yes... congratulations... there can be no "value" to "X" without a consciousness to ascribe value to it... "morality" is just an abstraction of the values and goals [which are *inherently* subjective] of whatever intelligent beings formed them, just like currency is an abstraction of the "value" of "goods." This is one of the few things I disagree with Gary about, but it doesn't really make a difference beyond academic discussions.
I mean, even though all values are subjective, it's likely that >99% of all beings on earth that can experience suffering place negative value on it, and we all have to live here with all those other beings... so in that sense, it makes little *practical* difference whether or not "values" are objective or subjective (even though they *are* subjective).
I don't think Sam proposes our Moral Sense is "eternal". Sam probably understands our Moral Sense to be evolving.
Sam merely is stating that our idea of Morality is concerned with the suffering and well-being of people. I think Sam would agree that suffering and well-being are subjectively experienced, but he is stating we can learn objective facts about those subjective moral experiences in the brain, as well as about the causes, effects, and management of well-being and suffering.
I agree, although his argument would give morals the quality of social facts rather than truly objective facts I think. You're dead right in identifying his relating of subjective moral judgements to interpersonal statements of shared truth. Good call.
In talking of 'human values' - do you mean prudential values? In this sense I can agree with you, as there is a distinction to be made between what is expedient and what is moral.
The dream of a systematic approach to ethical philosophy is to start with a manageable number of first principles or imperatives ("suffering should be minimized"), and then by a series of logical steps create a kind of algorithm that will provide unambiguous answers to any particular moral problem. This approach can be shown to fail--to generate contradictory answers depending on the assumptions you pack into it. Usually the first principles will be found to conflict with each other.
...I would describe it as a logical deduction of facts. Since the "equation" consists of only facts and logic (which are both objective), the statement is objective.
Re: Description
"empathy" and "care" are words I don't think we need to use when justifying a certain ethic, since they are just subjective emotions. While "suffering" and "harm" can be used to support an ethical statement since they are scientific facts.
...As well "equality" and "fairness" can also be used since (I would argue) they are just different words to mean what is logical.
"we routinely value the suffering of humans higher than the suffering of rats for example, even though there is not scientifically viable criteria for making this distinction"
Wouldn't you say that the sentience and/or consciousness of human is higher than that of a rat, therefore it deserves a higher priority?
""suffering" and "harm" can be used to support an ethical statement since they are scientific facts"
Suffering does not exist objectively outside of conscious minds. This seems to makes it impossible to apply the scientific method to ethical propositions as the value of suffering cannot be quantified or tested. he best you can do is make generalisations based on your own 'common sense'/biases as a human being who can suffer and can recognise suffering in others.
"value of suffering cannot be quantified or tested"
Just because the actual experiences are subjective, doesn't make the statements/propositions subjective since all that is contained within them are facts (that suffering exists and sentient organisms don't like it), and the logical deductions of those facts, both of which are objective.
Of course, it's a requirement that those subjective experiences actually exist, however that can be said for any other fact or logical deduction.
The truism that suffering is unpleasant is just a tautology. There is nothing you can logically derive from that truism by itself that validates any ethical proposition. For a start there are obvious cases where suffering is desirable when it is necesary for the achievement of another value, so a proposition that suffering ought to be reduced is because it is unpleasant is not always true.
There is no moral equasion existing 'out there' beyond the subjective values of individual conscious human beings (note it is only human beings that have the abstract language to contrive a morality at all, which just goes to show how universal it is not).
"There is nothing you can logically derive from that truism by itself that validates any ethical proposition."
Well as I argued, we can arrive at a (logical) truths which say that something is either right or wrong (logically). I gave the example in my first post yet you didn't counter argue it; instead just saying now that you can't.
I explained already that your 'moral truth' is a tautology, not a ethical proposition. To say suffering is unpleasant is equivalent to saying A is A. It has no meaning by itself.
"To say suffering is unpleasant is equivalent to saying A is A."
I never disputed that. That's why I didn't quote or respond to that.
"It has no meaning by itself."
Which is why I have also argued that we need to use those facts to discover the logical truths; I also gave an example. The (logical) consequence of these facts are what has meaning.
@TheMaleWithNoName Yes, there are numerous examples. For instance an athlete who puts himselves through physical suffering to achieve a state that he/she values. Somebody might justafiably inflict physical harm on others in some circumstances in order to acheive a value such as preservation of their own life. Ethics are about trying to provide answers as to whether actions like the ones in my examples are justified and why. Your tautology does not by itself support any ethical position.
What are the parameters of suffering? Are you just talking about nerve receptors? What about more complex scenarios: such as in multi-cultural societies where competing, conflicting identities ask for recognition and encounter denial or mockery? Do Muslims suffer in some sense when cartoons are made of their prophet? Are there not sophisticated uses of the term 'suffering', ones which rely on our conscious and subjective capacities; should we ignore these more fuzzy cases?
Ultimately I would argue that it all comes down to sentience. So any circumstance that involves an organisms sentience (what an organism feels / likes and dislikes / pleasure and pain), would be an ethical circumstance.
So yes the examples you gave would need to be contemplated, I think. However I am trying just to give the foundational concepts first (of crude pain and pleasure), which I don't think is invalidated due to the more "fuzzy" cases.
Gary has serious issues with is-ought. Sam Harris feels compelled to play the populist roe. Science is serious business, yet there's the problem of how we convince people who don't have the time/energy to get involved in it to believe in it instead.
I watched the first two parts of that Sam Harris talk before getting sick of it. He is always prescribing an initial value to relate the facts to the derived values, basically he is doing:
IF ought THEN ought FOLLOWS is
while trying to give the impression that he is doing:
yes... congratulations... there can be no "value" to "X" without a consciousness to ascribe value to it... "morality" is just an abstraction of the values and goals [which are *inherently* subjective] of whatever intelligent beings formed them, just like currency is an abstraction of the "value" of "goods." This is one of the few things I disagree with Gary about, but it doesn't really make a difference beyond academic discussions.
AdderallApocalypse 1 year ago
I mean, even though all values are subjective, it's likely that >99% of all beings on earth that can experience suffering place negative value on it, and we all have to live here with all those other beings... so in that sense, it makes little *practical* difference whether or not "values" are objective or subjective (even though they *are* subjective).
AdderallApocalypse 1 year ago
@conference
I don't think Sam proposes our Moral Sense is "eternal". Sam probably understands our Moral Sense to be evolving.
Sam merely is stating that our idea of Morality is concerned with the suffering and well-being of people. I think Sam would agree that suffering and well-being are subjectively experienced, but he is stating we can learn objective facts about those subjective moral experiences in the brain, as well as about the causes, effects, and management of well-being and suffering.
h0tsex0r 1 year ago
@h0tsex0r
I agree, although his argument would give morals the quality of social facts rather than truly objective facts I think. You're dead right in identifying his relating of subjective moral judgements to interpersonal statements of shared truth. Good call.
conferencereport 1 year ago
@Conferencereport
In talking of 'human values' - do you mean prudential values? In this sense I can agree with you, as there is a distinction to be made between what is expedient and what is moral.
MuhakgreetsWonhyo 1 year ago
*****
CousinoMacul 1 year ago
The most amazing thing about Sam Harris is that he actually has the balls to describe himself as a philosopher.
23discordians 1 year ago
Sean Carroll wrote a response to Sam Harris' latest TED talk on his blog Cosmic Variance that you might be interested in reading.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
The dream of a systematic approach to ethical philosophy is to start with a manageable number of first principles or imperatives ("suffering should be minimized"), and then by a series of logical steps create a kind of algorithm that will provide unambiguous answers to any particular moral problem. This approach can be shown to fail--to generate contradictory answers depending on the assumptions you pack into it. Usually the first principles will be found to conflict with each other.
Ramiiam 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheMaleWithNoName 1 year ago
...I would describe it as a logical deduction of facts. Since the "equation" consists of only facts and logic (which are both objective), the statement is objective.
Re: Description
"empathy" and "care" are words I don't think we need to use when justifying a certain ethic, since they are just subjective emotions. While "suffering" and "harm" can be used to support an ethical statement since they are scientific facts.
Continued...
TheMaleWithNoName 1 year ago
...As well "equality" and "fairness" can also be used since (I would argue) they are just different words to mean what is logical.
"we routinely value the suffering of humans higher than the suffering of rats for example, even though there is not scientifically viable criteria for making this distinction"
Wouldn't you say that the sentience and/or consciousness of human is higher than that of a rat, therefore it deserves a higher priority?
Sorry again for the length of the post.
TheMaleWithNoName 1 year ago
@TheMaleWithNoName
""suffering" and "harm" can be used to support an ethical statement since they are scientific facts"
Suffering does not exist objectively outside of conscious minds. This seems to makes it impossible to apply the scientific method to ethical propositions as the value of suffering cannot be quantified or tested. he best you can do is make generalisations based on your own 'common sense'/biases as a human being who can suffer and can recognise suffering in others.
yeahwotevaman 1 year ago
@yeahwotevaman
"value of suffering cannot be quantified or tested"
Just because the actual experiences are subjective, doesn't make the statements/propositions subjective since all that is contained within them are facts (that suffering exists and sentient organisms don't like it), and the logical deductions of those facts, both of which are objective.
Of course, it's a requirement that those subjective experiences actually exist, however that can be said for any other fact or logical deduction.
TheMaleWithNoName 1 year ago
@TheMaleWithNoName
The truism that suffering is unpleasant is just a tautology. There is nothing you can logically derive from that truism by itself that validates any ethical proposition. For a start there are obvious cases where suffering is desirable when it is necesary for the achievement of another value, so a proposition that suffering ought to be reduced is because it is unpleasant is not always true.
yeahwotevaman 1 year ago
There is no moral equasion existing 'out there' beyond the subjective values of individual conscious human beings (note it is only human beings that have the abstract language to contrive a morality at all, which just goes to show how universal it is not).
yeahwotevaman 1 year ago
@yeahwotevaman
"There is nothing you can logically derive from that truism by itself that validates any ethical proposition."
Well as I argued, we can arrive at a (logical) truths which say that something is either right or wrong (logically). I gave the example in my first post yet you didn't counter argue it; instead just saying now that you can't.
TheMaleWithNoName 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"For a start there are obvious cases where suffering is desirable when it is necesary for the achievement of another value"
I would contend that there is no other value than sentience (what an organism feels / likes and dislikes / pleasure and pain).
Do you have an example?
TheMaleWithNoName 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yeahwotevaman
"There is no moral equasion existing 'out there' beyond the subjective values of individual conscious human beings"
Well again as I argued, there is. Just as there are mathematical truths "out there" which we can't see or examine, but which are still true / facts.
I did prove an argument; I would appreciate it if you counter argued it, instead of just saying "no".
TheMaleWithNoName 1 year ago
"human beings that have the abstract language to contrive a morality at all, which just goes to show how universal it is not"
The same can be said for maths or any other logical truth.
TheMaleWithNoName 1 year ago
@TheMaleWithNoName
I explained already that your 'moral truth' is a tautology, not a ethical proposition. To say suffering is unpleasant is equivalent to saying A is A. It has no meaning by itself.
yeahwotevaman 1 year ago
@yeahwotevaman
"To say suffering is unpleasant is equivalent to saying A is A."
I never disputed that. That's why I didn't quote or respond to that.
"It has no meaning by itself."
Which is why I have also argued that we need to use those facts to discover the logical truths; I also gave an example. The (logical) consequence of these facts are what has meaning.
TheMaleWithNoName 1 year ago
@TheMaleWithNoName Yes, there are numerous examples. For instance an athlete who puts himselves through physical suffering to achieve a state that he/she values. Somebody might justafiably inflict physical harm on others in some circumstances in order to acheive a value such as preservation of their own life. Ethics are about trying to provide answers as to whether actions like the ones in my examples are justified and why. Your tautology does not by itself support any ethical position.
yeahwotevaman 1 year ago
@yeahwotevaman
"For instance an athlete who puts himselves through physical suffering to achieve a state that he/she values."
"a value such as preservation of their own life."
I contend that the first is not an ethical issue, since the persons action does not involve any other sentient organism apart from themselves.
Regardless both still only involve an organisms sentience or consciousness. All that is involved is what that organism wants.
TheMaleWithNoName 1 year ago
@TheMaleWithNoName
What are the parameters of suffering? Are you just talking about nerve receptors? What about more complex scenarios: such as in multi-cultural societies where competing, conflicting identities ask for recognition and encounter denial or mockery? Do Muslims suffer in some sense when cartoons are made of their prophet? Are there not sophisticated uses of the term 'suffering', ones which rely on our conscious and subjective capacities; should we ignore these more fuzzy cases?
MuhakgreetsWonhyo 1 year ago
@MuhakgreetsWonhyo
Ultimately I would argue that it all comes down to sentience. So any circumstance that involves an organisms sentience (what an organism feels / likes and dislikes / pleasure and pain), would be an ethical circumstance.
So yes the examples you gave would need to be contemplated, I think. However I am trying just to give the foundational concepts first (of crude pain and pleasure), which I don't think is invalidated due to the more "fuzzy" cases.
TheMaleWithNoName 1 year ago
Gary has serious issues with is-ought. Sam Harris feels compelled to play the populist roe. Science is serious business, yet there's the problem of how we convince people who don't have the time/energy to get involved in it to believe in it instead.
gratex 1 year ago
I watched the first two parts of that Sam Harris talk before getting sick of it. He is always prescribing an initial value to relate the facts to the derived values, basically he is doing:
IF ought THEN ought FOLLOWS is
while trying to give the impression that he is doing:
IF is THEN ought
yeahwotevaman 1 year ago
I couldn't quite follow conference. I look forward to another video on the topic.
GalahadGuy 1 year ago
@GalahadGuy Yes, I haven't really got it
straight yet. I'll try again another time.
conferencereport 1 year ago