Peter Singer - The Great Debate: Can Science Tell us Right From Wrong? (3)

[livingdeadgrl18]

It's always a treat to listen to Mr. Singer and Mr. Harris speak.

[Idey1994]

@SirKickz I agree, I too think he is wrong but it is obvious that very smart people often are wrong. I largely agree with his idea of morality, as I do with Singer's, I just don't think it is scientific.

[SirKickz]

I don't understand why so many people are hating on Sam. Don't get me wrong, I think that Singer is right on this issue and Sam isn't, but I think it's a bit stretching it to say that Sam is stupid. The guy has a degree in neuroscience and philosophy and he is very, very smart.

[ZombieLincoln666]

glad to see the top comments are supporting Singer and not Harris, who despite his popularity, is clearly out of his league when it comes to the philosophy of ethics.

[Guaguanco11]

There are a lot of stupid comments here by people who seem unable to follow the logic of a fairly simple argument and unable to recognize basic conceptual distinctions. Singer's argument is not that complicated and is expressed with clarity. So where does all this misunderstanding come from? Perhaps, this is further evidence of how poor the critical thinking skills are of the vox populi

[ScottBrown666]

I don't get Singer... I love him, but i don't understand his thinking... if Science + Logic can't tell us anything about right vs. wrong, then why is it wrong for me to spend thousands of dollars on cocaine while millions are starving? What's the point of there even being any study or philosophy of ethics if it's all subjective anyway?

[earnric]

The argument Sam makes (to start the debate) is that science CAN tell us what to value... Not that our current scientific knowledge of evolution as applied to our social behavior should DICTATE our values.... I think Peter argues against a straw man.

[DemokritosAbdera]

I think i have the answer for Singer:

Evolution is a process that doesnt care for the well beign of conscious creatures, it cares for the survival of the most adapted.

[Hermy1138]

@DemokritosAbdera Well put!! Well put indeed. Thank you for that. It just about sums up the whole thing. I'm going to steal that from you now if you don't mind and if you do I'll steal it anyway.

[2CSST2]

The question really comes down to: Is the process of finding what is the best moral action to do a scientific process? Well I think this process must be falisiable; we have to acknowledge what we think is morally might not necessarly be truly so, it must be tested and based on observations; some moral decisions need the help of observations (for example testing statistically if a certain law has the right deterance effect) and it is a continuous process. IMO, this is science, so yes as for me.

[panther451]

@2CSST2 Sam Harris is making a stronger claim. He is denying the very existence of a Naturalistic Fallacy "If x is natural, then x is good." Under the Sam Harris view of morality -- the question "Is x good?" is an empirical one. That seems very odd to me. Sure, science help us gather facts to assist in our pursuit of the good, but it doesn't dictate goodness. "Most lobsters are red" is falsifiable; "Lobsters shouldn't be eaten" is not falsifiable.

[2CSST2]

@panther451 Sam Harris did say that the only assumption needed was that the worst possible misery for everyone has to be avoided. From that point on whether eating lobsters gets you closer or not to it is an empirical question. Morality may not exist in written universe rules, but following this unique assumption a science of morality can very well exist as well as objective morality. Medical science is also based on assumptions but it doesn't make it anyless a science

[ExSaint1379]

@2CSST2 Objective morality doesn't exist by it's very definition. Objective facts about human morality exist, but not objective morality.

[dcx1287]

@panther451 You're suggesting that "Lobster's shouldn't be eaten" is NOT falsifiable. Ok. Let me give you this hypothetical scenario to consider. Let's say your mother becomes deathly allergic to lobster. If she eats lobster, she will die. Your mother comes up to you and tells you that she wants to eat lobster. How would you ever prove to her that she shouldn't? Who's to say that the benefit of living longer trumps the cost of forsaking a lobster meal.

[panther451]

@dcx1287 I was more referring to the fact that lobsters are conscious creatures (or are at least border-line cases). Singer thinks that we shouldn't eat animals at all. We have a secular debate about whether or not it is wrong to eat animals, but I don't see scientific facts *determining* an answer.

[dcx1287]

@panther451 If you're going to be vehemently skeptical about Harris proposing the axiom that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad and therefore worth avoiding, are you also going to be vehemently skeptical about a tacit axiom within the field of medicine that says living longer is generally preferable to dying early? If not, why not? Why do you attack Harris's proposed axiom that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad and fail to attack the philosophical underpinnings of health

[panther451]

@dcx1287  Sorry, but you missed the point of my criticism.

Every person who engages in rational, secular moral reasoning accepts that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad. It's common sense.

The controversial part of Sam's "Moral Landscape" is that he proposes an ultimate valuation system, whereby the terms "good" and "bad" equate to "scientifically true" and "scientifically false". Such a system commits the Naturalistic Fallacy.

[MrBWB]

hmmm.. 5 minutes and 12 seconds in, and i've realized i'm enjoying his accent so much that i haven't actually paid attention to what he is talking about. rewind...

[chrisjanovich]

singer, you fail.

[lyntonio]

Boy for such a apparently great philosopher Singer strays from the point.

[javb222]

Sam says:

some actions cause more suffering than others...

... reason and evidence (science) can be used to determine what these are...

... assuming we want to reduce suffering...

... our knowledge of the causes of human suffering implies certain actions be taken, and others avoided

what Singer seems to think Sam says:

the "morality" evolution has programmed in human minds is perfect...

... so it ought to be extracted by scientists and implemented

[ballersack]

@javb222

If that's the case, then Sam is completely missing the point of the discussion.

Singer is tackling the actually difficult question of why and how we should be ethical.

[javb222]

@ballersack Read the title...

[ballersack]

@javb222

You apparently haven't. Nor the description.

I don't think anyone would argue that science doesn't help identify and reduce suffering. It obviously does. The bigger and more important question is WHY we should be doing that. Yes, there IS suffering, but what OUGHT we do about it? That is the ethics question.

If Singer is mistaken about what Sam said, it's because he assumed Sam was actually making a controversial claim, rather than "science tells us things about stuff".

[MoncefGridda]

Singer mistakenly asserts that an increased lifespan will result in increasing the older years. If we extended lives to 1,000 years, then it does not mean we age naturally until we're decrepit and then extend it for another 900 years. Usually it would mean extending the "prime" years so 600 years of existence are analogous to our 20s, 30s and 40s.

[ericfeinberg28]

singer is right. its not knocking harris's beliefs which singer admittedly agrees with, its just acknowledging the reality that theyre based on unscientific preferences

[pedropratt]

Thank you ASU for not using bottled water!

[danielfact]

it all depends on your definition of science

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

what is he talking about

[rahdisas]

I think Singer, in his infinite wisdom, has missed the bloody point. He keeps bringing up the 'is ought' fallacy in twenty different ways but Sam's point is primarily about whether the research of morals falls within the purview of Science.

I honestly think Singer would agree with Sam if he actually understood Sam's point.

[architect333]

@rahdisas i don't get it, he did agree with sam weather science can help us better understand morality as he said this is an old discussion, what's new is weather science itself can objectively tell us whats right or wrong, and like pinker position, considering the broad range of aspect's of morality connected with subjective thought, it's clearly not. Sam's position makes sense for objective concerns such as physical harm, not necessarily to wear a burqa or to conceive semi-retarded life.

[rahdisas]

@architect333 Philosophy is a type of science - any field which involves thinking about issues and coming up with objective answers is scientific.

Sam's book isn't so much about promoting neuroscience etc as an answer to moral questions as about damning moral relativism.

I think Singer probably agrees with using Scientific thinking to approach these questions too (seeing as it is exactly what he does).

[ballersack]

@rahdisas

"whether the research of morals falls within the purview of Science."

But this is the "is ought" fallacy. Experimental science (which doesn't include philosophy) cannot give us morals. So Singer doesn't believe "moral research" is valid.

[ExSaint1379]

@rahdisas If you watch the whole debate, Singer ends up agreeing with him for the exact reason you said. They had a disagreement about the word science. Singer views science and philosophy as separate and Sam does not. Singer is correct if you define them strictly, but with bioethics and quantum physics, for better or for worse, philosophy has become at least based on science and science is most certainly philosophy.

[Naturalist1979]

@rahdisas I think you are missing the point. There is a difference between science studying morality and science prescribing morality. The moral principle of human flourishing is merely one among others, such as justice, integrity and loyalty. Ethics is the reflective discipline that deals with moral dilema´s, clashes between such principles; this cannot immediately be inferred from science.

[mebe84]

@rahdisas and perhaps u have missed the point of the debate. it is not whether research of morals is legitimate science.

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas I disagree. Sam Harris has in mind to say that we can construct a moral landscape which maximises prosperity/happiness and minimises suffering and that we can do so on the basis of what science tells us is constitutive of prosperity or suffering. This is problematic because, as Pinker and Singer suggest, science provides necessary but insufficient information for this task. Moral premises are derived not from natural science but from rationality more broadly conceived.

[rahdisas]

@nyscholartist Eloquently stated but I think Sam has two points. The first is one which I stated, of whether morality falls within the purview of science. And, secondly, having established that morality does fall within the purview of science, he postulates his own theory - the moral landscape. And, finally, your contention about 'necessary but insufficient information' is a problem in nearly every field of prescriptive science - it doesn't cause us to abandon the field altogether right?

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas Yes, his use of the term science is unconventional enough that Pinker, Singer, and Churchland disagree with his argument. It is true that having necessary but insufficient information doesn't cause us to abandon a field, but there are other problems in Sam's approach. Having redefined science, he proceeds to dismiss moral philosophy as largely irrelevant to the task of discovering/inventing our morals. Finally, his argument for objective, universal morality is completely unpersuasive.

[rahdisas]

@nyscholartist "Moral premises are derived not from natural science but from rationality more broadly conceived." - In the Moral Landscape, this is the first point that Sam makes - he uses a broader definition of science - 'reason and all the associated rules of logic available to us'. To be honest, Sam causes unnecessary confusion through his choice of words: using 'science' rather than 'reason' and/or 'rationality' as the basis for his argument wasn't the best move on his part.

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas In his lecture at TED on whether science can answer moral questions, he makes the problematic case that objective, universal values can be derived from facts. He begins with the example of putting cholera in drinking water, saying that this is "probably" not a good idea. He then says that it is wrong for the intellectual community to assume that morality can have no objective basis because (a) that certain moral principles admit of exceptions does not negate their objectivity

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas and (b) we accept that there may be a range of ways of thinking about physical health/nutrition, but we know the difference between a healthy body and a dead one and between nutritious food and poison. In other words, there are objective and universal moral truths to be known despite variation in perceptions of how they conduce to human welfare just as there are objective and universal medical truths to be known despite variation in perceptions of how they foster human physical health.

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas He then addresses the problem of women's bodies, calling attention to the example of burqas and acid-throwing in parts of South Asia. He says, "Well, this is one thing you can do about [women's bodies]. You can cover them up. Now, it is the position, generally speaking, of our intellectual community that, well, we may not like this. We might think of this as wrong in Boston or Palo Alto ... (contd.)"

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas " ... Who are we to say that the proud denizens of an ancient culture are wrong to force their wives and daughters to live in cloth bags? Who are we to say even that they're wrong to beat them with lanks (sic) of steel cable or throw battery acid in their faces if they decline the privilege of being smothered in this way? Well, who are we not to say this? Who are we to pretend that we know so little about human well being that we have to be non-judgmental about a practice like this?"

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas So the response to the moral relativism of the intellectual community is simply that we know that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong and, if we have any doubt about the matter, then we are pretending to know very "little about human well being." In other words, based on scientific facts about human well being, we know that such a practice is morally wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts.

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas We ourselves may not have the perfect solution to how to treat women's bodies, but the chances that fully veiling women represents a peak in the human moral landscape are too small to take seriously. Alas, unfortunately for Sam, morality is utterly subjective, variable, and relative. Even a cursory reading of history confirms this. There are cultures which don't even necessarily regard humanity to reside solely in life, but also in death (ancient Rome, the global jihad, etc.).

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas In Roman antiquity, for example, there were many circumstances in which life was not considered worth living. And in these circumstances suicide was not only accepted but also seen as a noble act manifesting the quintessence of all that is human. On Sam's view, this value would be objectively immoral because it isn't moored in "scientific fact." It contradicts human prosperity and likely conduces to human suffering (not just for the person involved, but also for others around him/her)

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas But it's entirely conceivable that such an act of suicide made the person's family and friends proud rather than despondent. Accounts from the time reveal this to be true. It's not clear how this kind of act results in greater human suffering. Ultimately, what this means is that even if prosperity and suffering can be objectively defined, the same human action can result in the former in one culture and in the latter in another. The argument for moral objectivity, then, collapses.

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas One might also add that many Muslim women choose to wear the burqa, assenting to the patriarchal norms which mandate it in particular societies. They appear to be not just happy, but also proud. Think of Kenza Drider. From a modern liberal perspective, which Sam glosses as "objective science," she must be suffering from false consciousness, unaware of just how miserable she really is. It is simply asserted, not argued, that women wearing the burqa are suffering.

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas Many studies conducted in Afghanistan show that a significant proportion of women who wear the burqa are perfectly content to do so. If the burqa can foster happiness rather than suffering among so many burqa-clad women, then it can't possibly be objectively wrong. What this means is that if we want to make an argument for absolute morality, then the moral landscape of happiness/suffering won't do. Other criteria will need to be considered.

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas The analogy to healthy food vs. poison with a range of choices of edibles in between is false because, in the moral realm, the same action in one culture can be experienced as morally uplifting (which ensures well being and flourishing) whereas in another it can be experienced as degrading (which causes psychological and emotional suffering). This isn't true, say, of drinking fresh water (which can only be good for you) vs. drinking arsenic (which can only be bad for you).

[rahdisas]

@nyscholartist @nyscholartist Wow - it seems you are on quite a rampage here :)  I can't keep up with everything you said but I'll try to address a few. First, it is one thing for women to wear burqas out of choice and quite another entirely to be *forced* to wear them. Second, I don't think Sam asks for anything more than intellectual honesty in terms of what premises to hold - different people can maximise their different utility curves as long as they are rational and intellectually honest.

[nyscholartist]

@rahdisas Yes. Sam didn't consider the possibility that women choose to wear the burqa in large numbers. He simply assumed that they're forced to be put in "cloth bags" by their husbands. But I don't think that we would need his argument for equating value with fact or constructing a moral landscape of flourishing/suffering to condemn coercion of that kind.

[SoFlyCee]

He completely missed the bloody point.

[stephenblackman2003a]

@SoFlyCee Could you and other people following this interesting discussion please say what important point Singer is missing? I understand the confusion about what counts as 'science' - sociology, history and secular philosophy etc can be included. But what really is Singer missing?

[tecnoblix]

I disagree. Just because there are "things we can disagree about and discuss" doesn't mean that science can't answer the questions. What exactly does he think we use to "find the answer?" Magic? Of course everything is quantifiable. If it wasn't our brains wouldn't be able to ever come to any conclusions!

[stephenblackman2003a]

Singer is not saying that just because there are 'things that we can disagree about and discuss' that then means science can't answer the questions in dispute. He (and Churchland makes a similar point) is saying when scientific facts are not in dispute then science cannot answer the moral questions left. If interlocutors agree about the scientific facts but disagree about what to do, more science will not necessarily settle the question.

[cutis1000]

@stephenblackman2003a Trial and error is a cornerstone of science. So why can't more science, or more trial and error, ultimately lead to the answers of the moral questions we still have?

[stephenblackman2003a]

@cutis1000 Trial and error (TnE) is A cornerstone of science as you say; but not THE cornerstone of science. Might help to keep in mind that TnE is a cornerstone of carpentary, pottery and soccer coaching. There is no compelling reason to call the rational, evidence-based discussion of morals part of science. We can call it science if we want to but then we can also call it moral philosophy. 

[FromAtomsMade]

@tecnoblix : Your command of logic proves defective as Sam's leaking breast implant for brains. In nowhere does Singer maintain that "magic" is the answer to complex questions. It's moral philosophy to which we turn. Science can no more arbitrate between competing moral claims than can Santa. Peter Singer is by many orders of magnitude intellectually superior than irredeemable vulgarians like Harris whose grasp of ethics would make a schoolboy of ten blush with embarassment. On all four cheeks.

[syqnys]

@FromAtomsMade Wow... I followed Singer way before I even heard of Sam Harris, but it is a disgrace to say Harris isn't on the same intellectual level as Singer.

[dcx1287]

@FromAtomsMade ad hominem. Logic 101. Attack the arguments, not the person.

[ExSaint1379]

@dcx1287 Ad Hominem means you attack the person to show their arguments are invalid. You can attack a person as much as you want as long as you address their points and it's not an Ad Hominem. That's logic 101 for ya.

[ExSaint1379]

I just gotta say, it's obvious you haven't read Harris's books. Nietzsche's God is Dead is not criticism of religion. Nietzsche is saying science took the place of religion. Even if some of Harris's implications are the same, he is not parroting Nietzsche.

[Gnomefro]

@FromAtomsMade "In nowhere does Singer maintain that "magic" is the answer to complex questions. It's moral philosophy to which we turn."

Sadly, you're either discussing facts - in which case you're in the realm of science or you're in some realm of subjectivity/magic slapping a "philosophy" sticker on such useless drivel does not make it useful. 

[Gnomefro]

@FromAtomsMade To say that "Science can no more arbitrate between competing moral claims than can Santa." is to deny that there are any facts that decide what's right for humans. Such a statement is completely retarded given that we have mental states such as "suffering" that are bad by definition. However, if true, no amount of moral philosophy could help you reason about what's right - simply because you have already denied that there are facts about the matter.

[geilman]

What facts decide anything about human beings? I think we should consider the philosophical area of phenomenology for this one. We ought to remember science is a creation of ours, not the other way around. We are not born into a world of science, We are born and create a meaningful world ourselves, THEN science comes after. The primacy of the lifeworld needs to be recognised.

[geilman]

@Gnomefro Further, what fact decides anything in morality? Facts may place certain restrictions surely, assuming we can understand them at all. I see no 'fact' that decides anything for us. We are reasoning beings. You say that "we have mental states such as suffering that are bad by definition"... right, i agree. You know humans define them though right? We reasonably conclude that pain is wrong, and we give reasons. We do not appeal to fact. Suffering is wrong is not an empirical fact.

[ExSaint1379]

@Gnomefro It's odd that he's arguing this as Singer's philosophy sort of requires naturalism. Singer wouldn't argue that facts don't contribute to moral philosophy (as no moral philosopher would).

[ZombieLincoln666]

@Gnomefro

Stop championing science as the cure-all for everything. Yelling SCIENCE might work against theists, but its not going to work on anyone who has an understanding of the nuances of ethics.

[Gnomefro]

@FromAtomsMade As far as Singer is concerned, his moral theory is actually fairly similar to Sam Harris' theory. It's just that Harris improves on it by proposing a mechanism to argue conclusively about right and wrong in the context of human well being using neuroscience and sharpens the focus to humans somewhat. Singer's theory always suffered from being too general. His ideas of specieism being bad, for example, simply ignore the reality that species are in deadly competition for resources.

[jaederi]

@Gnomefro "His ideas of specieism [...] simply ignore the reality that species are in deadly competition for resources." - i dont think Singer's advocating to (eg) stop lions from hunting and killing prey. this would bring about the death of that species as their existence relies on that "way of life". humans on the other hand can well live without eating meat, and not killing animals (unless for self defense / life-saving measures). so his theory seems consistent. please correct me if im wrong

[stephenblackman2003a]

@jaederi: Even if humans were strictly carnivores like lions are, Singer's anti-speciesm would still be untouched. Humans would still kill prey but would attempt to minimise suffering. Notice that this logic applies to humans being naturally cannibals, rapists, etc. In all this the major moral question is: given who I am, and given that I can't change some parts of my nature, how can I as impartially as possible better the lot of everyone affected by my actions?

[Gnomefro]

@FromAtomsMade Ignoring this fact is completely devastating to Singer's philosophy because he can't really explain why we should care about what animals think except to say that it's good that they don't suffer. With regards to humans on the other hand, we are instantly forced to value the opinions of others due to the cooperative nature of the species. This is what makes Harris' approach so powerful. We could actually argue with others about facts of subjective experience to come to conclusions

[ExSaint1379]

@Gnomefro Yeah neither can Sam. Singer's philosophy goes like this. Because we value X for this reason, we should value Y because it is the same. Neither Harris nor Singer can tell you why you should value something only that most of us do. Singer and Sam Harris are both staunch utilitarians who share almost the same philosophy (though I don't think Harris is a vegetarian, which I can't figure out why).

[ExSaint1379]

@FromAtomsMade Singer is probably my favorite person in the world, and Sam Harris is a narcisstic asshole, but Sam's intellect is enormous. Philosophy and Science are not separate anymore. Singer's philosophies have very strong roots in naturalism. In fact if naturalism were not the case, many valid arguments could be made against Utilitarian personism, but because science has proven common descent Singer's philosophies hold strong.

[Hamhark98]

@FromAtomsMade Have you watched his Ted talks or read his book "the moral landscape"? He is at least an equal to Singer and for the most part agrees with much fo what Singer believes. Theres a video where Harris says how he can't make a logical argument in support of killing animals.

[Hamhark98]

@FromAtomsMade Also, Harris has said that when he refers to science he is talking about the broader definition which includes philosophy and the social sciences. Thus Harris and Singer don't really disagree on much.

Why the hate for Harris may I ask?

[SrQueque]

I too agree. Specially because I think his utilitarian philosophy does relate itself so well to Harris's views.

[chyckenfeet]

i agree, i think he's missing the boat here.

[MrDarkbloom]

This is the first time I have ever heard Peter Singer so clearly wrong. How can he say this stuff after hearing Sam Harris and still believe he has an argument????