Part 2 of 6 - Morality (Audio) - Sam Harris & Richard Dawkins conversation - 12 April 2011

Who Says Science Has Nothing to Say About Morality?
A conversation between Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
It took place on 12 April 2011 at Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford, UK

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• sam harris
• richard dawkins
• 2011
• morality
• moral
• moral landscape
• god debate
• atheist

[smudgemax]

Sam Harris has such a simple idea really and you wonder how others haven't come up with it. Just can't find anything wrong with what he is saying. Simple, but brilliant and elegant.

[jaylias]

"what is health? it has something to do with not vomiting all the time" "biblically inelegant" LOL Sam is so awesome!!

[georgio210]

the virus of concern for a subjective concequential after life is the root of the lack of regard for the well being of others. thats what needs to be eliminated, you only have now; today, and you have no real reason to think other wise. fix it, make the best of it and fight for the right of others to do the same. who wouldnt like the idea of an after life

[ExtremeBogom]

@smudgemax

Why are you assuming that noone else has?

Like you say it's very simple. You can't tell me you've never thought that way before?

[psychuous1]

@smudgemax If you like this you should read Dr. Frank Wallace -- Zon Power -- drfrankrwallace com

[towneslives]

@smudgemax

they have. he's just articulating a variation of utilitarianism.

[equsnarnd]

@smudgemax I think you've got it right. He cites Wittgenstein on the bewitchment of language and I think that is an extremely profound notion to ponder. Language is not reality but many people treat it as though it were. Think of Descartes and his colleagues vivisecting live dogs and denying they felt any pain. This is truly a bizarre example of language overwhelming science, common sense, decency and empathy.

[smudgemax]

@Clydey I don't think he is contradicting himself, i think he is arguing that science, reason, logic and common sense should all be united. I agree with him because they all do make good bed-fellows. I don't really see how having good common sense and applying reason and logic is unscientific. I want to be more eloquent in my reply to you but i think i can understand where he is coming from, but perhaps I am not explaining myself properly, i have to admit.

[Clydey]

@limitbreak323 It's not difficult to point out the silliness of that argument, yet you completely failed to do so? I'm astonished that you are so easily convinced by such a poorly defined concept. Physical suffering? Psychological suffering? Did you even read his book? Even he goes more in depth than you have, so I have my doubts as to whether you are familiar with all of his arguments. It's a shame that so many of my fellow atheists have swallowed this nonsense, simply because it came from Sam.

[limitbreak323]

@Clydey "there could be a choice between increasing the well-being of the current population, but neglecting or harming the potential well-being of the planet and future generations." It's not difficult to point out the obvious silliness of this argument. Use his analogy about physical health and it's the exact same thing. Sam has over and over said that minimizing sentient suffering is what well-being is. What is so incredibly difficult to understand about that?

[Clydey]

@limitbreak323 It is a complicated issue. You cannot reduce it to such an ill-defined concept and then brush off any challenge to it, as though Sam's logic is bulletproof. You first have to assume that human well-being is all that matters, then you have to define precisely what that means. Merely asserting that human well-being equates to good simply does not wash. Reasons need to be provided. I've already offered an equally valid alternative.