CFI-NYC | Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape

On Oct. 7, 2010, the Center for Inquiry in New York City hosted Sam Harris for a public lecture about his new book, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values." The event was held at the New York Society for Ethical Culture. This is the full video, including both the talk and question-and-answer session.

In "The Moral Landscape," Harris argues against the notion that good and evil, and right and wrong, are unanswerable by science. Harris posits that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.

For more:

www.centerforinquiry.net/nyc

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[Mablak]

That's perfectly fine, Sam is chiefly trying to argue that the debate about morality is about the truth or falsity of moral premises, and thus a question of facts. I don't think anyone could possibly disagree with Sam's main premise though. He's simply saying that morality must relate, in some way, to the mental states of conscious creatures. Every moral system has this feature in common as an explicit or implicit goal, are you really against that premise?

[Boogey man]

each time, a believer falls from faith, a fish is granted its legs ;)

[Sam Butler]

Read his mind*

[Sam Butler]

Morality as I understand it deals mostly with how we treat one another, which is a very serious issue. Sam Harris' view of morality is the only one which even gives us an opportunity to have a discussion about right and wrong based on an axiom which is tangible to any faith, or lack thereof. I can't read his mid, but I don't think he's trying to argue for a universal set of moral laws for big brother to enforce; rather a step in the direction of having a diverse conversation about them.

[180DegreeMason]

Science just as much should try to describe morality as it should determine which art is the best. Which is never. Morality is a personal experience. Morality is tied to the experience of suffering and pain, pain itself cannot be measured as each experiencer of pain has a unique experience. The same injury will leave different people in different states of suffering. All moral rules have exceptions in extreme cases. Morality is something we feel internally, cannot be tested just like beauty.

[Riley Jones]

A first step. But I think he adressess it in the QA. It's the second question or something.

[kajmobile]

im not disagreeing with sam's system of morality. im just disagreeing with his claim that science can determine morality. it cant, just like it cant tell u what the best color is. morality is subjective.

[Riley Jones]

No, but then again, like he says: certain opinions must be excluded. Why must different opinions be valued in morality while it dosent have to be valued at all in any other domain in human life?

[Sam Butler]

You think so? Iunno, guess we'll have to agree to disagree. That's not what I collect from what he says. He admits, from what I recall, that we only need assume that what he calls 'the worst possible suffering for everyone' is bad - assume it, not prove it.

Of course, but we also have a ridiculous number of people who think that everything which lives today survived a global flood by hopping on some boat built with iron-age tools and knowledge. Doesn't mean we can't call science, science.

[kajmobile]

i dont think Sam is saying if we can agree then let's make morality based on well being. i think he is saying i have scientific proof that it should be based on well being.

also, we CANT all agree that maximizing individual well being is what should be ethical. there are billions who think it should be whatever god commanded according to some ancient book!

[Sam Butler]

Yeah, I agree that you can't scientifically prove that it is ethical to maximize well-being without harming others. I think Sam's main point is that, if we can at least agree on this one little thing, the best way to figure out what best gets us to this goal is the spirit of science - measuring certain claims of ethics against others through critical thinking an observation couldn't possibly be bad. All of science relies on axiomatic judgments to build upon. This doesn't make it unscientific.

[kajmobile]

I think ur missing my point. I agree our moral system should be based on well being. I also agree that science can determine how to best achieve well being.

What I am saying (along with the vast majority of philosophers) is that you cannot scientifically prove that pursuing well being is moral. Morality is subjective. The only thing we can say is that some people prefer well being over suffering. Harris's book has not put the cognitivism v. non-cognitivism philosophical debate to rest.