Yeah, man. It sounds like a groundbreaking & revolutionizing undertaking of perhaps unequaled importance. So at what level are you in your research? Are you asking for money here? Funding to conduct your research? I'd like to hear how you propose to organize and conduct these studies. Hey.. I'm sold. Yeah. Let's do it. Now.... HOW? Set it up. Stop talking about it (unless you're trying to raise money for it) and goddamn DO IT already.
A small minority of Atheist who are a small minority of people to begin with understand like Sam does about morality, and that's why the world is so fucked up.
The rest of the atheist are hippy liberal asshats who defend Islam like it's their job.
@lalaurentide Wow, oh my fucking god. Do you have any idea what a retarded fucking comment you just made? It may be the stupidest thing I ever read. I'll try to explain this to you;
So few people understand morality correctly so the world is a fucked up place. I'm talking about a few people understanding ONLY, that MEANS that most people don't understand. So I was talking about most people. You may have to read my comment a few times to get it, shit for brains.
I wonder what natural observations or scientific experiments revealed that "general human happiness" is the highest good which all people are absolutely obliged to strive for. Too many atheists today dismiss and ignore postmodernism's devastating critique of modernism's unquestioning faith in science and naive Enlightenment optimism.
And I swear, Sam Harris and Ben Stiller are the same person...
@ElasticGiraffe - an attitude of angry damnation, as expressed so often toward developments in modern psycho-awareness, is a far cry from intelligent criticism. Even in the wisest and best-informed, damnation is a sorry business, and in the half-informed, it is quite shameful.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sam Harris unfortunately doesn't understand morality. What he is proposing is not moral realism, just a method by which the efficiently of putting into practice the values of a moral system is increased. As to what those values in the first place should be, science can not give an answer. Because there is no answer. Harris talks about Human happiness and well being as being those values but he is just appealing to the prejudices of the audience who share that view.
there was no science at all here. you should be killed for thinking so. we need truth, not non science. For the sake of Science, you should be killed. This is guy is a pure liar. he should be found and burned alive.
The chances of that happening are even more remote than hell actually existing.
In this case, I would take my odds even if they were 1,000,000,000,000,000,000x in your favor.
It's unfortunate that you get the same deal as everyone else, eternal sleep. A sociopath like yourself should be dealt a different, more fitting fate.
the problem is, unless the information is verified by the jewish fagot soceity, you won't accept it. we don't give a shit. we don't need to convince you, we just need to kill you.
Based on a given set of goals, there exist actions that will better serve those goals and actions that will not serve those goals as well. Of course, maximizing human happiness does seem a rather good goal for morality.
However, until we are able to convince others that "pleasing a god for which I have no evidence and whose will I may only blindly guess at" is not a reasonable goal for morality, we will be stuck with homophobia and other forms of sexual repression and some degree of sexism.
On the basis that certain actions are better than others for a given goal, we can say that morality is objective. As for which goals should be the correct ones, well, that's a bit harder to argue.
Certainly, any goals which are based on false and/or questionable premises are invalid, but that still leaves various somewhat conflicting valid ideas about what the goal of morality should be.
that's rather naive vulgar and false. it's productive to have sexually activities to be limited to the created design of family. this bring us a codex of morality by which society can be aligned to a productive and benevolent cohesive nature. the lose of this model is followed by the break down of societal foundations. your naive answer is enough to disqualify your opinion. you should be considered a threat to rational thought, and corrupt dogmatic enemy of human progress.
@unhealthytruthseeker you fag. what a peice of shit. you said that homos and fagots don't digress society as if it was a fact. that is bullshit. some fagot liberal pedophile jew told you that and you believed it as truth. now if people started having sex with their farm animals and the kids in school started having sex at show an tell. to you, it would mean nothing. but the humansoceity would be affected, all moral codex would diminish. you don't think so? well your wrong,
What if neuro science commands a course of actions in order become happier, but the people do not want this? Is the absolute goal of happiness to override man's free will? I say no. People have the right to be "unhappy"... If heroin consumption turns out to be the straight path to happiness, should we commend heroin consumption for each citizen?
Most of the time, when Harris says 'happiness' he means well-being. Someone at this conference confronts that point.
Of course personal choice still matters and you should still be able to do what you want, provided that it doesn't interrupt anyone else's path to well-being. The point is to scientifically discover the path, not to force it on people.
Happyness or "well-being" are commendable goals and I applaud someone who strives to increase the overall level of happiness among humans. But, utilitarianism as supreme principle of morality fails.
I don't see where he supports using utilitarianism as a supreme principle for morality. He often refers to principles of philosophy and neurology and qualifies that well-being is more than happiness.
And how does utilitarianism fail as a basis for morality?
What other principles, do you think, are crucial for sound morality?
maximizing the well being (happyness) for humanity is the basic principle of utilitarianism. In his speach that is the basic premise of his talk. So, he does appear to be a traditional utilitarain. He says something about "exceptions to the rule" due to circumstances. It is not entirely clear, what he means.
Utilitarianism fails, because it may not establish universal human rights. I gave an example below...
If you believe in universal human rights, then you must reject utilitarianism. Mr. Harris does appear to believe in universal rights, because he makes reference to the UN charter. Therefore, his position appears to be inconsistent. Any human right can be nullified by the utilitarian calculus including the right to life. If the majority of people overwhelmingly rejoice over your death, then utilitarianism commands killing you!
No one is claiming that what makes people rejoice is the focus. You're still taking a rather un-nuanced look at what's meant by happiness and well-being, which has already been established and qualified as something a little deeper than what tickles and entertains. I also added my own qualification "provided that it doesn't interrupt anyone else's path to well-being".
Well, then define the difference between well-being and happyness. In my opinion it's just a play with words and does not anything significantlyk different. The argument stands: If the majority of people increase their "well-being" in case of your death, then maximizing "well-being" commands killing you.
How are you to know beforehand and prove that someone elses "well-being" is not in any way "interrupted" by your action. You would need divine knowledge to know that....
Chances are any course of action you take will eventually negatively effect the well-being of some arbitrary person. Therefore, your qualification renders the rule completely impractical...You would have to cease to act, which is impossible..
Like all of our actions, we just have to go on our best knowledge at the time. Knowledge about cause-effect, the details of the particular scenario, so on and so forth. This is how we act, even when there are undesirable, unforeseeable traps in the landscape of existence.
Are you saying you have a way of knowing every consequence of your every action? If not, do you use a different heuristic to decide how to act?
No, I say that consequentalism is prone to error. Predicting the future is quite a difficult task in particular when it is concerned with human interaction. No science has been able to do this. Think about it: If human actions were precisely predictable, then man would not be free. Morality would be imaginary just like the wholy ghost.
No one is arguing for anything with a claim of perfect prediction powers, so that's taken off the table. Utilitarianism is specifically the most good for the most people, generally imposed. What Harris is advocating for seems to be encouraging a persuasion for people to do some honest critical reevaluations, of their own free will.
Utilitarianism argues for maximizing the "happiness", "health" or "well-being" of all humans. This presupposes that this can be ascertained beyond reasonable doubt. However, this is completely impossible. You cannot even measure the "happiness", "well-being" of a single person objectively. Harris knows this and hopes that the science of the brain will eventually provide such a meter.
I do think that taking account of the most probable consequences of your actions is required by a moral agent. If you shoot someone in the head, then we know that it is very likely that this person is going to be killed. You can#t say, oh well, I wasn't sure about his death, so no guilt on my part.. But, it is completely impossible to perform a calculus over all human beings for determining the overall consequences of your action and maximize the well being.
That's nearly what marketing, psychology, sociology and disaster response do: They study the statistics of human behavior and cognition, rather effectively I might add. I wouldn't call it calculus, but statistics and probabilities. Obviously we have to worry about some things more than others. Whether or not to take a class or follow questionable orders may require more thought and investigation, whereas the candy bar of the week probably doesn't.
None of these studies provide a meter for objectively determining the well being of a particular purpose. That's just the start. Then you have to determine all the parameters, which influence well being for each person. Then, you have to find the functional relationship between the parameters and well being . finally you will have to determine mathematically the peaks (maxima) of this functions.... Each and everyone has to do this, whenever acting. This is ludicrous!
Not a play on words, there's an important and serious distinction. Getting a shot at the Dr. may not make someone happy, but it promotes well-being. Eating vegetables and getting exercise may not make someone happy, but they promote well-being. Happiness is just a mood or emotion, well-being is a state of mental, physical, social etc. health.
Big Macs make me happy, but they don't promote well-being. Fair enough distinction?
No, that is no critical difference. In terms of happiness, you would say: You are taking pain in the short term in order to be happier in the long term. This is the good old utilitarian calculus. If maximizing the mental or social health of the majority of people requires killing someone, then that is what is commanded. A utilitarian calculus, whether it be about happyness or health, may not establish universal human rights! I stand by that and I believe this is irrefutable.
How can universal human rights be established or justified? Well, there have been different approaches. Check out dignity on wikipedia. The best justification appears to be the one found by Kant....
Well, killing unbelievers make many muslims happy. Over a billion muslims cheer on the streets of palestine. Since the overall level of happiness is increased. So from a consequentialist standpoint, he should applaud the deeds of these terrorists!
It would seem to me that even morality is evolutionary. That's not meant to say that it is "relative" in the short term, but it may be relative in the long term. In other words, in any given time on earth we arrive at a generally accepted morality that applies fairly homogeniously to the population of earth at that given point int time given advancement in experiences. But one cannot say that the morality of, say, the Bronze Age for example, is the same as ours today.
Sam Harris's point isn't that the moral zeitgeist doesn't shift, or that it shouldn't, but rather that, in terms of actualizing human happiness and potential, and minimizing human suffering, there are objective moral truths, which one day may even be describable in neurological terms.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What a crock of shit. Let's apply his logic here:
Heroin is more conducive to human happiness (dopamine levels in the brain) than any other action; therefore, it is a moral imperative to force everyone to inject heroin.
@mayaclay This is very Wrong. W/Clean needles, pure&safe Heroin, safe administration, and proper food&shelter there would be almost NO deaths from Heroin. We need to Legalize TREATMENT for those people, I'm not saying it should be street legal.
PLEASE Find and Read *actual* scientific studies(use google scholar), not popular drivel because these myths are killing people Every day.
C'mon don't downvote this - it raises an excellent albeit poorly executed point about how happiness can be nothing more than a series of temporary highs.
As humans are naturally inclined to see the negative aspect of scenarios we need constant validation or reinforcement in order to stay content. Most of Maslow's pyramid are needs which cannot be permanently sated. I haven't reached the top but I don't see how any of our needs can be permanently sated.
Heroin is a bad example only because it's a very temporary solution. A similar one would be food, or sex, or some other physical vice. None of these are the means to attain happiness as they all have terrible consequences when taken to excess as well as their temporary nature.
Are there non-temporary highs? I have been seeking one since forever and it doesn't help that despair nihilism clouds my mind every few months. Yay -__-
It's not a bad example at all. The heroin user is very happy when he is on heroin. Heroin addicts are on heroin as often as possible, maximizing their happiness. They are very moral people because they are always happy to make other people happy by sharing the needle. The fact that they are rotting away on the inside doesn't matter because the chemicals in their brain do not allow them to care.
Even though the heroin user outwardly lives what appears to be a wretched existence, even though he may be homeless, dying, and ill, he is happy because of the dopamine (happiness) levels in his brain.
Not a heroin user? Maybe hedonism is a shitty philosophy.
Brilliant. And interesting. I am not interested in neuroscience but I am taking a few neuro classes next semester....and am looking forward to them now.
I agree completely with Sam's idea about the moral landscape (which is a great way to visualize it). What I propose is that this landscape could be (slightly) different from human to human.
I myself have my most important values right here on my computer. But these are of course influenced by my education and so forth. Someone else might value honesty more than being nice, for example.
So, "universal ethics" might be tweaked a little from person to person.
I think Sam Harris is absolutely brilliant, but I disagree with him on this point.
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to every moral question. Say you had to choose between: your wife or your daughter killed.. . I do not believe there is a correct answer to this question.
And there shouldn't need to be. Ethics are, imo, not objective and they will never be. The idea that unperfectly evolved mammals can tap into a universally correct, mathematical code of ethics seems absurd.
The fact that the implausible choice you gave as an example is a difficult one doesn't refute Harris's claims about universal ethics. The right answer is that neither should have to die, but given that things are generally beyond one's control, in this hypothetical scenario either the wife or the daughter needs to die. There are all sorts of unethical things happening in this scenario; that you're forced to choose one unethical thing over another doesn't refute the notion of universal ethics.
Ethics is not about (or not just about) saying "nobody should have to die". It's about choosing one ethical thing above another, or an unethical thing above another unethical thing.
My point is that those ethical questions will be answered differently by different people. This does disprove "universal ethics", in my mind. You'll have many answers on those questions, and all of them will have their own reasoning, and all of them will be right.
The choice itself is relative, but the unethical outcome is just the same. In fact, it seems we agree here: "It's about choosing one ethical thing above another, or an unethical thing above another unethical thing." If you're willing to admit this, then you probably agree with Sam Harris' ideas about the "moral landscape" with its many peaks of well-being.
Also, if we talk about moral relativism, we eventually have to break this down to the individual level. I wish there were more room.
Right on, drbanality. The whole wife vs. daughter question is uninteresting - it's an impossible choice, But I think Harris is right that it is possible to claim that a society where people live in fear of violence if they commit "crimes" like baring an ankle, going to school (if you're female), listening to music, or engaging in homosexuality, is morally inferior to one where people are free to do those things w/out fear. 'Cuz in the latter society overall human happiness must be greater.
I think it is admirable that we should attempt rational investigation into morality and I certainly do not agree with relativism, but we are massively far from anything like objective understanding of morality on so many levels. And I'm not sure how much neuroscience cn possibly contribute at the minute. I think there are other forms of research or discourse which are more relevant.
"I think there are other forms of research or discourse which are more relevant."
Given some of neuroscience's current adventures in the court room, and the power of some of the technologies that are today's academic toys, I don't think we have time to put off discussion of what the implications are. There are fMRI techniques already in the works that could put even the darkest dreams of the "lie detector" to shame... or if some predispositions are shown to be too strong, then how do we cope?
"if some predispositions are shown to be too strong, then how do we cope?" I dont understand. Can you elaborate?
As for the neuroscience stuff, maybe we do need an empirical aproach alongside other progress. I just wonder what neuroscience could possibly discover right now that would help us make objective moral judgements. The philosophy isn't nearly advanced enough.
I agree it's exciting though, there's even the possibility of finding a physical basis for qualia, which would be cool.
"'if predispositions are... too strong, then how do we cope?' I dont understand. Can you elaborate?"
I was trying to squeeze in one last little reason that the discussion is relevant. If neuroscience proves that certain neurological conditions provide an irresistible predisposition toward some form of criminal activity, they what is that going to mean for criminal justice. We have to start having serious conversations about these ideas now, so that we have an idea how to cross that bridge.
I think that any scientific progress in neuroscience or wherever has to fit into a philosophical framework that has already advanced way beyond where we're currently at. And although empirical investigation hasn't made any attempt to address moral claims philosophical investigation into morality has an extremely long and rich history. Say neuroscience solves the problem of consciousness and then finds a way to objectively measure happiness. It's useless until we make major leaps forward in our
"And although empirical investigation hasn't made any attempt to address moral claims..."
I'm afraid that just isn't the case. There are several attempts being made to bring moral and ethical questions into the scrutiny of strict empirical experimentation and several scientific hypotheses have been floated as to the nature and origin of human moral thought and conduct.
Oh absolutely there's lots of experiments in psychology - prisoner's dillema stuff investigating contingencies for helping behaviour. Evolutionary psychology has illuminated many factors to explain the adaptive benefit of altruism.
But what empirical investigation has there been into answering questions like "Is killing people right?" Indeed how could one begin to approach that question empirically?
"answering questions like 'Is killing people right?' Indeed how could one begin to approach that question empirically?"
Ah, I think I misunderstood where you were coming from the first time.
...to my mind, that kind of thing is going to be a second or third order question. That is, I think we are going to find that there are some hardwired abstracts that guide moral development, and things like killing are going to be derived from an interaction of such an algorithm and the environment.
Sam Harris is nothing more than a Spiritual(less) version of Bernard Madoff. He is devoid of moral ethos. It only gives strong evidence that people of his bloodline eat their young.
free will doesnt exist therefor MORALITY doesnt exist.. im surprised sam believes in free will. i must assume he does based on his ideas that we have the ability to INCREASE or DECREASE human well being.. even if we had free will, im also of the belief we wouldnt be able to increase or shift the balance of well being amoungst the inhabitants of the cosmos because its nature is of " for each action an equal and opposite reaction". an illusory evolutional trait nature has selected for.
Sam goes on about human well being being an objectively measurable thing. Sure it is, no problems there. But he presumes that human well being is synonymous with goodness. I would say it is a large component, but it is not the full story of morality.
well-being is not the same as happiness, and i don't think harris suggests this. also, what good are justice, equity or authenticity unless they are conducive to human well-being? certainly if they worked against well-being this would count against them -
Well being and happiness are not synonymous. Besides, I don't know about you, but I certainly am not happy when those other things are out of balance.
I look for three things to be maximized. Health, happiness and honesty. I find it hard to imagine a cultural good that doesn't address these concerns in one way or another.
What's the point of health if it doesn't over a period of time make you happier than you otherwise would be?
What is the point of honesty if it's net effect over time isn't to make people happier?
There are certainy occasions where lying is better for everyone concerned in a situation. However, certainly in terms of a culture surviving, this is not the normal situation hence truth-telling being so ubiqutously manifested as a cultural norm. Furthermore I agree it is *generally* the moral..
"What's the point of health if it doesn't make you happier? What is the point of honesty if it's net effect... isn't to make people happier?"
My point, if I remember, was that those were prerequisite to happiness. Any life that lacks those elements doesn't even have a chance to worry about happiness. How happy can you be when you are paranoid from chronic dishonesty and crippled by illness? How much time is there to be happy when you find an early grave?
Well exactly. So those things are good because they allow happiness to flourish. My point is that I think the ultimate goal of morality should be to maximise happiness. Those other things are only a means to that end so I wouldn't bother listing those alongside hapiness.
PS I'm aware of the huge difficulties with consequentialism, I'm just saying that rights or any other system, ideas of justice, equality are merely means to the end of hapiness, which is by definition desirable.
"Those other things are only a means to that end so I wouldn't bother listing those alongside hapiness."
I just find leaving it at "happiness" leaves far to much open to interpretation. An illusion of happiness could easily be built on other principles, so I think mentioning the foundations is vital to accurately conveying the point. Would you not agree?
Tough...when dealing with people collectively, each having their own ideas and values, it is hard to imprint universal notions of goodness because each notion is subjective. It is the case that people will disagree with definitions of goodness. So I find it legitimate to declare by which perspective of goodness are we to follow?
I guess I have to concede the question and ask what type of society do we want given our current understanding of the human condition and its interaction with nature?
I think this is the first time I've disagreed with Sam Harris about anything. Maybe I'll come around to his way of thinking, but as of now I'm still not sold on the objectivity of morality.
He equivocates morality early on rather vaguely with maximizing human well-being (utilitarianism?). I would've liked him to elaborate on this further since it's a crucial part of the debate.
Can science attempt to provide answers to questions like "Is it acceptable to kill one to save a hundred?" Does it come down to a numbers game like the scene from Fight Club where the main character is describing how auto companies calculate recalls?
If more than one moral precept can exist for a situation, doesn't the inherent objectivity of morality mean one precept will be more "right" than the others anyway, making it irrelevant that the other precepts exist at all?
Yep, its pretty much utilitarianism, and the incarnation i've seen Sam use in the past, with all respect, is a pretty naive version. Regardless, as you correctly point out, he doesnt substantiates WHY starting from this premise in the talk is objective, rather presupposes it to be so..
It does seem like he's not looking at the big picture. Maybe neuroscience and such can provide answers within a certain subjective framework. Like if we take what Sam says here, that maximizing human well-being as a whole is the best route to go, running with that, we can maximize our benefits in this framework. But that framework is still a subjective valuation. There's still nothing saying it's objectively better than another moral outlook.
I agree, we can only say X is a better outlook than Y if we initially agree on subjective premises.
Even if we accept the "greater happiness" model there are certain hypothetical moral scenario's that would seem to leave us in an ethically compromised position. For example, should we letting sociopaths murder depressed people? On a statistical level, it would certainly shift a populations 'happiness rating' upwards, but I don't think its a course of action I would particularly like to see..
If a depressed person is alive, they obviously dont want to die...else theyd have killed themselves. So murdering them, wether they are depressed or not, is an act of cruelty.
The argument for why they need to be killed is also a little vague too.
//If a depressed person is alive, they obviously dont want to die//
The depressed person doesn't have to know that they will soon be killed, so no unhappiness would stem from it. Whether or not they 'want' to die is irrelevent (morally) if more happiness can be brought about by exterminating them..
//is an act of cruelty.//
If the 'cruelty' produces happiness, then its moral, according to the utalitarian rationale anyway..
Basically, imagine it statistically, if sociopaths enjoy killing people, letting them do so will increase their happiness, so the net happiness of the populus will also increase. In addition, depressed people will already have 'low' happiness ratings, so removing them from the set will again, increase the net average happiness..
If you're talking about extremely depressed people (who actually want to die), then I agree; otherwise I think the situation is better understood in terms of (mildly) depressed people having a lower than normal, but still positive 'happiness rating', so killing them, in fact, reduces the overall happiness. After all, if they do not want even a totally painless death, I don't think you could avoid the conclusion that their 'happiness rating' must necessarily be positive.
Then why does the victim have to be depressed and the killer be a sociopath?
"If the 'cruelty' produces happiness, then its moral, according to the utalitarian rationale anyway.."
Thats like saying spending millions to produce 1 item to sell for $1 is "utilitarian" as well. I don't think it is.
The problem doesn't come from utilitarianism itself, it comes from maths. You have created a way of adding things up, thats all. You've valued the costs and the revenues.
Finally. Someone brave enough to say it. With neuroscience, we're finally near the point where we can actually move to some sense of objective morality. Everybody just loves to say that science can't guide morals. But really, it's because he haven't had the nerve to look into it sufficiently.
He starts from the presupposition that whatever "maximises human happiness" is equatable to what is 'moral'. This is an arbitrary axiom, and everything that flows from it is similarly assertive. One could start from the axiom "whatever increases the sales of Pepsi is moral" and it is equally arbitrary..
think what sam was saying is that these claims are not equally assertive. I agree. Interestingly he says science can prove it. I am not sure about that. But, I'm not against trying either.
He says that science can disprove certain moral claims IF we start from the premise that moral claims are to be solely decided on the net happiness they bring. He doesn't substantiate why the latter is a sound premise so his argument is prettay baseless..
Not everyone agrees upon the presupposition that Sam is working from, and as such, his claim to objectivity is baseless.
Don't get me wrong, I am an atheist who shares some of Sam's idealism, HOWEVER, there is NO evidence that this presupposition is objective and homo-sapien independant..
Dude... does he EVER say that it's homo sapien independent? Whenever he mentions objective morality, he always talks about it within the context of the HUMAN brain.
And his claims about the human brain ALL flow from his presupposed axiom, thus, his claim to objectivity is baseless..
For example, if I start from "Whatever increases the sales of Pepsi is moral", and use business and financial economics to illustrate purchasing pepsi is objectively moral, its baseless because it flows from my unsupported premise..
you are missing point he is trying to support that premise with science. harris is saying we can prove that "net human happiness" is a better moral... that was his hypothesis if you may now he wants to test it. I dont see anything wrong with that.
//harris is saying we can prove that "net human happiness" is a better moral//
That is circular, however its not quite what he says. He is saying that measuring 'happiness' levels can determine whether an action is more or less moral than another action IF we start from the premise that "net happiness" solely determines what is moral. He does NOT substantiate WHY we should objectively accept this postulate, which is my contention with his talk..
That's how he chooses to define morality. How could you get it so wrong? Morality is about what one 'ought to do'. He believes what we ought to do is work to maximise human well-being. He's perfectly aware that people don't agree on which action is moral and which isn't. What he's saying is that science, the study of what 'is', can help us in our endeavour to do what we 'ought to do'.
And that is his opinion, he shouldnt claim objectivity for a position which rests on an arbitrary premise..
//can help us in our endeavour to do what we 'ought to do'. //
Only if we INITIALLY agree on the premise that Sam is working from, i.e. 'net happiness. He doesnt substantiate WHY we should work from this premise, so his reasoning is unsound..
storeo: "He doesnt substantiate WHY we should work from this premise, so his reasoning is unsound."
For the same reason that we 'should' have laws against murder and theft.
It's like saying, "This guy is talking about how science can help us reduce homicide rates, when he's not shown why we should try to prevent murder in the first place."
//he's not shown why we should try to prevent murder in the first place.//
And why should we prevent murder? Because we, generally, in the 21st Century West, dislike unessacery harm coming to other humans (net happiness). This is an ARBITRARY societal preference, i.e. NOT OBJECTIVE. Such values change over time and vary between different societies.
If you disagree and feel that "do not murder" is objectively morally wrong, I await your evidence in support of such a position..
Apply the golden rule. If you don't dehumanize other humans, the golden rule applies. On the group level, we could apply the group golden rule. I have met many humans, outside and inside the 'west' and all have some form of the golden rule.
If other people don't have the same golden rule, it is possible to change their version of it through argument. We could then reach some sort of consensus.
If coupled with neurobiology, you could probably make scientific claims.
The golden rule isn't a perfect moral gauge, (imagine masochists for instance). Nor is it what Sam is championing as the bar from which scientific investigation should stem from in the video. In addition, it too, is also an arbitrary subjective moral ideal, not objective as Sam claims..
//If coupled with neurobiology//
But one first has to accept the subjective premise so nothing that flows from it is 'objetive'..
Perhaps you can claim that every idea like the golden rule is 'subjective,' but I do fundamentally agree with Sam that we should try to make progress scientifically on the moral front. Who knows, maybe we will be able to say something concrete. Maybe we won't, but we have a stunning lack of progress on this front.
If you simply state that every potential idea to be tested is wrong, we cannot make any progress
and if I may just be silly for a moment, I would to witness a more passionate side of Sam Harris. He is a very proficient and clear speaker, as a poster below mentions, yet I need to remind myself that I cannot make demands on the way people communicate and that there are others that speak of what Sam speaks of in an outwardly passionate manner. So, it is my own fault for thinking this...heeheehee
rational in a very wayward collection of both overlapping and conflicting social/religious/scientific constructs, I have found it quite difficult to find solid ground on this. As any quantity of morals do manifest a measurable level of safety for a community of people with diverse notions and diverse psyche make-ups. Maybe we are to have a varied moral source pool as it is more than likely to be the fusion of this diversity which creates for the unique and plausible paths we each may walk upon.
any dialogue is good dialogue :) Raising the points of the possible source of morals in a so-called god(dess)less realm is one of dire interest. Religion states that without the guidance of a higher being(s) there can be no moral seeding. Atheism states that morals are evoked through biological function and common sense. Krishnamurti, as an example, shares that morals in themselves are created by thought and that thought is mired in chaos & deception. While attempting as oft as possible to be
Oh wow, I can make a post with the words cunt and fuck, yet a group of utterly innocuous posts stall. What a godly fucking marvel you are, Youtube. To hell with this fucking shit.
If only Sam had given this in the middle of Hitchens' debate against Turek. Harris (morality and the danger of belief), Dawkins (biology and the origin of complexity), Hitchens (the absurdity and evil of religion), and Dennett (the nature of consciousness) complement each other really well, and each one sort of specializes. I might add Stenger or someone with a really good understanding of modern physics. Hawking. There we go.
Even if science were to solve or figure out the biophysiology of morality, religious zealots would still hold on to their delusion. We already have so much evidence for how life works and evolves and they still hold to their ancient fairytale beliefs. So sad, it's depressing to think about.
Harris' chess analogy is particularly appropo here. Indeed, often in chess there is no one right move, and in many instances no one can say, even after decades of analysis, on what the best move might be in a given instance, but none of this negates the fact that there are countless moves that are obviously wrong. Complex, contextual matters often admit of this much, that there are definitely wrong answers, and denoting these is a good start, and a real contribution.
Yeah, man. It sounds like a groundbreaking & revolutionizing undertaking of perhaps unequaled importance. So at what level are you in your research? Are you asking for money here? Funding to conduct your research? I'd like to hear how you propose to organize and conduct these studies. Hey.. I'm sold. Yeah. Let's do it. Now.... HOW? Set it up. Stop talking about it (unless you're trying to raise money for it) and goddamn DO IT already.
xxxHYPNOTISTxxx 9 months ago
A small minority of Atheist who are a small minority of people to begin with understand like Sam does about morality, and that's why the world is so fucked up.
The rest of the atheist are hippy liberal asshats who defend Islam like it's their job.
Khyrid 1 year ago
@Khyrid - Yeah, the world is what it is because of a minority not its majority, you really thought this true dumbass, did you?
lalaurentide 3 months ago
@lalaurentide Wow, oh my fucking god. Do you have any idea what a retarded fucking comment you just made? It may be the stupidest thing I ever read. I'll try to explain this to you;
So few people understand morality correctly so the world is a fucked up place. I'm talking about a few people understanding ONLY, that MEANS that most people don't understand. So I was talking about most people. You may have to read my comment a few times to get it, shit for brains.
Khyrid 3 months ago
I wonder what natural observations or scientific experiments revealed that "general human happiness" is the highest good which all people are absolutely obliged to strive for. Too many atheists today dismiss and ignore postmodernism's devastating critique of modernism's unquestioning faith in science and naive Enlightenment optimism.
And I swear, Sam Harris and Ben Stiller are the same person...
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
@ElasticGiraffe - an attitude of angry damnation, as expressed so often toward developments in modern psycho-awareness, is a far cry from intelligent criticism. Even in the wisest and best-informed, damnation is a sorry business, and in the half-informed, it is quite shameful.
etherform66 1 year ago
wow a lot of negative comments guess sam is right people are too stupid to realise that morality is something scientific
johnnyd101 1 year ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sam Harris is brain dead
vitallogic 1 year ago
@vitallogic why's that?
poolerboy0077 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sam Harris unfortunately doesn't understand morality. What he is proposing is not moral realism, just a method by which the efficiently of putting into practice the values of a moral system is increased. As to what those values in the first place should be, science can not give an answer. Because there is no answer. Harris talks about Human happiness and well being as being those values but he is just appealing to the prejudices of the audience who share that view.
snghw12 1 year ago
Science is buttfucking religion left and right. Too bad religious morons are just THAT daft, they don't even notice.
The fight has been over for a long time now, Religion got KTFO.
Give it up people.
niginit 2 years ago
there was no science at all here. you should be killed for thinking so. we need truth, not non science. For the sake of Science, you should be killed. This is guy is a pure liar. he should be found and burned alive.
nVei06 2 years ago
I hope the jackal who birthed you is proud of the shiny little piece of shit she squeezed out.
I hope you die, too, I only hope it's more painful, like cancer, or death via being kicked in the worthless nuts thousands of times.
What you consider science, I consider laughable. You are a fucking idiot. Please excuse yourself from the Earth.
Good thing any serious person laughs off people like you and your "science", which sounds more like retarded creationism.
niginit 2 years ago
@niginit kid, you have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what i'm talkig n about, and you have no idea what Sam is talking about.
nVei06 2 years ago
You're a complete and utter idiot. Take a long walk and then jump off something really tall. The world will be a better place.
niginit 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy should be burned alive. Sam Harris is not intelligent in anything he is saying. He is evil. He knows it.
nVei06 2 years ago
It would be nice if you made this harder for me. It's so easy to dismiss someone as dumb as you clearly are.
Take a break from the internetz and get a fucking grip on reality. Then go jump off a cliff because you will still be an idiot.
Bye, not replying, blocking you. Die.
niginit 2 years ago
@niginit we have to collect people like niginit.
nVei06 2 years ago
We do, they're called Nobel Prize laureates.
Dumb piece of shit.
niginit 2 years ago
so if i turn out to have much more intellect than you, yoiu'll be ok to be burned?
nVei06 2 years ago
The chances of that happening are even more remote than hell actually existing.
In this case, I would take my odds even if they were 1,000,000,000,000,000,000x in your favor.
It's unfortunate that you get the same deal as everyone else, eternal sleep. A sociopath like yourself should be dealt a different, more fitting fate.
niginit 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
take the nigger and burn it..
nVei06 2 years ago
And there we are.
niginit 2 years ago
the problem is, unless the information is verified by the jewish fagot soceity, you won't accept it. we don't give a shit. we don't need to convince you, we just need to kill you.
nVei06 2 years ago
Based on a given set of goals, there exist actions that will better serve those goals and actions that will not serve those goals as well. Of course, maximizing human happiness does seem a rather good goal for morality.
However, until we are able to convince others that "pleasing a god for which I have no evidence and whose will I may only blindly guess at" is not a reasonable goal for morality, we will be stuck with homophobia and other forms of sexual repression and some degree of sexism.
unhealthytruthseeker 2 years ago
On the basis that certain actions are better than others for a given goal, we can say that morality is objective. As for which goals should be the correct ones, well, that's a bit harder to argue.
Certainly, any goals which are based on false and/or questionable premises are invalid, but that still leaves various somewhat conflicting valid ideas about what the goal of morality should be.
unhealthytruthseeker 2 years ago
why do you want to stop people from executing homosexuals?
nVei06 2 years ago
Because it does not serve any goal that is productive and based on sound premises.
unhealthytruthseeker 2 years ago
that's rather naive vulgar and false. it's productive to have sexually activities to be limited to the created design of family. this bring us a codex of morality by which society can be aligned to a productive and benevolent cohesive nature. the lose of this model is followed by the break down of societal foundations. your naive answer is enough to disqualify your opinion. you should be considered a threat to rational thought, and corrupt dogmatic enemy of human progress.
nVei06 2 years ago
Explain to me how homosexuals are a threat to familial structures. Back it up with empirical evidence.
I love how you label me a corrupt dogmatic enemy of human progress. Yeah, that convinces me that you're objective.
unhealthytruthseeker 2 years ago
@unhealthytruthseeker you fag. what a peice of shit. you said that homos and fagots don't digress society as if it was a fact. that is bullshit. some fagot liberal pedophile jew told you that and you believed it as truth. now if people started having sex with their farm animals and the kids in school started having sex at show an tell. to you, it would mean nothing. but the humansoceity would be affected, all moral codex would diminish. you don't think so? well your wrong,
nVei06 2 years ago
@nVei06 You have a thing about sex, don't you?
hymnofashes 2 years ago
It's something he's very curious about, having never had it.
This guy is a complete moron, no one to be taken seriously.
niginit 2 years ago
What if neuro science commands a course of actions in order become happier, but the people do not want this? Is the absolute goal of happiness to override man's free will? I say no. People have the right to be "unhappy"... If heroin consumption turns out to be the straight path to happiness, should we commend heroin consumption for each citizen?
bhigr 2 years ago
Most of the time, when Harris says 'happiness' he means well-being. Someone at this conference confronts that point.
Of course personal choice still matters and you should still be able to do what you want, provided that it doesn't interrupt anyone else's path to well-being. The point is to scientifically discover the path, not to force it on people.
analubalitious 2 years ago
Happyness or "well-being" are commendable goals and I applaud someone who strives to increase the overall level of happiness among humans. But, utilitarianism as supreme principle of morality fails.
bhigr 2 years ago
I don't see where he supports using utilitarianism as a supreme principle for morality. He often refers to principles of philosophy and neurology and qualifies that well-being is more than happiness.
And how does utilitarianism fail as a basis for morality?
What other principles, do you think, are crucial for sound morality?
analubalitious 2 years ago
maximizing the well being (happyness) for humanity is the basic principle of utilitarianism. In his speach that is the basic premise of his talk. So, he does appear to be a traditional utilitarain. He says something about "exceptions to the rule" due to circumstances. It is not entirely clear, what he means.
Utilitarianism fails, because it may not establish universal human rights. I gave an example below...
bhigr 2 years ago
"May" not establish universal human rights?
Is there anything that can guarantee the establishment of universal human rights?
analubalitious 2 years ago
If you believe in universal human rights, then you must reject utilitarianism. Mr. Harris does appear to believe in universal rights, because he makes reference to the UN charter. Therefore, his position appears to be inconsistent. Any human right can be nullified by the utilitarian calculus including the right to life. If the majority of people overwhelmingly rejoice over your death, then utilitarianism commands killing you!
bhigr 2 years ago
No one is claiming that what makes people rejoice is the focus. You're still taking a rather un-nuanced look at what's meant by happiness and well-being, which has already been established and qualified as something a little deeper than what tickles and entertains. I also added my own qualification "provided that it doesn't interrupt anyone else's path to well-being".
So I just don't see your point holding water.
analubalitious 2 years ago
Well, then define the difference between well-being and happyness. In my opinion it's just a play with words and does not anything significantlyk different. The argument stands: If the majority of people increase their "well-being" in case of your death, then maximizing "well-being" commands killing you.
How are you to know beforehand and prove that someone elses "well-being" is not in any way "interrupted" by your action. You would need divine knowledge to know that....
bhigr 2 years ago
Chances are any course of action you take will eventually negatively effect the well-being of some arbitrary person. Therefore, your qualification renders the rule completely impractical...You would have to cease to act, which is impossible..
bhigr 2 years ago
Like all of our actions, we just have to go on our best knowledge at the time. Knowledge about cause-effect, the details of the particular scenario, so on and so forth. This is how we act, even when there are undesirable, unforeseeable traps in the landscape of existence.
Are you saying you have a way of knowing every consequence of your every action? If not, do you use a different heuristic to decide how to act?
analubalitious 2 years ago
No, I say that consequentalism is prone to error. Predicting the future is quite a difficult task in particular when it is concerned with human interaction. No science has been able to do this. Think about it: If human actions were precisely predictable, then man would not be free. Morality would be imaginary just like the wholy ghost.
bhigr 2 years ago
No one is arguing for anything with a claim of perfect prediction powers, so that's taken off the table. Utilitarianism is specifically the most good for the most people, generally imposed. What Harris is advocating for seems to be encouraging a persuasion for people to do some honest critical reevaluations, of their own free will.
analubalitious 2 years ago
Utilitarianism argues for maximizing the "happiness", "health" or "well-being" of all humans. This presupposes that this can be ascertained beyond reasonable doubt. However, this is completely impossible. You cannot even measure the "happiness", "well-being" of a single person objectively. Harris knows this and hopes that the science of the brain will eventually provide such a meter.
bhigr 2 years ago
I do think that taking account of the most probable consequences of your actions is required by a moral agent. If you shoot someone in the head, then we know that it is very likely that this person is going to be killed. You can#t say, oh well, I wasn't sure about his death, so no guilt on my part.. But, it is completely impossible to perform a calculus over all human beings for determining the overall consequences of your action and maximize the well being.
bhigr 2 years ago
That's nearly what marketing, psychology, sociology and disaster response do: They study the statistics of human behavior and cognition, rather effectively I might add. I wouldn't call it calculus, but statistics and probabilities. Obviously we have to worry about some things more than others. Whether or not to take a class or follow questionable orders may require more thought and investigation, whereas the candy bar of the week probably doesn't.
analubalitious 2 years ago
None of these studies provide a meter for objectively determining the well being of a particular purpose. That's just the start. Then you have to determine all the parameters, which influence well being for each person. Then, you have to find the functional relationship between the parameters and well being . finally you will have to determine mathematically the peaks (maxima) of this functions.... Each and everyone has to do this, whenever acting. This is ludicrous!
bhigr 2 years ago
Not a play on words, there's an important and serious distinction. Getting a shot at the Dr. may not make someone happy, but it promotes well-being. Eating vegetables and getting exercise may not make someone happy, but they promote well-being. Happiness is just a mood or emotion, well-being is a state of mental, physical, social etc. health.
Big Macs make me happy, but they don't promote well-being. Fair enough distinction?
analubalitious 2 years ago
No, that is no critical difference. In terms of happiness, you would say: You are taking pain in the short term in order to be happier in the long term. This is the good old utilitarian calculus. If maximizing the mental or social health of the majority of people requires killing someone, then that is what is commanded. A utilitarian calculus, whether it be about happyness or health, may not establish universal human rights! I stand by that and I believe this is irrefutable.
bhigr 2 years ago
How can universal human rights be established or justified? Well, there have been different approaches. Check out dignity on wikipedia. The best justification appears to be the one found by Kant....
bhigr 2 years ago
Well, killing unbelievers make many muslims happy. Over a billion muslims cheer on the streets of palestine. Since the overall level of happiness is increased. So from a consequentialist standpoint, he should applaud the deeds of these terrorists!
Utilitarianism fails!
bhigr 2 years ago
Damn good speech, but I am thinking that more people must be on to this than only Sam Harris, since it is so sound.
taz0k2 2 years ago
on morality and the brain check out:
Dan Siegel Google Talk
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago
It would seem to me that even morality is evolutionary. That's not meant to say that it is "relative" in the short term, but it may be relative in the long term. In other words, in any given time on earth we arrive at a generally accepted morality that applies fairly homogeniously to the population of earth at that given point int time given advancement in experiences. But one cannot say that the morality of, say, the Bronze Age for example, is the same as ours today.
JOMO59 2 years ago
Sam Harris's point isn't that the moral zeitgeist doesn't shift, or that it shouldn't, but rather that, in terms of actualizing human happiness and potential, and minimizing human suffering, there are objective moral truths, which one day may even be describable in neurological terms.
reasonableHUMAN 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a crock of shit. Let's apply his logic here:
Heroin is more conducive to human happiness (dopamine levels in the brain) than any other action; therefore, it is a moral imperative to force everyone to inject heroin.
Here are your fucking morals.
OGROKTEHUBER 2 years ago
Heroin is NOT conductive to human happiness in consequentialism. It LEADS to terrible health and death.
He is not talking about temporary highs here. Temporary highs and drug abuse is NOT human well being. THINK before you speak.
mayaclay 2 years ago 16
@mayaclay This is very Wrong. W/Clean needles, pure&safe Heroin, safe administration, and proper food&shelter there would be almost NO deaths from Heroin. We need to Legalize TREATMENT for those people, I'm not saying it should be street legal.
PLEASE Find and Read *actual* scientific studies(use google scholar), not popular drivel because these myths are killing people Every day.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
Good point. I really think he was saying that being short sighted about happiness is the way to go.
We all know how happy herion addics are.
You figured it all you, gee arn't you smart.
stevekap8 2 years ago 4
C'mon don't downvote this - it raises an excellent albeit poorly executed point about how happiness can be nothing more than a series of temporary highs.
As humans are naturally inclined to see the negative aspect of scenarios we need constant validation or reinforcement in order to stay content. Most of Maslow's pyramid are needs which cannot be permanently sated. I haven't reached the top but I don't see how any of our needs can be permanently sated.
piecharthosen 2 years ago
Heroin is a bad example only because it's a very temporary solution. A similar one would be food, or sex, or some other physical vice. None of these are the means to attain happiness as they all have terrible consequences when taken to excess as well as their temporary nature.
Are there non-temporary highs? I have been seeking one since forever and it doesn't help that despair nihilism clouds my mind every few months. Yay -__-
piecharthosen 2 years ago
It's not a bad example at all. The heroin user is very happy when he is on heroin. Heroin addicts are on heroin as often as possible, maximizing their happiness. They are very moral people because they are always happy to make other people happy by sharing the needle. The fact that they are rotting away on the inside doesn't matter because the chemicals in their brain do not allow them to care.
OGROKTEHUBER 2 years ago
Even though the heroin user outwardly lives what appears to be a wretched existence, even though he may be homeless, dying, and ill, he is happy because of the dopamine (happiness) levels in his brain.
Not a heroin user? Maybe hedonism is a shitty philosophy.
OGROKTEHUBER 2 years ago
Perhaps the future will be bright after all
mayaclay 2 years ago
Brilliant. And interesting. I am not interested in neuroscience but I am taking a few neuro classes next semester....and am looking forward to them now.
CntrBrdr 2 years ago 2
I like Sam, but I don't agree with most of his views in this clip. Anyone else with me?
jloo222 3 years ago
How so?
gusb232 3 years ago
I like them both. They come from very different perspectives but both make good points overall. I wish this went on longer.
whymee100 2 years ago
I wish we could read essays, lol!
I agree completely with Sam's idea about the moral landscape (which is a great way to visualize it). What I propose is that this landscape could be (slightly) different from human to human.
I myself have my most important values right here on my computer. But these are of course influenced by my education and so forth. Someone else might value honesty more than being nice, for example.
So, "universal ethics" might be tweaked a little from person to person.
BRtankbuster 3 years ago
Yeah, but so what?
What you're talking about is subjective morality.
Sam is proposing scientific inquiry as to the best objective morality.
A system that propagates the greatest average quality of life among its citizens.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
I think Sam Harris is absolutely brilliant, but I disagree with him on this point.
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to every moral question. Say you had to choose between: your wife or your daughter killed.. . I do not believe there is a correct answer to this question.
And there shouldn't need to be. Ethics are, imo, not objective and they will never be. The idea that unperfectly evolved mammals can tap into a universally correct, mathematical code of ethics seems absurd.
BRtankbuster 3 years ago
The fact that the implausible choice you gave as an example is a difficult one doesn't refute Harris's claims about universal ethics. The right answer is that neither should have to die, but given that things are generally beyond one's control, in this hypothetical scenario either the wife or the daughter needs to die. There are all sorts of unethical things happening in this scenario; that you're forced to choose one unethical thing over another doesn't refute the notion of universal ethics.
drbanality 3 years ago 5
Ethics is not about (or not just about) saying "nobody should have to die". It's about choosing one ethical thing above another, or an unethical thing above another unethical thing.
My point is that those ethical questions will be answered differently by different people. This does disprove "universal ethics", in my mind. You'll have many answers on those questions, and all of them will have their own reasoning, and all of them will be right.
BRtankbuster 3 years ago
The choice itself is relative, but the unethical outcome is just the same. In fact, it seems we agree here: "It's about choosing one ethical thing above another, or an unethical thing above another unethical thing." If you're willing to admit this, then you probably agree with Sam Harris' ideas about the "moral landscape" with its many peaks of well-being.
Also, if we talk about moral relativism, we eventually have to break this down to the individual level. I wish there were more room.
drbanality 3 years ago
Right on, drbanality. The whole wife vs. daughter question is uninteresting - it's an impossible choice, But I think Harris is right that it is possible to claim that a society where people live in fear of violence if they commit "crimes" like baring an ankle, going to school (if you're female), listening to music, or engaging in homosexuality, is morally inferior to one where people are free to do those things w/out fear. 'Cuz in the latter society overall human happiness must be greater.
jskymusicfan 2 years ago
understanding of morality.
I think it is admirable that we should attempt rational investigation into morality and I certainly do not agree with relativism, but we are massively far from anything like objective understanding of morality on so many levels. And I'm not sure how much neuroscience cn possibly contribute at the minute. I think there are other forms of research or discourse which are more relevant.
Ciaranmch 3 years ago
"I think there are other forms of research or discourse which are more relevant."
Given some of neuroscience's current adventures in the court room, and the power of some of the technologies that are today's academic toys, I don't think we have time to put off discussion of what the implications are. There are fMRI techniques already in the works that could put even the darkest dreams of the "lie detector" to shame... or if some predispositions are shown to be too strong, then how do we cope?
nobagav 3 years ago
"if some predispositions are shown to be too strong, then how do we cope?" I dont understand. Can you elaborate?
As for the neuroscience stuff, maybe we do need an empirical aproach alongside other progress. I just wonder what neuroscience could possibly discover right now that would help us make objective moral judgements. The philosophy isn't nearly advanced enough.
I agree it's exciting though, there's even the possibility of finding a physical basis for qualia, which would be cool.
Ciaranmch 3 years ago
"'if predispositions are... too strong, then how do we cope?' I dont understand. Can you elaborate?"
I was trying to squeeze in one last little reason that the discussion is relevant. If neuroscience proves that certain neurological conditions provide an irresistible predisposition toward some form of criminal activity, they what is that going to mean for criminal justice. We have to start having serious conversations about these ideas now, so that we have an idea how to cross that bridge.
nobagav 3 years ago
I think that any scientific progress in neuroscience or wherever has to fit into a philosophical framework that has already advanced way beyond where we're currently at. And although empirical investigation hasn't made any attempt to address moral claims philosophical investigation into morality has an extremely long and rich history. Say neuroscience solves the problem of consciousness and then finds a way to objectively measure happiness. It's useless until we make major leaps forward in our
Ciaranmch 3 years ago
"And although empirical investigation hasn't made any attempt to address moral claims..."
I'm afraid that just isn't the case. There are several attempts being made to bring moral and ethical questions into the scrutiny of strict empirical experimentation and several scientific hypotheses have been floated as to the nature and origin of human moral thought and conduct.
nobagav 3 years ago
Oh absolutely there's lots of experiments in psychology - prisoner's dillema stuff investigating contingencies for helping behaviour. Evolutionary psychology has illuminated many factors to explain the adaptive benefit of altruism.
But what empirical investigation has there been into answering questions like "Is killing people right?" Indeed how could one begin to approach that question empirically?
Ciaranmch 3 years ago
"answering questions like 'Is killing people right?' Indeed how could one begin to approach that question empirically?"
Ah, I think I misunderstood where you were coming from the first time.
...to my mind, that kind of thing is going to be a second or third order question. That is, I think we are going to find that there are some hardwired abstracts that guide moral development, and things like killing are going to be derived from an interaction of such an algorithm and the environment.
nobagav 3 years ago
Sam Harris is nothing more than a Spiritual(less) version of Bernard Madoff. He is devoid of moral ethos. It only gives strong evidence that people of his bloodline eat their young.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
free will doesnt exist therefor MORALITY doesnt exist.. im surprised sam believes in free will. i must assume he does based on his ideas that we have the ability to INCREASE or DECREASE human well being.. even if we had free will, im also of the belief we wouldnt be able to increase or shift the balance of well being amoungst the inhabitants of the cosmos because its nature is of " for each action an equal and opposite reaction". an illusory evolutional trait nature has selected for.
arisbananatwins 3 years ago
smartest man alive... PERIOD!
arisbananatwins 3 years ago
Sam is a Jew, cloaked in the garb of atheism. Sam clearly has Jewish Aggressions about him.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
you are a t00l...
pikechris1 3 years ago
you are a pouch...
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
irrelevant... the point is that you are a t00l (of stupidity and idi0tism, if you didnt get the nub there).
pikechris1 3 years ago
Jews are evil.
MaBu888 3 years ago
Of course I don't think Jews are evil. Just for conversation against Jew haters.
MaBu888 3 years ago
Sam Harris is doing a wonderful job, though the missing piece to his puzzle is clearly the philosophy of Objectivism.
JMartins1981 3 years ago
Sam goes on about human well being being an objectively measurable thing. Sure it is, no problems there. But he presumes that human well being is synonymous with goodness. I would say it is a large component, but it is not the full story of morality.
OverusedChewToy 3 years ago
"...but it is not the full story of morality."
Without assuming some standard or scale outside of reality, what other component would you suggest is relevant?
nobagav 3 years ago
Well, i mean asides from happiness, there could be such intrinsic values as justice, equity, authenticity, etc.
I'm not saying anything specific, I'm just saying that Sam presumes that happiness is the axiom to go by when it's far from clear.
OverusedChewToy 3 years ago
well-being is not the same as happiness, and i don't think harris suggests this. also, what good are justice, equity or authenticity unless they are conducive to human well-being? certainly if they worked against well-being this would count against them -
dust4ngel 3 years ago
"i mean asides from happiness"
Well being and happiness are not synonymous. Besides, I don't know about you, but I certainly am not happy when those other things are out of balance.
I look for three things to be maximized. Health, happiness and honesty. I find it hard to imagine a cultural good that doesn't address these concerns in one way or another.
nobagav 3 years ago
What's the point of health if it doesn't over a period of time make you happier than you otherwise would be?
What is the point of honesty if it's net effect over time isn't to make people happier?
There are certainy occasions where lying is better for everyone concerned in a situation. However, certainly in terms of a culture surviving, this is not the normal situation hence truth-telling being so ubiqutously manifested as a cultural norm. Furthermore I agree it is *generally* the moral..
Ciaranmch 3 years ago
"What's the point of health if it doesn't make you happier? What is the point of honesty if it's net effect... isn't to make people happier?"
My point, if I remember, was that those were prerequisite to happiness. Any life that lacks those elements doesn't even have a chance to worry about happiness. How happy can you be when you are paranoid from chronic dishonesty and crippled by illness? How much time is there to be happy when you find an early grave?
nobagav 3 years ago
Well exactly. So those things are good because they allow happiness to flourish. My point is that I think the ultimate goal of morality should be to maximise happiness. Those other things are only a means to that end so I wouldn't bother listing those alongside hapiness.
PS I'm aware of the huge difficulties with consequentialism, I'm just saying that rights or any other system, ideas of justice, equality are merely means to the end of hapiness, which is by definition desirable.
Ciaranmch 3 years ago
"Those other things are only a means to that end so I wouldn't bother listing those alongside hapiness."
I just find leaving it at "happiness" leaves far to much open to interpretation. An illusion of happiness could easily be built on other principles, so I think mentioning the foundations is vital to accurately conveying the point. Would you not agree?
nobagav 3 years ago
If I walked past a child drowning in a lake and did nothing, would that prove that there is an invisible magic giant in the sky?
If I walked past a child drowning in a lake and swam over and saved them, would that prove that there is an invisible magic giant in the sky?
hopokuk 3 years ago
they would say, god worked in a mysterious way..... lol...
doubleastudios 3 years ago
Just to clarify for anyone reading (Re: extermination etc), I'm not insane, please see my other posts, :)
storeo 3 years ago
Tough...when dealing with people collectively, each having their own ideas and values, it is hard to imprint universal notions of goodness because each notion is subjective. It is the case that people will disagree with definitions of goodness. So I find it legitimate to declare by which perspective of goodness are we to follow?
I guess I have to concede the question and ask what type of society do we want given our current understanding of the human condition and its interaction with nature?
oturan22 3 years ago
Very enlightening discussion! Is Utilitarian- but perhaps he argues that utilitarianims is our most enjoyable pasttime?
Gubbinz 3 years ago
I think this is the first time I've disagreed with Sam Harris about anything. Maybe I'll come around to his way of thinking, but as of now I'm still not sold on the objectivity of morality.
He equivocates morality early on rather vaguely with maximizing human well-being (utilitarianism?). I would've liked him to elaborate on this further since it's a crucial part of the debate.
ezmorningrebel 3 years ago
Can science attempt to provide answers to questions like "Is it acceptable to kill one to save a hundred?" Does it come down to a numbers game like the scene from Fight Club where the main character is describing how auto companies calculate recalls?
If more than one moral precept can exist for a situation, doesn't the inherent objectivity of morality mean one precept will be more "right" than the others anyway, making it irrelevant that the other precepts exist at all?
ezmorningrebel 3 years ago
Yep, its pretty much utilitarianism, and the incarnation i've seen Sam use in the past, with all respect, is a pretty naive version. Regardless, as you correctly point out, he doesnt substantiates WHY starting from this premise in the talk is objective, rather presupposes it to be so..
storeo 3 years ago
It does seem like he's not looking at the big picture. Maybe neuroscience and such can provide answers within a certain subjective framework. Like if we take what Sam says here, that maximizing human well-being as a whole is the best route to go, running with that, we can maximize our benefits in this framework. But that framework is still a subjective valuation. There's still nothing saying it's objectively better than another moral outlook.
ezmorningrebel 3 years ago
I agree, we can only say X is a better outlook than Y if we initially agree on subjective premises.
Even if we accept the "greater happiness" model there are certain hypothetical moral scenario's that would seem to leave us in an ethically compromised position. For example, should we letting sociopaths murder depressed people? On a statistical level, it would certainly shift a populations 'happiness rating' upwards, but I don't think its a course of action I would particularly like to see..
storeo 3 years ago
If a depressed person is alive, they obviously dont want to die...else theyd have killed themselves. So murdering them, wether they are depressed or not, is an act of cruelty.
The argument for why they need to be killed is also a little vague too.
marcotenshi 3 years ago
//If a depressed person is alive, they obviously dont want to die//
The depressed person doesn't have to know that they will soon be killed, so no unhappiness would stem from it. Whether or not they 'want' to die is irrelevent (morally) if more happiness can be brought about by exterminating them..
//is an act of cruelty.//
If the 'cruelty' produces happiness, then its moral, according to the utalitarian rationale anyway..
storeo 3 years ago
//need to be killed is also a little vague too.//
Basically, imagine it statistically, if sociopaths enjoy killing people, letting them do so will increase their happiness, so the net happiness of the populus will also increase. In addition, depressed people will already have 'low' happiness ratings, so removing them from the set will again, increase the net average happiness..
storeo 3 years ago
Its a win-win..
storeo 3 years ago
If you're talking about extremely depressed people (who actually want to die), then I agree; otherwise I think the situation is better understood in terms of (mildly) depressed people having a lower than normal, but still positive 'happiness rating', so killing them, in fact, reduces the overall happiness. After all, if they do not want even a totally painless death, I don't think you could avoid the conclusion that their 'happiness rating' must necessarily be positive.
liverw0rt 3 years ago
Then why does the victim have to be depressed and the killer be a sociopath?
"If the 'cruelty' produces happiness, then its moral, according to the utalitarian rationale anyway.."
Thats like saying spending millions to produce 1 item to sell for $1 is "utilitarian" as well. I don't think it is.
The problem doesn't come from utilitarianism itself, it comes from maths. You have created a way of adding things up, thats all. You've valued the costs and the revenues.
marcotenshi 3 years ago
Finally. Someone brave enough to say it. With neuroscience, we're finally near the point where we can actually move to some sense of objective morality. Everybody just loves to say that science can't guide morals. But really, it's because he haven't had the nerve to look into it sufficiently.
averagehomosapien 3 years ago
Sam Harris: Super cool.
corridorofpower 3 years ago
Bad talk Sam.
He starts from the presupposition that whatever "maximises human happiness" is equatable to what is 'moral'. This is an arbitrary axiom, and everything that flows from it is similarly assertive. One could start from the axiom "whatever increases the sales of Pepsi is moral" and it is equally arbitrary..
storeo 3 years ago
storeo:
What other working definitions of morality could you come up with?
Schpwuette 3 years ago
"Whatever increases the sales of Pepsi is moral"
"Whatever Allah commands is moral"
"Whatever Joe Stevenson from Chicago requests is Moral"
"Whatever increases net human happiness is moral"
These are ALL arbitrary axioms, equally assertive, as is anything that flows from them.
storeo 3 years ago
think what sam was saying is that these claims are not equally assertive. I agree. Interestingly he says science can prove it. I am not sure about that. But, I'm not against trying either.
awerner2007 3 years ago
He says that science can disprove certain moral claims IF we start from the premise that moral claims are to be solely decided on the net happiness they bring. He doesn't substantiate why the latter is a sound premise so his argument is prettay baseless..
storeo 3 years ago
Not everyone agrees upon the presupposition that Sam is working from, and as such, his claim to objectivity is baseless.
Don't get me wrong, I am an atheist who shares some of Sam's idealism, HOWEVER, there is NO evidence that this presupposition is objective and homo-sapien independant..
storeo 3 years ago
Dude... does he EVER say that it's homo sapien independent? Whenever he mentions objective morality, he always talks about it within the context of the HUMAN brain.
averagehomosapien 3 years ago
That's what Moral Realism is..
And his claims about the human brain ALL flow from his presupposed axiom, thus, his claim to objectivity is baseless..
For example, if I start from "Whatever increases the sales of Pepsi is moral", and use business and financial economics to illustrate purchasing pepsi is objectively moral, its baseless because it flows from my unsupported premise..
storeo 3 years ago
you are missing point he is trying to support that premise with science. harris is saying we can prove that "net human happiness" is a better moral... that was his hypothesis if you may now he wants to test it. I dont see anything wrong with that.
awerner2007 3 years ago
//harris is saying we can prove that "net human happiness" is a better moral//
That is circular, however its not quite what he says. He is saying that measuring 'happiness' levels can determine whether an action is more or less moral than another action IF we start from the premise that "net happiness" solely determines what is moral. He does NOT substantiate WHY we should objectively accept this postulate, which is my contention with his talk..
storeo 3 years ago
perhaps because it is self evident that more human happiness is better than less human happiness. And better is better.
fourbiscuits 3 years ago
//because it is self evident//
Cicrular reasoning.
//more human happiness is better than less human happiness//
You're just asserting again, I could do the same,
"Whatever increases the sales of Pepsi is moral"
"Whatever Allah commands is moral"
"Whatever Joe Stevenson from Chicago requests is Moral"
And neither of us would advanced our position as we have provided NOTHING to back up our claims..
storeo 3 years ago 2
Storeo:
That's how he chooses to define morality. How could you get it so wrong? Morality is about what one 'ought to do'. He believes what we ought to do is work to maximise human well-being. He's perfectly aware that people don't agree on which action is moral and which isn't. What he's saying is that science, the study of what 'is', can help us in our endeavour to do what we 'ought to do'.
GeeWeezzz 3 years ago
//That's how he chooses to define morality//
Agreed, its arbitrary..
//He believes what we ought to do //
And that is his opinion, he shouldnt claim objectivity for a position which rests on an arbitrary premise..
//can help us in our endeavour to do what we 'ought to do'. //
Only if we INITIALLY agree on the premise that Sam is working from, i.e. 'net happiness. He doesnt substantiate WHY we should work from this premise, so his reasoning is unsound..
storeo 3 years ago
storeo: "He doesnt substantiate WHY we should work from this premise, so his reasoning is unsound."
For the same reason that we 'should' have laws against murder and theft.
It's like saying, "This guy is talking about how science can help us reduce homicide rates, when he's not shown why we should try to prevent murder in the first place."
GeeWeezzz 3 years ago
//he's not shown why we should try to prevent murder in the first place.//
And why should we prevent murder? Because we, generally, in the 21st Century West, dislike unessacery harm coming to other humans (net happiness). This is an ARBITRARY societal preference, i.e. NOT OBJECTIVE. Such values change over time and vary between different societies.
If you disagree and feel that "do not murder" is objectively morally wrong, I await your evidence in support of such a position..
storeo 3 years ago
Apply the golden rule. If you don't dehumanize other humans, the golden rule applies. On the group level, we could apply the group golden rule. I have met many humans, outside and inside the 'west' and all have some form of the golden rule.
If other people don't have the same golden rule, it is possible to change their version of it through argument. We could then reach some sort of consensus.
If coupled with neurobiology, you could probably make scientific claims.
FreemanGordan 3 years ago
The golden rule isn't a perfect moral gauge, (imagine masochists for instance). Nor is it what Sam is championing as the bar from which scientific investigation should stem from in the video. In addition, it too, is also an arbitrary subjective moral ideal, not objective as Sam claims..
//If coupled with neurobiology//
But one first has to accept the subjective premise so nothing that flows from it is 'objetive'..
storeo 3 years ago
Perhaps you can claim that every idea like the golden rule is 'subjective,' but I do fundamentally agree with Sam that we should try to make progress scientifically on the moral front. Who knows, maybe we will be able to say something concrete. Maybe we won't, but we have a stunning lack of progress on this front.
If you simply state that every potential idea to be tested is wrong, we cannot make any progress
FreemanGordan 3 years ago 2
I like to think that i get smarter by listening to Sam Harris
Salladsdressing 3 years ago 3
Yes, I get that impression about myself, too...
Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay 3 years ago
i've uploaded more sam harris from Beyond Belief 2008 which is now in the video responses
PrexicKehdaki 3 years ago
oops typo *I would love to witness
deeliciousplum 3 years ago
and if I may just be silly for a moment, I would to witness a more passionate side of Sam Harris. He is a very proficient and clear speaker, as a poster below mentions, yet I need to remind myself that I cannot make demands on the way people communicate and that there are others that speak of what Sam speaks of in an outwardly passionate manner. So, it is my own fault for thinking this...heeheehee
deeliciousplum 3 years ago
rational in a very wayward collection of both overlapping and conflicting social/religious/scientific constructs, I have found it quite difficult to find solid ground on this. As any quantity of morals do manifest a measurable level of safety for a community of people with diverse notions and diverse psyche make-ups. Maybe we are to have a varied moral source pool as it is more than likely to be the fusion of this diversity which creates for the unique and plausible paths we each may walk upon.
deeliciousplum 3 years ago
any dialogue is good dialogue :) Raising the points of the possible source of morals in a so-called god(dess)less realm is one of dire interest. Religion states that without the guidance of a higher being(s) there can be no moral seeding. Atheism states that morals are evoked through biological function and common sense. Krishnamurti, as an example, shares that morals in themselves are created by thought and that thought is mired in chaos & deception. While attempting as oft as possible to be
deeliciousplum 3 years ago
Very interesting. Sam is a good public speaker. Very clear and concise.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Wasn't that mainly an argument for being morally responsible though, with quality of life added as the basis...
I don't see whats revolutionary or scientific about that??
PorchMoneky 3 years ago
This is a really cool talk, very interesting idea.
jbroadclearing 3 years ago
Are we on the edge of chaos?
arryhuk 3 years ago
Well said (almost Dr) Samuel.
saelaird 3 years ago
five stars.
Rokasomee 3 years ago
hmmm thought provoking video, always a good thing.
ectogambit 3 years ago
Oh wow, I can make a post with the words cunt and fuck, yet a group of utterly innocuous posts stall. What a godly fucking marvel you are, Youtube. To hell with this fucking shit.
Hzqi 3 years ago
If only Sam had given this in the middle of Hitchens' debate against Turek. Harris (morality and the danger of belief), Dawkins (biology and the origin of complexity), Hitchens (the absurdity and evil of religion), and Dennett (the nature of consciousness) complement each other really well, and each one sort of specializes. I might add Stenger or someone with a really good understanding of modern physics. Hawking. There we go.
GBart 3 years ago
Even if science were to solve or figure out the biophysiology of morality, religious zealots would still hold on to their delusion. We already have so much evidence for how life works and evolves and they still hold to their ancient fairytale beliefs. So sad, it's depressing to think about.
saxmanchiro 3 years ago
Thanks for posting PiroNiro. You are always right on the ball with this stuff.
cizzio1 3 years ago
Sam says what I have been thinking for years.
I believe there is a standard that could be defined personally and for governments and I bet it comes pretty close to being "mature".
Its things like:
Creating win-win situations.
Not being thin skinned.
Not being closed minded.
Not dwelling to much in the past.
Being able to reflect upon oneself.
Value fairness
I think thats not a standard palin lives up to. And neither does the israeli/palestinians or did the serb/bosnians. Nor bush or mccain
CognosSquare 3 years ago
Uhf, Sam Harris must have some balls in order to try to defend moral realism.
somor98 3 years ago
He had to ask for a bigger podium.
CognosSquare 3 years ago
Harris' chess analogy is particularly appropo here. Indeed, often in chess there is no one right move, and in many instances no one can say, even after decades of analysis, on what the best move might be in a given instance, but none of this negates the fact that there are countless moves that are obviously wrong. Complex, contextual matters often admit of this much, that there are definitely wrong answers, and denoting these is a good start, and a real contribution.
LeafInTheStream 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sam Snore-Harris yawn-athon. Ok so I over hyphenate. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
mjdoyza 3 years ago