The New Science of Morality - Sam Harris P3

The failure of science to address questions of meaning, morality, and values, notes neuroscientist Sam Harris, has become the primary justification for religious faith. In doubting our ability to address questions of meaning and morality through rational argument and scientific inquiry, we offer a mandate to religious dogmatism, superstition, and sectarian conflict. The greater the doubt, the greater the impetus to nurture divisive delusions.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Sam Harris
• Neuroscience
• Philosophy
• Science of Morality
• Edge Conference
• Edge
• Atheist

[fctchk]

There are some hypotheticals that are just bullshit, this would be one of those: 7:52. Merely even uttering it is a marker for a lesser mind. Of course Mr. Harris, true to form, defeats it. Regrettably without duly and deservedly humiliating the schoolmarmish gotcha goaded questioner, which would have been so much more satisfying.

[Scofield0085]

Jonathan Haidt's reasoning, or lack thereof, on this issue is at best, neutral. Sam deserves a better antagonist.

[shandcunt]

@reafdaw01 "Does he want to justify their suffering by the "benefits" of the west?

He makes the whole issue far to simple and begs the really difficult moral questions." - Well that in and of itself is too simplistic isnt it? how do we know if the war is going to benefit them or not? it is almost impossible to say with any great deal of certainty at this time.

Now im not claiming harris didnt "Over" simplify but you accused him of stepping in cow shit and then you did the same

[certaintythrudoubt]

@fctchk You have a disgusting idea of what debate should be.

[certaintythrudoubt]

@fctchk You have a disgusting idea of what debate should be.

[Resenbrink]

"island of delusional bliss"...I love it.

[reafdaw01]

Also: how would we confront the problem of utilitarianism? Sam Harris supported the war in Iraq altough this clearly reduced the wellbeeing of people in the region. Does he want to justify their suffering by the "benefits" of the west?

He makes the whole issue far to simple and begs the really difficult moral questions.

[reafdaw01]

Interesting idea. There is however a problem with this: what is the community unto which these standards should apply? Should it be applyed to the whole of humanity? If we do that there are propably a lot of things we in the west couldn´t do anymore (like buy cellphones becauese someone sufferd in the mining of the minerals. Or should it even be applied to other sentient beeings like whales?

I would very much like to have these kinds of ethics but I fear they will be ignored.