Sam Harris - Stem Cells and Morality

A section from Sam Harris' talk at the Beyond Belief 2 conference. Harris argues that religion obscures moral intuitions, using the case of stem cells.

Check out The Science Network at http://thesciencenetwork.org/

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Sam
• Harris
• Stem
• Cells
• science
• morality
• atheism
• politics
• Bible
• theology
• religion

[ihr0ppa]

Sam Harris tells it like it is.

It's really funny how he shows how ridiculous religious believe is.

He should consider making "scientific" comedy or somthing like that :D

[puolalainen44]

3:27 thief!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

[Jessesse7]

@ihr0ppa His work is too important to lower to comedic purposes - he's making immeasurably significant inroads against the theology that binds us to ridiculous notions and chains us to complacency.

[Bowser1111]

"Embryos can split [...] is this a case of one soul splitting into two souls?" This statement is absolutely mind-blowing if you stop to think about it. It utterly destroys not only religion, but also everything our intuition tells us about what a human being actually is.

[patientthomist]

I am responsible for the environments I put myself in, but not for DNA. Free will in humans is limited in altering DNA in ourselves, but apparently and increasingly not in others (DNA manipulation). This gives rise to a whole host of ethical considerations.

[patientthomist]

I mean that the formula is DNA + environment + free will. If we say just environment we are determinists. If we say environment and DNA we are naturalists. If we say environment and DNA and free will, we are free will proponents, which is the norm. In the case of naturalists and determinists, there is no responsibility or accountability for moral action. Proponents of free will know they are responsible for their choices, since they could freely do otherwise.

[FryderykFChopin]

@patientthomist 'I don't think anyone really believes that our environment and our heredity entirely shape our characters without our consent'. When you say 'without OUR consent', what do you mean by 'our'? DNA + environment. And because you can't be responsible for those two factors that entirely shape your character, how can you be responsible for the actions that arise from your character?

[patientthomist]

@FryderykFChopin

I don't think anyone really believes that our environment and our heredity entirely shape our characters without our consent (especially beyond childhood). That consent is our free will. It is true that it's impossible to escape environments completely, since we are designed to be within environment. But we can choose which environments we want to be in, unless our free choices (not free will) are limited ... e.g. prison.

[FryderykFChopin]

@patientthomist There is an undeniable human tendency to see ourselves as free and morally responsible beings. But there’s a problem. We also believe—most of us anyhow—that our environment and our heredity entirely shape our characters (what else could?). But we aren’t responsible for our environment, and we aren’t responsible for our heredity. So we aren’t responsible for our characters. But then how can we be responsible for acts that arise from our characters?

[patientthomist]

In a certain way, it is true that it comes down to perception ... or epistemology. How can we be sure we know what we know? But it also comes down to the practical use of free will. We choose freely to accept that we know what is real. Whoever does not subscribe to free will at least subtly subscribes to determinism of a kind. Did you have to write your last post if you weren't feeling like writing it?

[TearsOfWar1]

@patientthomist What I was getting at is, if you had the perfect illusion of free will, what would be the difference to us if we actually had free will? It all comes down to perception.

P.S. Not a Solipsist, just posing a question.

[patientthomist]

@TearsOfWar1

Well, I could say that everything is an illusion, including science. I mean there is no end to that. We can only know, based on our experience. The common human experience is that we have the ability to act against our instincts. That's the entirety of the evidence and the definition of free will. What evidence is there that free will or knowledge or experience is an illusion?