Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

http://www.ted.com Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at http://www.ted.com/translate. Watch a highlight reel of the Top 10 TEDTalks at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Sam
• Harris
• TEDTalks
• TED
• talks
• science
• morality
• philosophy
• religion
• faith
• culture
• moral
• human
• values

[MrWasapenis]

If i wanna know what a science is i dont look at the creators of the atomic bomb and judge them on that, similarly if i wanna know what a christian is i dont look at the people who represent it i look at Jesus Christ.

[Mystro1989]

little to emotional sammy. yes it is terrible and sad but keep with the logic and keep it moving.

[rza1m]

@MrWasapenis We don't look at Christians, we look at the philosophically inconsistent doctrines, the absolute and objective morality of god. It's the reason people blow up abortion centres and buildings. Only religion can justify these actions as moral to a religious person. Society doesn't need it.

[consummateify]

I feel really lucky that I have an opportunity to take part in this massive sharing of knowledge I thank people that make this possible.I don't know any people to talk to about these things(that have the contemplative capasity for it).Just as I wanted to abandom morals completely.Sam showed me a new perspective.

[rza1m]

I can't believe the two top comments are just full of shit.

[devious21]

@MrBenedictDonovan "Ethics will always be muddied by opinion, and to think otherwise has macabre implications, in terms of moral elitism and personal choice."

He addresses all that. He has gone over this subject many times and likens it to chess. There may be multiple moves that are all equally good. But we know some moves are objectively better than others.

What that means is that contrary to what's been commonly believed, morality is NOT completely subjective.

[MrBenedictDonovan]

@devious21 I think Harris' anti-religious work is sound though!

[MrBenedictDonovan]

@devious21 OK, I admit 'similar pressure' was the wrong thing to say. Obviously the violence of certain Muslims is a terrible thing, and doesn't facilitate human flourishing, but I don't think that is 'all he is saying'. He mentions the idea of one morality, unified by scientific observation, but in my opinion, this is impossible. Ethics will always be muddied by opinion, and to think otherwise has macabre implications, in terms of moral elitism and personal choice.

[devious21]

@MrBenedictDonovan "He talks of the pressure women undergo to wear burkhas in Islamic society, but if most people took his view on 'cloth-bags', women would experience similar pressure to NOT wear them,"

By "similar pressure" do you mean "reinforced with violence"? Because he is not advocating that anywhere.

All he is saying is that if an action is demonstrably detrimental to human flourishing, then it is not moral.