Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[dj357]

And primate groups have different forms of 'social norms', grooming rituals and so on, amongst those of the same species.

Differentiation doesn't change the fact that 'isolated' populations developed isolated moralities, and even then there is a lot which is similar about them - primarily don't kill anyone who's part of your group.

and it doesn't negate the fact that you can objectively identify how successul certain behaviours (or structured policies, in the human sense) are in contributing to certain goals

[Trolldor]

Thank you for making my point for me.

objectively identify how successul certain behaviours (or structured policies, in the human sense) are in contributing to certain goals

If my goal is to subjugate women then Islam is a very effective set of morality, which provides a rather comprehensive set of certain behaviours.

[GrahamH]

One mistake, assigns objective value in 'survival'/'flourish' etc.

How about "invariant relative value"? Organisms capable of value judgements, who don't assign a positive value to survival, aren't likely to survive. There is an inevitable bias there which is at least somewhat objective.

[Trolldor]

Survival is not 'objectively' good, which is what he's been arguing. Considering it good and it being good are not the same thing.

I think Cake is delicious, that doesn't mean it's objectively delicious.

[dj357]

Thank you for making my point for me.

objectively identify how successul certain behaviours (or structured policies, in the human sense) are in contributing to certain goals

If my goal is to subjugate women then Islam is a very effective set of morality, which provides a rather comprehensive set of certain behaviours.

and here's where I say, "but we're talking about positive goals" and you say "how do you determine what's positive or not? from islam's point of view subjugating women IS positive" and then I say "doh, you've defeated me you quick witted sir you!"

except I'm not daft.

happiness is the goal we are looking to achieve. just as there are various positive means by which to acheieve good health through food, so there are various positive means by which to achieve happiness. there are also certain means which are neither good nor bad and some which are generally detrimental and some which are plain bad. eating mcdonalds and solely mcdonalds and not exercising is clearly bad for health. this is undisputable. so too, can we say X Y or Z is good, bad or indifferent to reaching individual happiness on the largest scale.

happiness is a state in the brain. subjugating women generally leads to unhappiness (are you going to dispute this?!) in the women being treated as such, while the men may simply view it as duty and not be affected by it one way or the other. some may be happy, some may rail against it, the average would point to apathy in the face of aherence to islam.

[GrahamH]

Survival is not 'objectively' good, which is what he's been arguing. Considering it good and it being good are not the same thing.

I think Cake is delicious, that doesn't mean it's objectively delicious.

But in general, if your ancestors hated the taste of such high-energy foods, you probably wouldn't be here.
It isn't a choice to like sugar, fat and salt in some form. Most people like cake. Most people like bacon (If they are allowed to eat it. You can't like a taste you've never tasted)
If everyone considers it good it falls short to call it subjectively good. He isn't claiming that stars find survival good, is he?

[dj357]

Survival is not 'objectively' good, which is what he's been arguing. Considering it good and it being good are not the same thing.

I think Cake is delicious, that doesn't mean it's objectively delicious.

But in general, if your ancestors hated the taste of such high-energy foods, you probably wouldn't be here.
It isn't a choice to like sugar, fat and salt in some form. Most people like cake. Most people like bacon (If they are allowed to eat it. You can't like a taste you've never tasted)
If everyone considers it good it falls short to call it subjectively good. He isn't claiming that stars find survival good, is he?

the thing is we are applying subjective things (deliciousness, goodness etc...) to objective means. objectively if 100% of people find cake delicious, we can say, objectively it is delicious. if it's 50%, objectively we can say some people like it, some don't. if it's 75% we can say, a lot of the time, it is delicious. objective methodologies like this can help us to choose which policies of interaction (morals) are objectively good, based on the subjective experience of people they affect.

[Hermit]

In a nutshell, Sam Harris argues against the idea that "It's thought that science can help us get what we value, but it can never tell us what we ought to value." He then proceeds to tell us that the value science gives us is 'well-being'. I listened to his speech twice, then found a transcript of it, and read it carefully, and still can't find even a hint of how scientific knowledge can be seen as a direct path to objectively justifying something Jeremy Bentham advocated a couple of centuries ago and Epicurus many centuries earlier. Harris seems to be oblivious to the fact that he is slipping a value judgment into his train of thought. Yes, almost every one of us will agree that well-being is the most desirable state that we can think of for ourselves individually, and most of us think all other human individuals are entitled to well-being too because we are empathic and altruistic. But what - within the body of knowledge we call science - compels us to do so? We are never told.

[Spinozasgalt]

Having read the transcript (thanks for providing that Seraph ) I wonder if Harris understands what a descriptive account of ethics is meant to do for an objectivist. He doesn't use it to his advantage.

I don't know where he gets this thing about the popularity of normative relativism, because it's not popular in moral philosophy. The only one I can think of who has such a view is Wong and that is of course a fairly different view to the one Harris describes. Heck, metaethical relativism isn't even very popular anymore. Most are only descriptive relativists and I have to wonder if Harris knows what that is.

[JOZeldenrust]

Sure science can answer moral questions. It's just that those questions require axioms that aren't sientific. Axioms like "human suffering is undesirable" or "human wellbeing is desirable". The truth of these claims can't be determined through scientific, or even rational means. So while I believe that forcing women to wear burqas or forbidding kids to listen to the kind of music they like is wrong, and that there are good reasons to have that position, it's still not a scientific position.

[charlou]

Sure science can answer moral questions. It's just that those questions require axioms that aren't sientific. Axioms like "human suffering is undesirable" or "human wellbeing is desirable". The truth of these claims can't be determined through scientific, or even rational means. So while I believe that forcing women to wear burqas or forbidding kids to listen to the kind of music they like is wrong, and that there are good reasons to have that position, it's still not a scientific position.

Not necessarily disagreeing with the bolded bit, but would like you to explain how you think science can answer moral questions? Just out of interest.

[JOZeldenrust]

Sure science can answer moral questions. It's just that those questions require axioms that aren't sientific. Axioms like "human suffering is undesirable" or "human wellbeing is desirable". The truth of these claims can't be determined through scientific, or even rational means. So while I believe that forcing women to wear burqas or forbidding kids to listen to the kind of music they like is wrong, and that there are good reasons to have that position, it's still not a scientific position.

Not necessarily disagreeing with the bolded bit, but would like you to explain how you think science can answer moral questions? Just out of interest.

I might have made myself more clear. The questions Harris adresses in his talk are, at least semanticly, moral questions: "How should people live?" Science can answer such questions, given nonscientific moral axioms like "suffering should be avoided" and operational definitions of the concept used like "suffering is a class of brain states that includes c-fibre firing, dopamine deficiency etc." The problem is that Harris has warped the syntax of moral claims. The syntax of moral claims is rather simple: "x is desirable." Complex moral claims usually follow the syntax "x is desirable, y leads to x, y is desirable." Harris only uses complex moral claims, and chops of the first sentence, making it look like he has established the truth of the first claim. He then goes on to show that the second part of his claim is a scientific claim (which is correct), jumps over a huge hole in his logic, and claims he's reduced moral claims to positive claims.

Science cannot justify the position that suffering is to be avoided, or wellbeing is to be persued.

[PsychoSerenity]

Science cannot justify the position that suffering is to be avoided, or wellbeing is to be persued.

One mistake, assigns objective value in 'survival'/'flourish' etc.

How about "invariant relative value"? Organisms capable of value judgements, who don't assign a positive value to survival, aren't likely to survive. There is an inevitable bias there which is at least somewhat objective.

I'm thinking along the same lines as Graham. The physical properties of the universe give a complex system that produces evolution. If a species evolves the capacity for morality, the only completely sustainable morality, is one that says that the long term survival of the species is good.

I think that's a fairly solid basis for morality - then we can use science to work out the best way to survive - which inevitably means making the most the human potential for creativity, by reducing suffering, not killing etc. Of course, many things end up being moral grey areas, because we're not that good at predicting the future, but it's a start at least.

[Surendra Darathy]

one that says that the long term survival of the species is good.

Yeah, well. Get a second opinion. Of course a human is going to tell you that. By and large.

You're not doing philosophy, here. That's religion. Unless, I suppose, you define religion as philosophy.

[PsychoSerenity]

one that says that the long term survival of the species is good.

Yeah, well. Get a second opinion. Of course a human is going to tell you that. By and large.

You're not doing philosophy, here. That's religion. Unless, I suppose, you define religion as philosophy.

Sorry I don't understand what you are saying here. I'm talking about evolution.