The New Science of Morality - Sam Harris P2

[OrthodoxDarwinist]

Hey Sam Harris, what;s "moral" about ethnically cleansing millions of indigenous Palestinians merely because Zionist Jews like yourself see them as ethnically inferior, and (like in your essays) encourage the IDF in their crimes against humanity???

You support that yet pretend to be a, authority on MORALITY??

Fuck off.

[BigLundi]

@OrthodoxDarwinist I've never seen him ever support that. So you're probably a troll. :)

[OrthodoxDarwinist]

@BigLundi

Well you clearly haven't bothered to read his stuff then have you, moron.

But thanks for demonstrating the idiocy of blind support.

[BigLundi]

@OrthodoxDarwinist What I've read from him I've agreed with so far. That we should focus on furthering the well being of as many people as possible, that we can determine how to do this through scientific research, sound right to me. Please, link me the papers he wrote where he supported genocide and crimes against humanity. Please.

[bary1234]

Thank goodness for Sam Harris. Imagine this man as a president of USA. What amazing things could he achieve. He would probably almost rid the world of superstition during his lifetime.

[ivanmikhailov]

The applause at the end was a bit on the sickly side.

[cristianfcao]

I really admire Sam Harris for his clarity in discussing religion, however he's completely lost in this. I have two problems with his position:

1. As he himself says: With many of our most important problems it's extremely difficult to *scientifically* determine what political option is better for the wellbeing of a society.

2. Even if that is possible: the only thing you'll be doing *as a scientist* is trying to determine different outcomes of various choices, not deciding which one to take

[markgg1]

@cristianfcao Yes but you might be able to use two different political techniques for a problem, and analyse the outcome scientifically.

for example, the right say lowering taxes will reduce poverty, whereas the left usually say raise tax to reduce inequality (so reduce poverty)

We can actually analyse quantitative data across nations and generations to who is right here.

it might be found that a mix of the two is right, or one or other. Even if cant be found we have a method to at least try

[cristianfcao]

@markgg1I absolutely agree that we should make as much as we can to base our policies in scientific findings. But it's extremely difficult to do so because social sciences' results are never clear cut and because there are lots of factors involved in the social and economic realm, including strong ideological positions. Take the example you gave, do you think even a breakthrough scientific finding about fiscal policies will make conservatives or liberals change their views on taxing?

[markgg1]

@cristianfcao Im saying we need a completely new way of approaching things. We need to at least TRY to come up with the best answer based on evidence, instead of just sticking to our ideological positions.

Currently the actual evidence is rarely even considered. For me the most obvious example is police numbers and crime. The link between lower crime and more police is simply not there, yet you ask most people how to combat crime e and they will say 'more police'. This is a expensive error.

[cristianfcao]

@markgg1 I'm a sociologist, so my work is trying to understand social reality and I tell you: it's not easy! Even more difficult is to convince politicians about certain policies, especially if they are based in counter intuitive findings as those you've mentioned. Do you imagine a republican representative forwarding crime policies according to the fact you've mentioned? BTW, I only say it's difficult, not that we shouldn't try, and that you'd not be acting "as a scientist" (which is fine)

[markgg1]

@cristianfcao I think people in the future ill look back at people like Sam Harris as one of the great minds of our generation.

Maybe im exaggerating, but I listen to certain people's ideas, and i think if we implemented this way of thinking globally the world would be a much better place.

Imagine if politicians actually used evidence properly to base social policy. We wouldn't have poverty, crime would be a lot lower and people would be more educated. Crime and poverty are not inevitable.

[MyQuarterback]

@markgg1 In a capitalist society poverty and crime seems inevitable.

[markgg1]

@MyQuarterback I dont think thats neccesraily true because countries like Japan, Sweden, Denmark have capitalism, but very low poverty. You do notice they tend to have extensive welfare provsion and good workers rights.... so theres some evidence right now on a good model? US capitalism is mostly free market, and maybe causes some of the problems?

[markgg1]

@cristianfcao He said just what I was thinking.

his analogy of adam and eve is important. He is saying its obvious that them smashing their heads in is not a good idea. But of course we have 7billion people, and the issues are more important. but we can still make an effort to find the right choices, even if it is more complex than 'don't smash your heads together'. It may be social policy, or economics.

Ive just realised how much of a genius this guy is.

[MattHunX]

Sam looks a bit tired. When was this? Recently, I'm hoping.

[deelnyc]

@MattHunX You would be too if you constantly had religious nuts approaching you trying to debate you.

[MattHunX]

@deelnyc

I don't even have the patience to debate them. Some of them. But, many are just impossible to reason with.

When's Sam going to debate some theists? It's been ages since he last had a good debate apart from the one with Chopra.