creatures who could get enormously greater life satisfaction from devouring us than we would lose (Nozick 1974, p. 41). But, as Nozick observes, we are just such utility monsters. Leaving aside the fact that economic inequality allows many of us to profit from the drudgery of others, most of us pay others to raise and kill animals so that we can eat them. This arrangement works out rather badly for the animals. How much do these creatures actually suffer? How different is the happiest cow, pig, or chicken from those who languish on our factory farms? We seem to have decided, all things considered, that it is proper that the well-being of certain species be entirely sacrificed to our own. We might be right about this. Or we might not. For many people, eating meat is simply an unhealthy source of fleeting pleasure. It is very difficult to believe, therefore, that all of the suffering and death we impose on our fellow creatures is ethically defensible. For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume that allowing some people to eat some animals yields a net increase in well-being on planet earth.

In this context, would it be ethical for cows being led to slaughter to defend themselves if they saw an opportunity— perhaps by stampeding their captors and breaking free? Would it be ethical for a fish to fight against the hook in light of the fisherman’s justified desire to eat it? Having judged some consumption of animals to be ethically desirable (or at least ethically acceptable), we appear to rule out the possibility of warranted resistance on their parts. We are their utility monsters.

Nozick draws the obvious analogy and asks if it would be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of some superbeings. Provided that we take the time to really imagine the details (which is not easy), I think the answer is clearly “yes.” There seems no reason to suppose that we must occupy the highest peak on the moral landscape. If there are beings who stand in relation to us as we do to bacteria, it should be easy to admit that their interests must trump our own, and to a degree that we cannot possibly conceive. I do not think that the existence of such a moral hierarchy poses any problems for our ethics. And there is no compelling reason to believe that such superbeings exist, much less ones that want to eat us.

[Dragoonster]

I agree and that was my point. To say that we ought (or ought not) to do something (on the basis of consensus or because it seems reasonable or because it fits with an 'axiom' like 'maximize well-being' or whatever) is not a scientific justification. That is, we can say these things but we cannot expect them to represent a scientific justification, or if we want a scientific justification it is insufficient to simply declare these things.

Agreed.

But I'm again baffled at your recent thread contention which apparently does disagree with my objections therewith, or where exactly you agree/disagree with Harris' contentions.

"that was my point". What is your point? What is Harris' point? All along in the thread and from the TED speech and Harris' words I've been assuming "Science can answer moral questions" means that "Science is justified axiomatically for some reason in answering moral questions, better than any other axiomatic morale".

As in, Science is more justified to answer any moral question than any other moral theme. Science > Christianity. Science > Selfism. Science > Utilitarianism. Science > Evolutionary Pressure. Is this true, for everyone, for the Universe, as Objective? Is science the end-all, be-all of morality? Why? How? Give Scientific Proof since it's Science that's claiming Superiority?

[Dragoonster]

Needless to say, "science can answer/maximize moral answers" when the answers are in the form of question like "is human health desirable? Yes" is not in dispute. Science is awesome. Input a moral or desire or end-goal into it, and it delivers (this is often called medical science, or anthropology btw). That's not what's in question in this thread, or towards Harris.

Science can't say what's desirable or not. It will never be able to.

Harris seems to be going well beyong medical science given an axiom of desirable health, beyond cultural units being more/less desireable than competitors, etc. He seems to be trying to put every answer in every field under his umbrella of "Science". My use of quotes here also denotes how little he's thought of among those who are actually scientists, anthropoligists, philosophers, etc. Seems his biggest supporters are naive new age atheists or something (I admit, this is a massive strawman, but I'm a bit drunk)

[JJM 777]

Here's a quote (TML, pages 301-302, footnote 50):

> certain spheres of well-being (i.e., minds) will be more important than others.

That is the basic idea of morals / ethics: The existence and quality of emotions is what matters. Dead stones in outer space are not an ethical issue, unless they somehow potentially affect living creatures.

> this opens the door to “utility monsters”: hypothetical creatures who could
> get enormously greater life satisfaction from devouring us than we would lose

Humans do that to less intelligent animals, so it is possible (while a bit sci-fi) to speculate that a higher life form would do the same to humans.

> we are just such utility monsters. Leaving aside the fact that
> economic inequality allows many of us to profit from the drudgery of others

Capitalists are such, but Left-Wingers renounce such policies, at least in theory.

> most of us pay others to raise and kill animals so that we can eat them.
> This arrangement works out rather badly for the animals.
> How much do these creatures actually suffer?

Actually animals do not necessarily have a worse life under human care and rich nourishment than in the wild where survival is a daily struggle. And instantly dying does not cause any pain to yourself, only to others if they are socially aware of losing you.

[Dragoonster]

I'm sorry. Does Harris' morality (of Science of course) insist upon veganism? I didn't get that specific claim from his talks or internet rebuttals or such.

So as Earthborn long ago said, "the well-being of conscious creatures" also means non-human animals? And of course, if this is so, Harris has definitively stated what "conscious" means? I'd be very interested in reading this proof.

[Ivor the Engineer]

If one believes some form of consciousness survives death, then obeying the dictates of <insert deity here> (e.g., such as making women where "cloth bags" or telling adults what types of sexual practices they can and can't engage in) under threat of eternal torment would increase the wellbeing of conscious creatures. In fact, any finite amount of pain and cruelty can be justified when compared to an infinite duration of suffering if you don't comply.

[fls]

Agreed.

But I'm again baffled at your recent thread contention which apparently does disagree with my objections therewith, or where exactly you agree/disagree with Harris' contentions.

The next step seems to be, "because these are not scientific justifications, there are no scientific justifications to be had". I disagree with that.

"that was my point". What is your point? What is Harris' point? All along in the thread and from the TED speech and Harris' words I've been assuming "Science can answer moral questions" means that "Science is justified axiomatically for some reason in answering moral questions, better than any other axiomatic morale".

I realize that has been your assumption. And this also may be defensible (it's hard not to look good compared to religion).

Linda

[fls]

My use of quotes here also denotes how little he's thought of among those who are actually scientists, anthropoligists, philosophers, etc. Seems his biggest supporters are naive new age atheists or something (I admit, this is a massive strawman, but I'm a bit drunk)

I'd be interested in knowing more about this. How did you find out how he's thought of among scientists, etc.?

Linda

[Sophronius]

> certain spheres of well-being (i.e., minds) will be more important than others.

That is the basic idea of morals / ethics: The existence and quality of emotions is what matters. Dead stones in outer space are not an ethical issue, unless they somehow potentially affect living creatures.

This is a gross simplification. Emotions aren't the only thing that people care about, or what matters when it comes to ethics. This would imply that cold but kind and highly rational people are worth less than others, and I don't think anyone here actually believes that.

Actually animals do not necessarily have a worse life under human care and rich nourishment than in the wild where survival is a daily struggle. And instantly dying does not cause any pain to yourself, only to others if they are socially aware of losing you.


True, but pain is also not the only thing that matters. If I kill my neighbour by painlessly smothering him during his sleep, that does not make the action "right". Killing sentient creatures is generally not appreciated. :)


Anyway, the answer to the question at hand (thanks for the quote Kuko 4000!) seems pretty simple to me: It depends on what those super beings are like. It is misleading to ask "but what IS the better action to take" as if there is some universal standard. "What is the action that we should take, based on our preferences and moral reasoning" makes much more sense. If those superbeings could be said to be like us, but better in every way (possessing all the virtues that we value to a greater extent) then the answer could be yes. If they are entities which only care about the total number of paperclips in the universe, and would kill us without a second thought, then I don't see why we should help them, no matter how happy this would make them.

I would like to know if Harris defends his "happyness must be maximised no matter the cost" axiom anywhere in his book, and if so, how.

[Dragoonster]

I'd be interested in knowing more about this. How did you find out how he's thought of among scientists, etc.?

Linda

By reading the internet, with search terms such as "Sam Harris & Philosophy Forum", "Sam Harris & Criticism", "Sam Harris & Idiot". Plus a few critiques that have been cited in this thread by real philosophers/scientists.

This answer kind of sucks (sorry, really), since I haven't prepared or saved specific examples of such critiques. Have you prepared or saved examples of philosophers and scientists praising Harris and explaining (with Science and Philosophy of course) how he is correct?

[Sophronius]

I don't think Harris is entirely correct in his views and claims, but I don't see how what (other) philosopher's have to say on the subject is relevant. I fully understand Harris' decision to ignore other philosophers in his book, as most of philosophy is utterly meaningless.

Either his logic is sound, or it's not. Consensus doesn't enter into it.


Edit: Of course, if the philosophic/scientific community comes up with a great counterargument to show that Harris' views are wrong, and Harris ignores this entirely, than that's a different matter altogether. But then it's the argument that matters. People are going to disagree either way.

[Dragoonster]

I don't think Harris is entirely correct in his views and claims, but I don't see how what (other) philosopher's have to say on the subject is relevant. I fully understand Harris' decision to ignore other philosophers in his book, as most of philosophy is utterly meaningless.

Either his logic is sound, or it's not. Consensus doesn't enter into it.

So...philosophy simply doesn't exist as any kind of arbiter of morality. All moral answers can (must) instead by answered by science, or something. Why then does he couch nearly all his claims in (sloppy) philosophical, rather than scientific terms?

I can't tell if his "logic" is sound or not. He doesn't seem to have presented any logical arguments/proof.

Finally, if other philosophers aren't relevant, apparently Sam Harris has singlehandedly crushed philosophy alltogether. I also missed that; if he did so he should certainly be up for some kind of enormous prize...isn't that often that a single person can definitively crush 4000 years of human thought.

And your contention that most of philosophy is "utterly meaningless"...what? Just what do you mean by "philosophy"? Or what do you mean by "most"? For instance does the Golden Rule and it's infinite social/individual reaffirmations in morality and law count as philosophy? Why is murder bad? Come on.

Edit: Of course, if the philosophic/scientific community comes up with a great counterargument to show that Harris' views are wrong, and Harris ignores this entirely, than that's a different matter altogether. But then it's the argument that matters. People are going to disagree either way.

They have, and he has ignored and dodged the substantive points.

I'm not going to provide any links, because they've already been provided in this thread.

Whose onus is this? Scientists/philosophers, to spend hours on refuting every obviously ridiculous claim and platform? Or for the maverick new idea-man to actually convince both of this sets due to either solid science, or solid philosophy? He hasn't provided anything solid, so I can certainly understand why he's being dismissed without a word, much like a local on the street corner spouting his own fantastical notion of how the world works.

"Promoting well-being is the single highest moral imperative" (paraphrase). Uh, how again with scientific proof alone has he established this? Obviously no such proof can even once reference philosophy, since it's utterly meaningless. Oh, oops, and I made a mistake including the word "moral", since morality is meaningless. So I'm looking for scientific proof. Promoting well-being is the single highest scientific imperative.

eta: Obviously, this and Harris' position is the moral philosophy of utilitarianism. But apparently philosophy is meaningless. So Harris or you need to come up with an awesome new scientific way of demonstrating "well-being" as paramount (and scientifically explain which species it applies to, whether individual or collective, etc).

Why does science prove that a person in bliss is more desirable than a person in misery? And so on. If Harris' proofs are actually by objective science, this and all other moral questions should be incredibly easily answered. It should be an easily demonstrable experiment or mathematical/physical proof.

Oh, forgot. Harris isn't a sociologist/anthropoligist, or a mathematician or physicist. So I also guess those fields are utterly meaningless, since Harris isn't an expert on them. Errr....just what field is Harris arguing/basing-his-claim from anyway? I can't remember.

[Sophronius]

So...philosophy simply doesn't exist as any kind of arbiter of morality. All moral answers can (must) instead by answered by science, or something. Why then does he couch nearly all his claims in (sloppy) philosophical, rather than scientific terms?

Well, the kind of philosophy where you sit in a room and declare "all is fire" without explaining what that is supposed to mean.... well yes, that kind of philosophy is utterly useless. Philosophy has to be logically sound. Bare assertions, or worse, meaningless babble, is irrelevant regardless of who it is made by.

Finally, if other philosophers aren't relevant, apparently Sam Harris has singlehandedly crushed philosophy alltogether. I also missed that; if he did so he should certainly be up for some kind of enormous prize...isn't that often that a single person can definitively crush 4000 years of human thought.

Sam Harris has done no such thing. Sam Harris has ignored other philosophers because he felt that they hadn't much relevant to say on the subject. The fact is that the field of philosophy is plagued with endless discussions of utter non-issues, and I can understand why one would want to avoid those altogether. Now I'll admit, he'd have done well to address things like "you can't derive ought from is" more carefully in his book rather than just dismissing it altogether. But an long discussion of the underlying theory and existing research on the subject like one might do with a paper on economy? Not applicable here.

And your contention that most of philosophy is "utterly meaningless"...what? Just what do you mean by "philosophy"? Or what do you mean by "most"? For instance does the Golden Rule and it's infinite social/individual reaffirmations in morality and law count as philosophy? Why is murder bad? Come on.

Yep, that's mostly meaningless. "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" is simply a very basic assertion for how one should live their life. It doesn't explain why one should obey this rule, or how how this is beneficial, or how one should treat situations where following this rule actually causes harm to others or yourself. Basically all it says is "empathy is good". As this doesn't really lead to any new insights, except for those who thought "empathy is bad" (although those won't be convinced otherwise, since no argument is made), I consider it "meaningless" in that regard.

Whose onus is this? Scientists/philosophers, to spend hours on refuting every obviously ridiculous claim and platform? Or for the maverick new idea-man to actually convince both of this sets due to either solid science, or solid philosophy? He hasn't provided anything solid, so I can certainly understand why he's being dismissed without a word, much like a local on the street corner spouting his own fantastical notion of how the world works.

Well obviously, it is his task to present a clear argument for why his idea works. I agree that he has mostly failed to do this, because he doesn't adress the obvious counterarguments and instead says "it doesn't matter". He should have begun by saying "This is what I am arguing in favour of" and followed with "this is why it works" and "this is why the obvious counterarguments fall apart". I agree that he has not done this. I do not agree, however, that his failure is not incorporating the current body of philosophical pondering of morality in his book. Simply presenting a solid case in and of itself would have been fine.

"Promoting well-being is the single highest moral imperative" (paraphrase). Uh, how again with scientific proof alone has he established this? Obviously no such proof can even once reference philosophy, since it's utterly meaningless. Oh, oops, and I made a mistake including the word "moral", since morality is meaningless. So I'm looking for scientific proof. Promoting well-being is the single highest scientific imperative.

Morality is not necessarily meaningless, if you define it properly it is perfectly possible to have a sensible discussion about it.

His response to your point was that he doesn't claim to have any such proof. He is simply positing an axiom, but finds that this doesn't invalidate his argument as his axiom is completely obvious. I do not agree with him on this, of course. He should have explained why he chose this axiom, and why he feels that making use of an axiom is all right.

Why does science prove that a person in bliss is more desirable than a person in misery? And so on. If Harris' proofs are actually by objective science, this and all other moral questions should be incredibly easily answered. It should be an easily demonstrable experiment or mathematical/physical proof.

As I said, Harris' argument does not go like this. As I understand it, his argument goes as follows:

a) It is obvious that virtually everyone prefers well being to be maximised than for it to be minimised.
b) It is foolish to act as if a lack of objective moral truth in this regard means that the Taliban cannot be criticized, for example. Objective moral truth is a non-issue, and so is "can't derive ought from is".
c) If we assume that maximising well-being is our objective, we can use science to do X Y Z.

Of course, he does not state it like that, but this is what I get from reading between the lines. Like I said, his argument isn't very convincingly made.

[AlBell]

.... his argument isn't very can't be convincingly made.
ftfy

[Dani]

I have no problem with someone dismissing all moral philosophy if they put forth a solid argument (which was not the case). But if one pretends to do science and denigrates philosophy while actually doing a whole lot of philosophy to make a point, that's naive. And it's called scientism. I respect more the people who say "well, that's just my metaphysical approach" or "this is the assumption from which I'm going to explain it", etc. Making assumptions without acknowleging one is making assumptions is an elemental mistake.

By the way, I think philosophy is useful as long as there is a rational and scientific approach. And there's plenty of that philosophy too. And in these forums we do a lot of philosophy.

[Kuko 4000]

He should have begun by saying "This is what I am arguing in favour of" and followed with "this is why it works" and "this is why the obvious counterarguments fall apart". I agree that he has not done this.


:confused:

Have you read the book? I've read only the first three chapters and this is exactly what he's doing.

[Kuko 4000]

Oh. I guess I'm arguing that it's an odd claim re: this topic of suicidal people wishing a better life. What does this have to do with science or anything? Why is this important to Harris' contentions?

The realistic "better life" for suicidal people is the end of life.


It has to do with what people value. Is your claim that a person who is suicidal would not want a better life if it were somehow magically possible? I'm talking about what people value, not what they see as realistic or possible in their current situations. The whole reason why they are committing a suicide is the avoidance of suffering, and I already wrote about that.

Btw. I don't speak for Harris or anyone else but me, I haven't even read the book fully yet, so I'm not going to pick any sides yet, other than I greatly respect Harris for his previous work and public appearances.


Uh, no. What do you mean by "we"? "We except for those of us who disagree with my values, who are not-we"?


We, as in human beings. We want to avoid things that lead us to "bad life" (suffering, etc.) and we want to increase things that lead us to "good life" (pleasure, etc.). This is my understanding of human beings anyway, (1) I'd like to hear exceptions to this and (2) how it relates to the discussion of how we should build our moral guides.


Convincing reason to believe the best way to achieve the "good life", from someone who isn't suicidal: "The good life is continuing to live!"

Convincing reason to believe the best way to achieve the "good life", from someone who is suicidal: "The good life is stop living!"

Just why do you think the former has any more objective weight than the latter?


Off the top of my head, to be more precise, there are no good reasons (that I know of) for believing that there is any kind of life after death so the question is easily answered. BUT, semantics aside, what you probably mean (again) is that for some people in some situations it's better off to be dead than alive, and in this case we're talking about the avoidance of suffering, which I wrote about in my previous posts.

I have to wonder why you bring this up again and again?

They are two different things, the current situation, and what we really value. Sometimes it's better to be dead than to suffer, I have no objections to that. What the suicidal person achieves (or at least has good reasons to believe that he achieves) with the ending of his life is the avoidance of (his own) suffering, which is actually a good case for human beings not valuing "bad life". On the other hand, if the person really thinks that a better LIFE awaits him after death he probably has no convincing reasons to believe that, but I'd be very interested to hear them.



Do we value x over y? I think this is a sociological/psychological/philosophical/individual upbringing question. You or Harris seem to believe this is a simple science question. So, since you or Harris don't want to engage or pay any respect to my types of questions as a finder of either truth or tendency or best-explanation, you should certainly tout your scientific question/answer and this will quickly end the argument (since I'm completely willing to believe an actual well-formed scientific or logical proof is correct. All Harris needs to do is present this).


What are these questions of yours that I don't want to engage with?

I have already said that I'd rather discuss these things in real time over a chat system because I find writing stuff like this (and in a foreign language) is way more time consuming than I want it to be. For this reason my replies might take a long time to appear, but I'm more than willing to discuss my own moral ideas with you or anyone else, in the hope of learning something new, it just takes a lot more time than necessary. I have no expertise on this issue, nor have I really thought about these things in depth, but as you can see from my previous posts, I do have some serious first questions about the whole "is-ought" notion and its relevance to moral thinking.

[Sophronius]

:confused:

Have you read the book? I've read only the first three chapters and this is exactly what he's doing.

Like I said earlier, my info is second hand, so not all that reliable. I'll prolly have the book by the end of the day though, so I'll see if I misjudged it.

We, as in human beings. We want to avoid things that lead us to "bad life" (suffering, etc.) and we want to increase things that lead us to "good life" (pleasure, etc.). This is my understanding of human beings anyway, (1) I'd like to hear exceptions to this and (2) how it relates to the discussion of how we should build our moral guides.

That's too generic. People certainly want to improve their own lives, generally speaking. They do not generally want to improve the lives of their enemies, rather they want them to suffer and die. Also, especially religious nuts tend to believe that they themselves are sinful and deserve to suffer.

It would be nice if everyone wanted the best for everyone, but I really don't think that this is actually the case.

[Kuko 4000]

Soph, I appreciate your reply, but with this example I was talking about our own lives directly, not the lives of others. And when it comes to actions or morals motivated by religions, in most (if not all) cases, we can pretty easily show that they are not based on the best understanding that we currently have of the universe.