Part 2 of 6 - Morality (Audio) - Sam Harris & Richard Dawkins conversation - 12 April 2011

[georgio210]

the virus of concern for a subjective concequential after life is the root of the lack of regard for the well being of others. thats what needs to be eliminated, you only have now; today, and you have no real reason to think other wise. fix it, make the best of it and fight for the right of others to do the same. who wouldnt like the idea of an after life

[jaylias]

"what is health? it has something to do with not vomiting all the time" "biblically inelegant" LOL Sam is so awesome!!

[eradeziel]

@custardtin You do not have to prove that there is suffering in non-existence, as non-existence is by definition devoid of suffering, or enjoyment, or any other emotion you can only affiliate with existence, let alone sentient beings.

[xhaze8]

@custardtin This is just what I remember though, I think it may have been asked during the q and a after his debate with William Lane Craig, if you want to check out what he actually said.

[xhaze8]

@custardtin Sam got asked this question before just phrased a bit differently, if I remember right the guy asked "given that your aim is to move away from suffering wouldn't the best answer be to destroy all life", his answer went something like "that would also close off any possible better/higher levels of consciousness". so I 'think' Sam isn't only advocating moving away from misery for its own sake but also as a means to an need to encourage human development/flourishing.

[BeatleEDs]

What is the worse possible misery for everyone and who decides what that is?

[xhaze8]

@BeatleEDs Hmm good question, I think "the worst possible misery" still serves its function as a concept to define what bad is even if we can't imagine it. As for what it actually is or would look like, Sam's bird flight analogy might apply (just because we can't imagine what the worst possible misery for everyone is or accurately define it doesn't mean that the answer doesn't exist).

Although birds in flight boils down to a defined number and there are likely infinite ways to have misery.

[BeatleEDs]

@xhaze8 - Oh, I thought it was death.

[xhaze8]

@BeatleEDs There are worse things than death and you have to be alive to suffer.

[MrMalcie]

Is Sam really saying Jesus is no wiser than an Afghan warlord? Has he ever read Christ's teachings in the gospels and how all who heard the boy Jesus were "astonished at His understanding and answers" (Luke 2 v 47). With regards to Jesus knowing nothing about the origins of life I quote Colossians 1 v 16 "For by Him all things were created." We all have a sense of right and wrong because we were created in the image of God.

[sylviabombs15]

@MrMalcie Unfortunately your retarded.

I just want you to know that quoting scripture as evidence is just as usefull as a chocolate tea pot, or an ashtray on a motorbike.

Or a cock flavoured lolli pop (this one applies more to the priests of your dogmatic religon)

[smudgemax]

Sam Harris has such a simple idea really and you wonder how others haven't come up with it. Just can't find anything wrong with what he is saying. Simple, but brilliant and elegant.

[Clydey]

@smudgemax If you can't find anything wrong with what he is saying, you aren't trying hard enough. He's essentially arguing for utilitarianism. He thus leaves himself open to the argument that it is moral to kill an innocent person in order to save two innocent people. This isn't merely hypothetical. Consider organ donation as an example.

[smudgemax]

@Clydey If you had watched some of his previous videos he addressed this exact point. To paraphrase, he mentioned that it is basically common sense that we wouldn't want to live in a world where, if you went to the doctor you could end up never coming back, with various parts of your body vivisected for the good of others. I think you can still follow a philosophical principal but not to far, like you said, but i think with reasoned argument, you can avoid some of the horrors of utilitarianism

[Clydey]

@smudgemax And as was pointed out, he is contradicting himself. One the one hand he suggests that science can build universal morality, while on the other he talks about certain things being common sense. That is a contradiction. He also has not proved why human well being is all that matters. Moreover, he has not properly defined human well being. I'm a huge fan of Sam Harris, but he has a lot of questions to address before this even gets off the ground.

[limitbreak323]

@Clydey I think we unnecessarily complicate - or are being purposefully dense - if we say that human well-being may not be the ideal to strive for. What planet do we live in if we refuse to acknowledge that simple fact? The Moral Landscape couldn't be more clear. There are peaks and valleys for sentient well-beings. There can be parallel ways to achieve them either way. But being completely relativist about matters isn't helpful and it's intellectually dishonest and lazy.

[Clydey]

@limitbreak323 I didn't say that we shouldn't strive for human well being. I said that it is poorly defined and I also said that it isn't all that matters, not that it doesn't matter at all. You can't simply assert that good equates to human well being and bad equates to human suffering. You have to prove that claim. I could assert that what matters is the the continued existence of our species and our planet. That is distinct from what Sam is saying, while being no less valid.

[limitbreak323]

@Clydey You're saying the exact same thing but wording it differently. It's just a play on words. How can we further our planet's and our own existence without maximizing the well-being of both? It's really common sense. No need to unnecessarily complicate things.

[Clydey]

@limitbreak323 Because our well-being (you nor Sam Harris have even defined what that means) and the planet's well being are not necessarily the same thing. Hypothetically, there could be a choice between increasing the well-being of the current population, but neglecting or harming the potential well-being of the planet and future generations. Take the time to understand what I'm saying, instead of repeatedly accusing me of complicating the issue.

[Clydey]

@limitbreak323 It is a complicated issue. You cannot reduce it to such an ill-defined concept and then brush off any challenge to it, as though Sam's logic is bulletproof. You first have to assume that human well-being is all that matters, then you have to define precisely what that means. Merely asserting that human well-being equates to good simply does not wash. Reasons need to be provided. I've already offered an equally valid alternative.

[limitbreak323]

@Clydey "there could be a choice between increasing the well-being of the current population, but neglecting or harming the potential well-being of the planet and future generations." It's not difficult to point out the obvious silliness of this argument. Use his analogy about physical health and it's the exact same thing. Sam has over and over said that minimizing sentient suffering is what well-being is. What is so incredibly difficult to understand about that?

[Clydey]

@limitbreak323 It's not difficult to point out the silliness of that argument, yet you completely failed to do so? I'm astonished that you are so easily convinced by such a poorly defined concept. Physical suffering? Psychological suffering? Did you even read his book? Even he goes more in depth than you have, so I have my doubts as to whether you are familiar with all of his arguments. It's a shame that so many of my fellow atheists have swallowed this nonsense, simply because it came from Sam.

[smudgemax]

@Clydey I don't think he is contradicting himself, i think he is arguing that science, reason, logic and common sense should all be united. I agree with him because they all do make good bed-fellows. I don't really see how having good common sense and applying reason and logic is unscientific. I want to be more eloquent in my reply to you but i think i can understand where he is coming from, but perhaps I am not explaining myself properly, i have to admit.

[equsnarnd]

@smudgemax I think you've got it right. He cites Wittgenstein on the bewitchment of language and I think that is an extremely profound notion to ponder. Language is not reality but many people treat it as though it were. Think of Descartes and his colleagues vivisecting live dogs and denying they felt any pain. This is truly a bizarre example of language overwhelming science, common sense, decency and empathy.

[towneslives]

@smudgemax

they have. he's just articulating a variation of utilitarianism.

[psychuous1]

@smudgemax If you like this you should read Dr. Frank Wallace -- Zon Power -- drfrankrwallace com

[ExtremeBogom]

@smudgemax

Why are you assuming that noone else has?

Like you say it's very simple. You can't tell me you've never thought that way before?