Sam Harris vs. Rabbi David Wolpe (debate): Can science determine human values?

[AnnaMishel]

Go Sam Harris . . . .  he's my hero!

[lardhat]

Science can teach us about the evolution of our morality, but it can't tell us what to do with that knowledge.

You can ask Science "how can we achieve a certain thing?", but the other question, "what SHOULD we try to achieve" is not one that Science could ever answer.

It just can't. Nor can Logic.

I'm not saying Religion has anything valuable to say about it. Not at all. I'm just saying that Logic, Math and Science can give us winning strategies only when you input the conditions of success.

[DrInfidel]

If someone who is addicted to drugs thinks they are healthy, that has no bearing on the truth that they are ill. Same goes with your Rabbi, if being torture is good in his eyes, it doesn't change the fact that being burnt is bad.

[lardhat]

@DrInfidel

What do you mean by "bad", and how does it apply?

A vagina being ripped is "bad" too, and it happens pretty often when delivering a baby. Shall we sterilize every woman?

You can't find the answer in Science. Science gives us knowledge, but can't tell us what to do with it.

I oppose war not because it's "bad", but because it causes suffering, and i don't like it.

I've evolved a rejection for suffering and an empathy, but also selfishness, BUT ALSO a capacity for critical thinking.

[TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE]

Another wrong by religion. The meaning of life is to increase the quality of life and science will do just that. Religion has had it's chance.

[lardhat]

@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE

Can you objectively measure "quality of life"?

I know people who are happier than me, better fed, more fit, and i wouldn't trade my life for theirs ever. The time they spend exercising i spend reading and writing, and it is my choice to make it the meaning of my life without having to listen to any jerk telling me that i haven't fulfilled some objective "meaning of life".

You figure out your own and let me have mine. Mkay?

[TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE]

@lardhat No matter how small, Objectively Measure? Yes! Your alive and if you gain worth for your efforts in any aspect such as, found a nice blanket, or rotate from your left side to your right; under that blanket; reading a book! You have increased your quality of life.

If you content with yours, you have increased you quality of life. Simple!

All creatures do it!

Did you thought it was a beautiful person contest?

Sign: Hard Core Atheist! I think you had me for theist!

[lardhat]

@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE

I didn't have you for a theist.

Science is the greatest tool we have. But it's a disservice to that tool to pretend it can do things it cannot, like give us a goal. You can't say "Science tells us we should improve our quality of life", 'cause it doesn't.

Your argument IS simple. Simply wrong. Some people feel better after doing some killing. Some feel definitely better after doing some drugs. Simple!

All creatures service their genes. So is that the meaning of life?

[TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE]

@lardhat You said they feel better! That's it! They increased their quality of living. The physical, tangibles are not all there is. There is also in the mind. If It Makes You Feel Good!!! All beings do it, except for the smart ones with bad ideas like religion. Example: Sometimes they intend to lower there quality to get to a promised after life. Being tricked by the leader! You know, give me your money!

[lardhat]

@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE

"You said they feel better! That's it! They increased their quality of living." <-- Oh! Does killing people qualify as the meaning of life then?

The meaning of life could be ending other lives?

Heroin can also be the meaning of life, right?

[TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE]

@lardhat Only if it makes' people feel better! If they suffer depressive regret, then they have reduced the quality of living!

Try it in your daily activities. It's every thing you do!

If you intentional reduce the quality of living then you might be religious!

[lardhat]

@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE

There are plenty of people who feel no such regrets.

Your category of actions that qualify as "the goal of life" is useless, because it involves "everything you do". So no matter what you do you're achieving the goal.

Fine by me. But:

a) It doesn't fit with your notion that Science helps any more than anything else, including religion.

b) It's useless.

[TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE]

@lardhat 1) Some else browght it up.

2) Your pampus

3) Fuck off!

[Gnomefro]

@lardhat "Science is the greatest tool we have. But it's a disservice to that tool to pretend it can do things it cannot, like give us a goal. You can't say "Science tells us we should improve our quality of life", 'cause it doesn't."

What Sam Harris is suggesting is that, when said science includes the study of the neurobiology of human brains, this will include the mechanisms that produce what we humans call purpose and feelings of well being.

[Gnomefro]

@lardhat When we understand these mechanisms science can tell us how changes in our behavior(say in how we organize societies - maybe outlawing genital mutilation) will impact our own lives from a rough subjective perspective. That is, whether the changes will be experienced as higher or lower quality of living. When you point at homicidal maniacs as some kind of example that subjective experience is not universal you're simply being silly.

[Gnomefro]

@lardhat Your argument there is basically equivalent to suggesting that science can tell us nothing about what constitutes health, because some people live reasonably well with various illnesses. It is not a problem to establish simple arguments for why the opinion of homicidal maniacs should be disregarded as brain damage.(In fact such behavior might well be understood as concrete neurological disorders as a consequence of such studies)

[Gnomefro]

@lardhat One doesn't have to go further than understanding that murdering other people will make other people's quality of life worse. So such activities simply are not candidates for goals that maximize global well being. Similarly, while doing drugs can produce positive feelings(and may in fact be a good goal to work towards, many people have their lives improved by Prozac etc.) making everyone junkies will conflict with necessary goals of productivity.

[Gnomefro]

@lardhat "Can you objectively measure "quality of life"?"

If you believe the brain produces consciousness, you believe there are ways to organize matter that corresponds to higher and lower quality of life as experienced subjectively by you. The understanding of such organizations can be objective. It also happens to be the case that humans are extraordinarily similar in their biology so it is simply laughable to believe we won't be able to generalize usefully in many areas.

[Gnomefro]

@lardhat "You figure out your own and let me have mine. Mkay?"

Nobody will deny you your subjective experience. However, a science of human well being might be able to conclude that your opinions on certain issues simply should not be respected because they demonstrably cause mass suffering in others. For example because you took pleasure in violent rape. Sam Harris also makes the point that we have no reason to think there will be single right answers in many cases. Which is fine.

[Gnomefro]

@lardhat The only thing that's needed for such a science to be useful is that there be some way to compare and rank the effects of various ways to organize society on the well being of the inhabitants. This should be no more controversial than claiming to be able to demonstrate that inhabitants of countries where modern medicine is available generally have better health than those who don't. Or that building safe roads produce higher well being due to reducing severe injury in accidents.

[Gnomefro]

@lardhat You are of course welcome to claim that it's subjective whether or not a person is better off with his leg amputated or not. If you do, you have demonstrated that you are not competent to be part of such a discussion and will be justifiably ignored. The main goal of such a science would be to put an end to bullshit that causes large scale harm in the world anyway. Not dictate people's personal ideas of happiness. That would only happen if you are a sociopath.

[lardhat]

@Gnomefro

Search on wiki: Body Integrity Identity Disorder. Go to the ethics section.

tinyurldotcom/35avvn

You said "You said they feel better! That's it! They increased their quality of living." So ¿would you perform such an operation on someone?

What people are allowed to do in the world for their own benefit also involves ethical issues for animal right activists.