MSS - 27 - Part 8 - Sam Harris and objective morality

This show was broadcast on 10 June 2012.


The Magic Sandwich Show website is still under construction but you can contact any of the regular panelists through the webiste.
The website is here:
http://www.magicsandwichshow.com/
(Thank you to youtube user emilyhasbooks for her assistance is producing the site)

We are now numbering the shows rather than relying on the date to identify them.

Other parts of the shows can be found here:

Part 1
GIVE ME EVIDENCE OF ABIOGENESIS OR I WIN BY DEFAULT!?!?!?
http://youtu.be/XDp6tZ448-g

Part 2
Atheism and belief in the big bang
http://youtu.be/tekV5QqtBio

Part 3
Defining objective morality
http://youtu.be/aWkaMMvqMXw

Part 4
Defining life
http://youtu.be/mpi7L-IqnXU


Part 5
Aronrahahaha and his problems
http://youtu.be/NQ-UkI028tI

Part 6
Talking in tongues
http://youtu.be/_ht0hD-Iv6Q

Part 7
Religious door knockers
http://youtu.be/KuZAadAxzFY


Part 8
Sam Harris and objective morality
http://youtu.be/N-BftnNJQak

Part 9
The most egregious statement ever made on the internet
http://youtu.be/9l8SwZ_A7YE

• Category

  Education

[Jonathan Bailey]

Ultimately we all value things to a varying degree.

[DKshad0w]

BigDummy

[mathmexican4234]

I don't know why people care so much about attaining objectivity. Let's ditch that goal.

[VanguardSupreme]

"All you need to do is accept that there are good and bad answers to a dilemma." Maybe. But the full phrasing to that statement that, in my view, makes it subjective is that:

"All you need is to accept that there are good and bad answers *contingent to the end you seek.*"

Moral decisions and evaluations are ALWAYS conditional to an individual's values/goals/desires/preferenc­es/emotions, etc, and I haven't seen anyone theist or atheist, give any good explanation otherwise.

C0nc0rdance wins.

[kyebean]

When I listened to Harris, I had the same reaction. I agree that he presents it badly. However the point I think he's trying to make is not that "we all have the same values". He's trying to delineate the best, most objective and most useful definition of "morality". What do you mean when you say "establish objective morality"?

[Preston McDonald]

I agree with c0nc0rdance. Harris hasn't actually attempted to establish objective morality at all. he has just hand-waved the subjective/objective distinction away by saying we all have the same values. At around 21:00 this comes out quite clearly. If he just stopped representing his position as having squared the circle and solved the is/ought problem he would get less push-back.

[kyebean]

It's important to realize that Harris is not defining "morality" as a value system, he's basically defining it as the net pleasure/pain experienced by others as a result of a given decision. There is no subjectivity there. Pleasure/pain is defined in this context as including all desirable/undesirable feelings to the mind in question, so a mind cannot “prefer pain”. They can prefer events that most other minds might find painful but to the mind in question these would be termed pleasurable.

[kyebean]

Claims that religion is the only source of an “objective” moral standard, I can only assume are poorly trying to reject the idea of determining morality by instinct. They are presenting a wretchedly false dichotomy as there is clearly an abundance of superior ways to determine morality besides instinct or religious texts. Ironically religious people attempt to determine morality by instinct more than most, acting as if their instincts were telepathic messages from their favorite deity.