Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins on Morality and Science

[bradley1107]

when they show the audience..guy with the glasses twirling his hair..lol cracked me up for some reason

[suarezjaguar]

if the machines become conscious and able to control their own evolution...why they would develop a human sense of morality? Suppose they will not follow "human morals", this would not be proof against objective morality?

[FlyingFree333]

@suarezjaguar

It's not 'human morals' all social species evolved the same morals independently which indicates that the moral instincts we have are objectively the best and only available. If machines evolved socially they would have the same morals, if they evolved asocially they wouldn't have any morals since morals determine behavior towards others.

[suarezjaguar]

@FlyingFree333 I reject the idea that all species would necessarily evolve the same morals. Moral zeitgeist has changed throughout human history. For example, slavery is not acceptable today as it was massively acceptable in the past. And this is considering only one species (Homo sapiens) in few centuries.

If we observe the behavior of eusocial species, we can see that they are much more cooperative than any primate species can be. Etc.

[cheradinine8]

Sam states that there are aspects of human knowledge that should not be disseminated, the moral doctrine of Consequentialism... An example seems to be the Manhatten project. When Robert Oppenheimer realized the results of what he was part of, he said in horror, "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds". What future discoveries will produce moral dilemmas? How will we know except retrospectively?... Maybe it is unknowable in advance...

[suarezjaguar]

@cheradinine8 "What future discoveries will produce moral dilemmas?"

Probably something related to population control and ethnic cleansing through non-violent means (for example, genetically modified vectors spreading disease or sterilizing people without their knowledge). Adding a sterilant to drinking water was suggested by the current White House science advisor, J.P. Holdren.

[Faerlon123]

@cheradinine8 Yes that's what he says. But it is indeed impossible to know something in advance. People can say what they want about nuclear technology and how we shouldn't use it, but as all things we learn, we should rather focus on how we use it, instead of whining over if we should've learned it at all. In the future we will probably learn things that are much more dangerous than nuclear, but this is where rational thought and reason needs to be applied.

[inconsp1cuous1515]

i learned more from this video than years of when i used to goto church.

[Beanybag2]

Lotta people around Sam Harris are wondering about his 'is-ought' problem. He really doesn't address it well enough. I understand that science has an authoritative voice on knowledge and that it seems hard to condemn atrocities without such authority, but the weaker morality built on weaker premises is actually sufficient enough to condemn such acts. I do think there is a problem of apathy among intellectuals, but I don't think attacking moral relativity is the solution.

[bradley1107]

@Beanybag2

After watching this video, I still am not able to understand why he thinks that science can inform us about proper morality. Not that scientific understandings of the world should at all be rejected when considering such matters. But he seems to be attempting to bridge this gap between science and values by appealing to our emotional responses. While I certainly do agree with him that human misery is BAD and happiness GOOD, I don't see how that dichotomy can be justified by science?

[bradley1107]

@bradley 1107

And I think its obvious (for me at least) that some of the objections he has recieved in response to his aspousing this viewpoint are purely intellectual. I don't think those people are actually nihilists, or believe that throwing battery acid on young girls for reading should be tolerated as a relatively moral action. Maybe I'm missing something. morality would be much easier it was demonstratable fact

[bradley1107]

@bradley1107

Although absolute claims about moral authority do scare me, whether they come from religious nuts, intellectuals, or scientists. Claiming absolute knowledge of moral truth (especially claiming it is objective fact) seems to me to be a close relative of being able to justify just about anything, no matter how horrendous it may seem from another point of view...

[Beanybag2]

@bradley1107 I think it's helpful to read the book. While I certainly respect Hume's 'is-ought' paradox, Sam Harris is more dubious. He still has good things to say, however, and if we start with a general 'ought' (that we should maximize human well-being, and minimize suffering) he argues that he can derive other oughts from that using science. While I don't think he gives enough thought into how diverse human well-being can be, he does make interesting points on morality.

[bradley1107]

@Beanybag2 Yes I see that to begin with the 'ought' of maxing well being and min. suffering can open many avenues for science informing morality, and I believe in many ways that it should..with respect to the environment, economic systems, etc..I just have a hard time seeing how the first 'ought' can be justfied scientifically; as cold and objectively demonstratable fact.Interestingly enough, that ought is the subject of many ancient spiritual traditions shunned by many athiests...

[Beanybag2]

@bradley1107 The first ought is not justified scientifically, it just assumed, put in as a presupposition. And that's fine, if we accept that first presupposition as the goal of morality and can get past the original problem of the is-ought and just accept it, then we don't have to deal with it. If people disagree, we say "but don't you want to maximize human well-being?" If they don't, then we can call them immoral or something. Humans make assumptions quite often, so why not here?

[backyardscienceguy]

Everyone notice the bald security guard to the right of the stage? Scanning he audience? These ARE dangerous topics to be discussing.....ok, that may not be true. But try having this talk in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan without personal security...see if you leave alive. Just a thought....

[super3slug]

@backyardscienceguy *scanning the comments* wondering why thats relevant

[charlesvan13]

What's with this looking just like Ben Stiller?

He even has the same ears.

[TheSecularTheist]

Every citizen ought to (for example) be enfranchised with political power and suffrage, not because it makes them suffer less than being tortured for as long as possible, but because human beings share a radical equality in that we all have the same needs. that is to say, we ought to behave toward each other in such a way that secures all human rights, not in such a way as is less and less bad than suffering as much as possible for as long as possible, that's retarded.

[255ad]

@TheSecularTheist now your main channel has switched, you know if enough people adopt it you tube is going to use it as excuse to force the new design on us naysayers

[brindlebriar]

Sam Harris, This was an hour and 17 minutes of a confused inability to say something very, very simple: "I, Sam Harris, propose 'Human Well-being' as the preferred stardard of human morality."

All the rest is obvious old philosophy. Obviously, Human Well-being, like all proposed measuring sticks, is a subjective choice of measuring sticks. And Obviously, one can make OBJECTIVE, scientific observations about what contributes to that SUBJECTIVE standard.

[unamaxify]

@brindlebriar

hey thanks for summing this up round and nicely

[warrior4just]

26:39

muslim developped math, physics, medecine, and engineering

[FlyingFree333]

@warrior4just

No, ARABS did, Islam ENDED Arab development and has continued to prevent it to this day.

[warrior4just]

@FlyingFree333

clearly u know little in history, it's the opposite, muslims not necessarily arabs, that contributed to all what u see now, without the andalus which was moorish "berber" mainly and baghdad which was a talent sink, from the muslim dynasties. u speak of ignorrance. Islam encourages knowledge as a duty. go read a bit more instead spewing Fox news ball shit

[FlyingFree333]

@warrior4just

Islam encourages knowledge? Go to ANY Islamic country, people living in clay huts, stuck in the bronze age. Muslim clerics denouncing science and evolution. People STONED TO DEATH for pointing out science disproves the claims of Islam.

[kmica2008]

@FlyingFree333 you're both wrong. curious people that love to learn and discover did all these things. one religious, corrupt, boring old man destroyed all of it. if it wasn't like it was we'd probably learn from history of a 18th century iraqi crew visiting moon.

i can't stand harris. he's such a clown. talks for hours and never says anything. talks about religion like it's the worst thing in the world and then usually spends half the talk flirting with various forms of buddhism and hinduism.

[oleh2007]

@FlyingFree333 try visiting UAE or Saudi Arabia. You'll see bronze age there))) Funny how you see such a bond between economy and religion!

[inconsp1cuous1515]

@FlyingFree333 yep.. they've been sticking well to the traditions since the library of alexandria was burned. :(. i wish science were older than religion.

[VanDammesCokeDealer]

@warrior4just LOL you're thinking of Judaism, not Islam. Jews are awesome. Islam encourages knowledge like a fire retardant encourages fire.

[IndubitablyMe1988]

@warrior4just Islam encourages knowledge? Some claims are so assanine they need no critiquing, because anyone with a spine can see the fallacies for themselves.... so ill let that quote slide.

But, as for the broader idea that the Muslim world is contributing to the betterment of society.... I have one word, "Jihad". That is all.

[robertgaudlitz]

@warrior4just you are absolutely right, it is not like the greeks practiced math, physics, medicine and engineering a thousand years before a schizophrenic, pedophile mass murderer lifted his ugly head. the latter two actually dating back a couple of thousands of years before that.

[Schwazoom]

@warrior4just You're right that it's Muslims who did all the advancements, not necessarily Arabs.

This was until the Imams took over and they stopped. Today, you CAN'T DENY that the Middle East is one of the most technologically and socially backwards places in the world.

[Adolphout]

@warrior4just Muslims developed none of these things . Maths, Medicine and engineering started long before Islam did. Physics as we know it started with Galileo and Newton . Work before their was done in China, Rome and Greece ( by Archimedes)

[Sam10947]

@Adolphout

damn dude, i gotta get out here from the sheer arrogance and ingorrance. if u were next i would have freaking displaced ur jaw from the ignorrance. Without muslim sicentists, u would have hospitals, modern medicine and surgery, first industrial plant, first machanical machines, fmodern astrophysics, optics, botany, serilization, chemistry, gas elements definition, hygenic substances, coffee, soap, most importantly MATH. do ur research, consult library of congress

[Adolphout]

@Sam10947

There is no surgery or math in the koran/ hadith. So when a muslim works in these areas, he is just being a surgeon/ mathematician- not a muslim.He is being a muslim only when following the directives of the koran/hadith-like attempting to displace my jaw. Straighforward logic- even the andalusians would agree.

[Sam10947]

@Adolphout

Kepler equations and more fundamental calculus was developed pre 12 century in andalus, then knowledged got transferred to europe, hence the renaissance

[worldlearner0411]

@warrior4just The development your discussing here occurred almost 1000 years ago during a time when religion was not the lens which they saw the world.

[Sam10947]

@worldlearner0411

i disagree, have u gotten u hands on some books and some of the school of thoughts presented by muslim scholar and scientists, all had one common denominator, it was the incentive provided in the quran to follow and seek knowledge. All these ppl want to believe other than what's the turth, u can see that from the freaking tumbs up they give each other. Without knowing the truth

[franciszek8D]

God is not responsible for evil or our negligence to do what is good. We are!

[FlyingFree333]

@franciszek8D

Nice try, now read your bible.

Thus saith the LORD smite Amalek, slay both man & woman, INFANT & SUCKLING, ox & sheep, camel & ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

kill without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter the old men, the young men & women, the mothers & CHILDREN Ezekiel 9:5-6

Genocide, slavery, cannibalism, child rape, racism, sexism, any heinous crime you can imagine all COMMANDED by your death cult god.

[alliant]

@FlyingFree333

You are assuming what God this gentleman believes in. You shouldn't do this, I feel/think.

[FlyingFree333]

@alliant

No, I checked his profile.

[macgeek2004]

@SpencerBenedict2nd

...and blaming it on Satan (as I'm sure the Catholic Church did with Galileo) won't solve anything.

(BTW, I only called you a dumbass because you're a spammer who copy-pasted the SAME FUCKING THING onto DOZENS of videos. Enough! It gets old, FAST!)

[macgeek2004]

@SpencerBenedict2nd

You are aware, dumbass, that Darwin was a "Biblical Creationist?" Like, he wasn't a deist like Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson were, no, Charles Darwin was actually a Bible-toting Creationist!

Now, I'm sorry that you lack the brain power/will/ability/imagination to understand the fact of descent with modification, a.k.a. evolution, and I'm sorry you can't imagine a way for it to fit in with your bronze-age religious beliefs, but it IS the truth, and blaming it on Satan (a

[FeignofCordor]

Craig owns

[MrLittletomdj]

@FeignofCordor William Craig? If so.. He really doesn't! He waffles on & tries to sound clever. His points are always refuted adequetly for the thinking audience, but he can't see the flaws in his arguement so he carries on regardless. He's an idiot with a few big words.

[SpencerBenedict2nd]

"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.

Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating

The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.

[SignalZoom]

@Inwarwetrustful  But you have to determine when it is considered "fucking with someone else life".

[peteagassi]

I had no idea Ben Stiller was so smart.

[DCdabest]

Sam looks like Ben Stiller. Just saying.

[40gabe]

Free will is zero point energy, it is something from nothing, it is Markovian at it's core.

[ma1achite]

I love Dawkins, but I appreciate Harris' gentle way of speaking. I think he has the potential to eventually reach a much broader audience than Dawkins.

[donnyv78]

After hearing (and reading) Sam Harris's views on Free Will, and also after just having read the transcript of the Daniel Dennett lecture titled "My Brain Made Me Do It: When Neuroscientists Think They Can Do Philosophy," it would be very interesting to see them debate the question of free will.

[LiveFreeFromFallacy]

i just downloaded his book on audible. i am excited to listen to it. ever since i listened to his "letter to a Christian nation" i have thought his ability to point out the truth in such a way that it seems that it cant be challenged. i guess that is the case only if you agree and have the same kind of thought process but still his delivery is brilliant.

[zephviolent2003]

anyone notice the old man asleep in the left front row? hehe

[TheBiddleMan]

In response to people claiming without free will there is no morality, I think perhaps you could talk about a few things. When we talk about the objectively worst world for every human, that is something every human wishes to strive away from, by definition. We also have our computational brains which comprehend the world via stimulus and then want to get far away from that landscape. When I talk about want, it is the desires formed by evolution.

[thethirdpoliceman2]

@TheBiddleMan - "that is something every human wishes to strive away from", But this is just not true, this is NOT what we experience. Some humans fly planes into buildings or strap bombs on to themselves and kill children. Some humans gas other humans. And on and on...

[TheBiddleMan]

@thethirdpoliceman2 All these things were done under the impression of wanting to improve life. The suicide bombers thought they were fighting infidels, whilst bringing 70 people of their choosing to the afterlife. It makes sense to fly a plane into a building, if what is written in the Qu'ran is true. And some humans gas other humans, this is true, but Hitler and his regime still thought they were improving the world. They just were under misapprehensions about how to do so.

[thethirdpoliceman2]

@TheBiddleMan - "the impression of wanting to improve life." This is vague.

[TheBiddleMan]

@thethirdpoliceman2 Yeah that's true. I mean their own life was thought to be improved by their actions, even though it may have adversely affected the well being. Gassing jews was thought to be eventually good for society, from the point of view of the Nazis. In the book, Sam Harris draws a comparison to health. I think you would say we understand what a healthy person is. Although what is it, when we look closer? Vomiting is 'bad'? Bleeding is 'bad'? 'Bad' in respect to what?

[thethirdpoliceman2]

@TheBiddleMan - A healthy person is a person who is at piece with death,

[TheBiddleMan]

@thethirdpoliceman2 Well, many people would disagree. I think some people will always afraid of death. Are you saying that someone who is 60 that has no heart problems, no lung cancer, can run 4kms and has a high IQ and is a happy person is unhealthy because they are not at peace with death? I just don't think that makes any sense. Although it can be argued you can become mentally healthier by coming at peace, but that doesn't mean that person is unhealthy. Hope that makes sense.

[thethirdpoliceman2]

@TheBiddleMan - "is unhealthy because they are not at peace with death?" well, in a way, yes. Depends on how you define healthy.

[TheBiddleMan]

@thethirdpoliceman2 that's my point. There is something we can undoubtably call health, we just can't quite pin it down, although we all accept we can call someone healthy. Same goes for morality.

[thethirdpoliceman2]

@TheBiddleMan - "although we all accept we can call someone healthy" - Really? A person could be perfectly healthy physically be be called unhealthy if he/she does not believe in god. Or believes in god. Take you pick.

[TomFynn]

@thethirdpoliceman2 The people who flew those planes into the towers were at peace with death. Wasn't very healthy.

[thethirdpoliceman2]

@TomFynn - "Wasn't very healthy."

Why not healthy?

[MyConsciousnessLives]

@B2dmfG - I don't think there is an answer to this question. I think it's all subjective. Without the concept of GOD, I fail to see an objective angle to any of this. I don't get Sam's on this at all.

[TheXenoChemist]

@MyConsciousnessLives: How would the existence of God make this argument add an objective angle to this debate if there wasn't one already? What's right and wrong would still have to be based on some state of the world. Either they originate with God and are therefore arbitrary, or they are based on something external to God, making Him just a glorified messenger of moral truth.

[TheXenoChemist]

@MyConsciousnessLives: How would the existence of God add an objective angle to this debate if there wasn't one already? What's right and wrong would still have to be based on some state of the world. Either they originate with God and are therefore arbitrary, or they are based on something external to God, making Him just a glorified messenger of moral truth.

[MyConsciousnessLives]

@TheXenoChemist - How could the non existence of God add an objective morality.

[TheXenoChemist]

@MyConsciousnessLives: It seems you answered my question with another question. The non-existence of God by itself doesn't add an objective morality (how could it?). An objective morality arises from the realization that well-being is desirable and suffering is undesirable. Yes, we must accept this as an axiom to get started, but the same is true, as Sam argues, for every field of scientific inquiry. God has nothing to do with it.

[MyConsciousnessLives]

@TheXenoChemist - "well-being is desirable and suffering is undesirable." that's a subjective statement. Axiom or not.

"God has nothing to do with it" - Yes , god does.

[TheXenoChemist]

@MyConsciousnessLives: No, it's an observation about human psychology. We all want to avoid pain and suffering and obtain security, peace, and freedom from suffering. The fact that many people act in ways that do not maximize their own happiness simply illustrates that evolution has selected our brains for survival, not maximum well-being. Only with moral reasoning, and not blind faith, can we learn how to better attain higher states of well-being.

[MyConsciousnessLives]

@TheXenoChemist - "higher states of well-being."  This is such a subjective statement.

"We all want to avoid pain and suffering and obtain security, peace, and freedom ", sorry, but this is just not true.

[TheXenoChemist]

@MyConsciousnessLives: Are you suggesting that you or others actually enjoy pain and suffering? What would it even mean to enjoy suffering? If you're enjoying it, wouldn't it really be pleasure, happiness, or some other form of well-being?

I thank you for illustrating Dr. Harris's point that it makes no sense to talk about a morality that is detached from well-being and suffering.

[MyConsciousnessLives]

@TheXenoChemist - Some people believe that pleasure, happiness or well being is achieved by killing 6 million people. Nothing wrong with that...

[TheXenoChemist]

@MyConsciousnessLives: Yes, there is something wrong with that. Think of all the suffering that killing 6 million people would bring about (or has brought about, in recent history). And also think of how damaged the person who could derive pleasure from killing 6 million people must be. Clearly, such a person could be described as morally retarded. They are simply wrong about what would make them the happiest, and they would be far happier if they didn't want to kill 6 million people.

[MyConsciousnessLives]

@TheXenoChemist - What if the killing of 6 million people was deemed morally justified because the world human population was is need of reduction to save the world...or so they said.

[TheXenoChemist]

@MyConsciousnessLives: Clearly, there are some ways of structuring the world so that killing 6 million people would never be necessary. We could colonize other planets to spread out our population, or develop a way to live sustainably on Earth. The point is that worlds like these would have more well-being than a world in which 6 million people had to be killed, and that we should try to avoid creating a world in which forced population reduction becomes necessary.

[MyConsciousnessLives]

@TheXenoChemist - I don't think you got my point. If all morality is truly subjective (you said it comes from our brains, from us), then everyone is operating on their own morality. The guy who murders the kid for sex is operating on his own moral code which he see's as improving his well being. He is fulfilling a need. This goes for larger groups like country's as well. Hitler believed killing 6 million jews was better for society. If there is no objective morality, there is no morality.

[TheXenoChemist]

@MyConsciousnessLives: Actually, I don't think you get my point. I never said all morality is subjective - quite the opposite. Morality is objective because statements about what the "right" or "wrong" thing to do is are ultimately statements about how to move to a higher point on the moral landscape - that is, what is the best way to increase well-being and diminish suffering? There are surely better and worse ways to do this, which is to say that moral claims can be objectively right or wrong.

[MyConsciousnessLives]

@TheXenoChemist - You keep claiming that an objective moral code is somehow based on a subjective concept like well-being. Since we all die, how is it that you don't view death as diminishing ones suffering.

[TheXenoChemist]

@MyConsciousnessLives: Well-being is no more subjective a concept than health. It is clear that humans can experience a wide range of mental states, from deep anguish to unbridled joy (and everything in between). And yes, death can diminish suffering in some circumstances (like when one is suffering from an incurable and very painful illness) but cases like this don't validate the argument that killing 6 million people would somehow be ethical on the basis of promoting well-being.

[MyConsciousnessLives]

@TheXenoChemist - Were not talking ethics, we're talking morals. Morally speaking, well being is subjective. Unless its NOT!

[TheXenoChemist]

@MyConsciousnessLives: You have ceased to make sense to me. Morals = ethics. True, the word "morals" tends to be used when referring to moral philosophy, while "ethics" is used more often in the workplace or professional settings, but I fail to see any important difference. In this sense, ethics are merely morals that are put into practice. Please refrain from playing the semantics game.

[MyConsciousnessLives]

@TheXenoChemist -

But if you're going to have an OBJECTIVE system of morality, you have to have a REASON to think human are cable of CHOICE.

What's you view on ABORTION? Who's well being is being served?

[TheXenoChemist]

@MyConsciousnessLives: Aaaaaand the all-caps words begin. Look, typing "louder" will not make your arguments any more convincing. Please explain your statement that in order to have an objective moral system one has to have a reason to think humans are capable of choice. I'm assuming that by the word "choice", you mean free will, and not choices that are part of causal reality. I suggest you read some of Dr. Harris's recent blog posts if you don't understand how morality can exist w/o free will.

[thethirdpoliceman2]

@TheXenoChemist - LOl, dude, you are funny. He made a plain and simple point to you and you are still to fucking thick to get it. Dr Harris?? Who give's a shit what he says. Just because some idiot plays mental gymnatics to figure how morality can exist without free-will don't mean shit. If you do not have free-will, you have no ability to choose. It can not exist. And that is THAT! Don't appeal to authority, answer the fucking question. Who's well being is being served by abortion?

[TheXenoChemist]

@thethirdpoliceman2: I wasn't appealing to authority, it's just that I have a 480-character limit and I feel that Dr. Harris has already explained the point I was trying to make much more eloquently on his blog than I could here. And MyConsciousnessLives' question about abortion seems unrelated to the first part of his reply. Again, I'm facing a character limit and don't feel like spamming this thread with more than one comment at a time.

Free will doesn't exist, but people still suffer.

[thethirdpoliceman2]

@TheXenoChemist - Look. It is related to morality, ethics and choice. You said morality served human well being. Who's well being are we talking about when we discuss and act out abortions. If free will does not existence, than all life is suffering because we begin to die the instant we come to be. Thus, to suffer is a moral claim that actually does not exist and morality does not exist. And free-will is required for reason exist.

[TheXenoChemist]

@thethirdpoliceman2: "If free will does not exist, then all life is suffering" Why? You say "we begin to die the instant we come to be". How would the existence of free will make this not true? I'm not sure what you meant by "to suffer is a moral claim that actually does not exist and morality does not exist". Could you please explain what you mean a bit clearer? "And free-will is required for reason to exist". How so? Reason compels us to believe what the evidence tell us. This is not free will

[TheBiddleMan]

@thethirdpoliceman2 I would argue we are looking out for the wellbeing of societies in the case of abortion. Unwanted pregnancies can lead to many undesirable social effects that cause suffering.

[thethirdpoliceman2]

@TheBiddleMan - Would say killing 6 million people to better society is immoral or has a basis in morality.

[MyConsciousnessLives]

12:00 -well, the worst possible outcome for everyone is an axiom. Why, we believe this to be true, we have no way of proving this to be true. That is, there is more true than we can prove to be true.

[MyConsciousnessLives]

@B2dmfG - To be dead is not to suffer.

[MyConsciousnessLives]

I'm amazed at the quality of these videos.

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

but just because they are objective does not give root to any "shoulds".. I don't think Sam accomplishes his objective here.. Just because we can speak objectively about a group of subjective facts, tells us nothing about what we should or should not do as individuals.. What we "should" do arrises in us establishing a goal and asking "what do I do to accomplish this goal?"

[twooffour]

Hehe, brilliant. "You can't get an ought from an is" is, indeed, a fallacious question.

1) Our "ought"s are intrinsically bound to our minds' ability to experience and understand states such as pain/pleasure, or want / do not want - which is an "is".

2) To care about what "is", is, indeed, an "ought" - you also may aswell not care about it. While the "ought" itself may be arbitrary, it's motivated by mental states such as "want person x to feel good", or "understand all people need to be free"

[twooffour]

@twooffour

, or "want to know what is true", which are, and applies to things that are, and will be if the "ought" is applied to them.

Well-being and conscious experience ARE. The trajectories of planets ARE.

If you can care about achieving knowledge of the latter, you can certainly care about achievin the best for the former.

The motivation will be just as valida and rooted in "is", and the things it's directed at will be just as objective.

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

@twooffour but just because they are objective does not give root to any "shoulds".. I don't think Sam accomplishes his objective here.. Just because we can speak objectively about a group of subjective facts, tells us nothing about what we should or should not do as individuals.. What we "should" do arrises in us establishing a goal and asking "what do I do to accomplish this goal?"

[twooffour]

Woah, Harris has a blackout there at the beginning.

Most fundamentalists insist on the TRUTH of their worldview, and how important it is to believe in it if you don't want to BURN IN HELL.

Morality certainly takes a second position there.

[percyth11]

Finally a educated audience with good questions! Most other interviews and shows Dawkins or Harris have done, the audience have been a pack of idiots!

Examples would be the Late Late Show with Dawkins and The Big Questions - Is the Bible still relevant today? - (Absolutely hated the way that was run).

[ManuscriptsDontBurn]

I absolutely agree with you. Have you seen the latest The Big Questions show? The level of debate held on that show is poor at best. I was utterly shocked at what was being argued for and what was being applauded. Arguments which have been shown to be false for centuries by skeptics (like arguments for morality). If this is the standard of debate the public is at then we have a long way to go and it clearly shows not many people have thought about the matter in any depth.

[EvolvedParadigm]

Thanks for uploading.

[Guedingen]

Many thanks.

[anetchi]

I so badly wish talks like this and religious debates would be broadcast on American Tv.

[grands1am]

@VoxPopuli666

Christian zealot? A 100% incorrect assumption. But thanks for making it.

[LordTyrannus]

@grands1am

If you take a biological approach vomiting is healthy as it's a defense mechanism against toxicity. We throw up to prevent damage to our body. :D

[FlyingFree333]

@grands1am

You missed his point, he was saying it was a ridiculous argument and was akin to the ridiculous arguments people make in defence of ideologies and religions.

[grands1am]

@FlyingFree333

No, I got that, it just seems an effectively unnecessary point...

[FlyingFree333]

@grands1am

Since we daily get people making arguments just as ridiculous as that one in defence of religion and ideologies the point was very necessary. For example the woman from the president's ethics committee he mentioned who said ripping kids' eyeballs out because some scripture said so could never be called wrong. You have to make a parallel example that everyone can see is ridiculous to show how ridiculous their arguments are.

[grands1am]

@FlyingFree333

I see what you mean, I consider religious arguments totally ridiculous and mostly evil so it doesn't really occur to me

[Assaultpredator]

@grands1am

It's like the point he makes to a lady after a lecture regarding cultural / moral relativism.

"If a society had some strange practice like removing the eyes of every 3rd born child" kind of thing

Great point, because even as an intellectual herself she refused to outright say that it's possible that some societies promote human happiness more than others. To deny that is the real issue.

[TheDaftPup]

@Assaultpredator I confess, I think she was only being overly objective.

Suppose this society had a myth where, by some inversion of Plato's parable of the cave, children with no eyes "who would live only in darkness" were believed to gain great powers of insight, and so trained as the philosopher-kings Plato described and were placed and accepted as rulers of the society. If this worked out for them (and I don't assume it would), you can at least imagine "why they were doing it" as she asked.

[TheDaftPup]

@TheDaftPup I'd also like to make quite clear, since my character limit ran out, that such a society would hopefully fail and that eye popping is a fairly bad thing. I'm just not as yet persuaded by Harris's argument, though I shall now try read his book The Moral Landscape on the subject (after, I'm sure he'd understand, Hume).

[twooffour]

@grands1am

Well, strictly speaking, if you want to be sick and vomit all day, that's your right of self-determination. Harris would probably find that sort of masochism / unusual enjoyment an "interesting phenomenon to study".

As soon as you remove the dissonance between self-determination and well-being, and FORCE someone to be constantly sick and vomit, I think any argument is invalidated.

[homeofbrokendreams]

@grands1am It's needed. It makes it easier for the common people to understand.