Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[Hermit]

the only completely sustainable morality, is one that says that the long term survival of the species is good.

That would have to be the ultimate naturalistic fallacy.

[PsychoSerenity]

the only completely sustainable morality, is one that says that the long term survival of the species is good.

That would have to be the ultimate naturalistic fallacy.

I still don't quite understand this. From the link you give, what I understand it as is, Moore says it's a fallacy to claim a natural process like survival is good, because he says goodness isn't a natural thing. Is that right?

I think what I'm trying to say is, maybe goodness is a natural thing, something fundamentally inevitable, given the physical properties of the universe. The only morality that can survive is one that says survival is good. That's how we evolved our morality.

Can you please explain this to me, if I'm still going wildly wrong?

[colubridae]

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.

Not quite, but I would define philosophy as religion.

[RuleBritannia]

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.

How else can you view the world other than from the point of view of a human being? And who can you get a "second opinion" from, other than another human being?

[PsychoSerenity]

By the way, I'm not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but Sam Harris did a follow-up explanation to his talk, where he countered some arguments, here:

http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/ ... _science3/

[charlou]

By the way, I'm not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but Sam Harris did a follow-up explanation to his talk, where he countered some arguments, here:

http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/ ... _science3/

Thanks for the link ... will take a look at it later.

the only completely sustainable morality, is one that says that the long term survival of the species is good.

That would have to be the ultimate naturalistic fallacy.

I still don't quite understand this. From the link you give, what I understand it as is, Moore says it's a fallacy to claim a natural process like survival is good, because he says goodness isn't a natural thing. Is that right?

I think what I'm trying to say is, maybe goodness is a natural thing, something fundamentally inevitable, given the physical properties of the universe. The only morality that can survive is one that says survival is good. That's how we evolved our morality.

Can you please explain this to me, if I'm still going wildly wrong?

It's just your anthropomorphic application of the subjective emotion "good" to describe things which happen in nature ... It's a common thing to do, and since we're talking about what is "good" for humans, it's not a "wrong" thing to do (IMO, of course ). Philosophical pedants (Sam mentions them in that first video, iirc) will argue (correctly) that morality is subjective and nature is objective, and the former is not a component of the latter, but an anthropomorphic opinion of it.

As I said, we apply our own values to nature. In Australia I think 24 degrees is a lovely day, ie "good" ... In Scotland 24 degrees is considered too hot, ie "bad" ... The value of 24 degrees exists only in the minds of those who perceive/experience it. I don't think humans are the only animals who do this, either. We're just conscious of doing so. Other animals have evolved taking advantage of beneficial aspects of nature. I think our concsiousness of it puts us at an advantage in that we can apply that to improving our situation as human beings. I do think there's a scientific element in that, but I find it difficult to explain how that is so when so many people think of science as a dictator rather than a tool.

[Trolldor]

Read comment 100 of that article.

[PsychoSerenity]

Philosophical pedants (Sam mentions them in that first video, iirc) will argue (correctly) that morality is subjective and nature is objective, and the former is not a component of the latter, but an anthropomorphic opinion of it.

How exactly do they argue that morality is subjective and nature is objective? I think I may need to do a bit a lot more reading on this.

I think what I'm arguing is, maybe morality is objective.

As I said, we apply our own values to nature.

But we get our values from our culture and, even if an individual has wildly different values, there is an absolute limit, in any given culture, (simplifying it here) of the percentage of people who don't value survival and the survival of the culture. If the number of people who die, as a result of a destructive morality, exceeds the birth rate - the culture will fail.

It seems to me that that is where we (of the surviving cultures) got our 'ought' from. Which would mean that 'survival ought' is an inevitable result of evolution, and not subjective.

It's certainly fascinating, even if it's still going over my head. I'd love to read more about it if you can point me to any good links.

[Trolldor]

morality is objective.

Objective morality.

[RuleBritannia]

morality is objective.

Objective morality.

How's that objective?

[Trolldor]

...that's the point, RB.

Morality is not objective.

[RuleBritannia]

...that's the point, RB.

Morality is not objective.

Gotcha.

[PsychoSerenity]

morality is objective.

Objective morality.

I get what you're saying. Maybe I should explain that I'm considering morality to be a cultural thing, made up of the interactions of the people in the society. I don't think morality could exist in an individual alone, who had had no contact from society. It's something we evolved within groups.

Then I would say that those attacks would be considered a fundamentally immoral act, within any culture capable of surviving. Of course in this case, it was between two cultures, as the cultures clashed - which is why, for millions of years, war has been considered perfectly acceptable - because the survival of rival cultures was not necessary . However, we are gradually becoming one global culture - and as a global culture we will not survive if we consider that kind of act to be morally acceptable.

So we can continue to consider survival to be a morally good thing - as we have for millions of years, allowing us to get here - or we can kill each other, and let another species have go.

[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]

[PsychoSerenity]

By the way, I'm still interested to know exactly how philosophers argue that morality is subjective - if anyone could give a good link, or an explanation, I'd really appreciate it. Maybe it would clear all this up for me.

[siodine]

For an explanation of why morality is a philosophical question (that can be supported with science) as well as criticism of Harris's ethics, see this discussion with two skeptics (one a philosopher the other a neurologist, both are materialists): http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsg ... -05-12.mp3 (discussion starts at 34:38).