Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[Unbeliever]

Very interesting, "many roads" theory.

 

[Valiant_Soul]

I am sorry, but from what I can figure out from this video, the speaker does not has the appropriate understanding and proper concept of life.

Probably he is not wrong in his own place but the topic he is on is fundamentally incorrect and impossible. Impossible because you cannot detach science from its materialistic approach and that approach is devastating to the very notion of morality. The title of the video is "Science can answer moral questions". The "not so smart-guy" who gave that title is so confiscated by sophisticated science that he thinks you need science to answer such trivial stuffs as morality?

Morality can be answered by anyone having a pure heart and sense of justice - that is all you require, in fact you cannot answer moral questions without these qualities in you no matter how knowledgeable you are. You do not need science to answer moral questions. But you do need something more than "common-sense" to know and understand why exactly you need to implement the moral values on yourself. Think of this question - "I am a rich and powerful bastard and I have everything to live the way I want to live. What reason is there for me to be a good person following moral values at the cost of my whims and desires - whatever they may be?" Or this question - "I was walking down a road and a poor guy dropped his bag (by mistake). I went up and saw a delicious amount of money. Why should I not keep the money for myself and devoid the other person of perhaps his whole life's savings?"
What is then the value of justice and injustice, and what are the implications of being on either side of them when these two guys have the complete freedom to take benefit of their situation?

Ponder my friend!

 

[Unbeliever]

I am sorry, but from what I can figure out from this video, the speaker does not has the appropriate understanding and proper concept of life...

Maybe you disagree with his concepts but he definitely has the understanding.. He is a PHD in Neuroscience and also has a degree in philosophy. Furthermore he studied Budhism and meditation. So maybe you just didn't get it what he was actually claiming, which is quiet modest and even self-evident to a certain degree if you think about it..

What do you mean by "he is not wrong in his own place"?
What he is talking about are facts, that can be known about human happiness, that is: universal facts. He is not wrong that these things can be known "anywhere". He is not talking about very detailed value judgments(which have one or several definite answer, hence the food analogy), but he explains very clearly that although there are "many roads" to happiness does not make it a vacuous concept and we know quiet a large number of things that are OBJECTIVELY either detrimental or beneficial to human well-being.
You won't disagree that there CAN be objective things known about human happiness (just like the examples he gives), will you? That would be pretty idiotic.

Impossible because you cannot detach science from its materialistic approach and that approach is devastating to the very notion of morality.

That is just not true. Maybe your understanding of science can't, but you are, just like in the other thread, confusing the scientific method with the natural sciences. Political Science, Sociology, Psychology are just a few examples of non-materialistic sciences at least in the narrow-sense that you define 'materialism'.

The title of the video is "Science can answer moral questions". The "not so smart-guy" who gave that title is so confiscated by sophisticated science that he thinks you need science to answer such trivial stuffs as morality?

Now you disappoint me. How did you get that ridiculous idea? Think about it! Morality is anything but trivial. Look at human history, look at human behavior right now. There are thousands upon thousands of examples of immoral behavior that has been considered
moral at the time, has been institutionalized and kept going by entire cultures. Slavery is one of the best examples. Simply because it was convention nobody questioned it for hundreds of years and it is still done in some north African countries like Sudan. Look at the institutionalized child rape in Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Yemen etc..

I could go on for ever.., sorry but that point of yours is simply ridiculous and I think you agree if you think twice.
What constitutes a moral act has been changing and shifting since humans exist and has been and still is a matter of debate, tradition, upbringing and opinion. I mean, not even all countries could agree on the convention of human rights! And to change this relativistic approach and fill it with facts is exactly what science is for, just like in all other fields of interest.

Think of this question - "I am a rich and powerful bastard and I have everything to live the way I want to live. What reason is there for me to be a good person following moral values at the cost of my whims and desires - whatever they may be?"

You are jumping between individual morality, which is intrinsic for basic things (no murder, rape, theft) and collective ethical or moral behaviors and standards. It is about questioning traditions that are kept for their own sake.
The reason "to be a good person" doesn't need science, what this is about is "what is a good person?" "What kind of behavior increases human happiness or well-being?

Questions that are relevant to this speech would be something like:
"Is it a good idea for a society to hang its homosexuals?, to stone its adulterers?" "Is it a good idea to force children to wear burkas?(directly or indirectly through group pressure) or to subject them to physical harm and humiliation to build their character and benefit their development?

I hope you get what I'm saying since you have it pretty confused right now

 

[Valiant_Soul]

I request that you please bear with me, because I know that the concepts and notions that I talk about, are hard to reconcile with given the current mindset people have in general about the concept of life, the values of life and the underlying ultimate reality.

I know I sound absurd to you, but I request you to make unbiased effort to see the other side of the coin as well, that I am trying to help you to see. However, there was certain misunderstanding from my part as well when I was watching this video, I totally forgot to think that the speaker is not talking about pure scientific subjects, as I had in mind, before I started watching this subject. I thought this is something to do with physics and mathematics. I was very sleepy when I watched the video and wrote my response.

So yes you were right when you said:

Maybe your understanding of science can't, but you are, just like in the other thread, confusing the scientific method with the natural sciences. Political Science, Sociology, Psychology are just a few examples of non-materialistic sciences at least in the narrow-sense that you define 'materialism'.

Now let me give my corrected opinion on the video. When I watched it again I figured out that the speaker was trying to simply highlight certain black & white facts that can form the basis of understanding morality. Like abusing women, executing people, etc can be clearly distinguished to be evil and certain other facts can be distinguished as angelic or benevolent.

There is one thing he said that was most important and I totally agree with - that is why should we think that there cannot be any expertise in morality and why each culture cannot define morality according to their perceptions or traditions. Morality is not subjective - traditions may be, but any tradition that attacks morality and subdues justice must be abandoned.

With all this in place, I still do not see anything remarkably new or eye-opening in the video. I know you are just a little angry with me for belittling the video and the speaker, but do not get me wrong, I simply did not find anything worth in this.

Maybe you disagree with his concepts but he definitely has the understanding.. He is a PHD in Neuroscience and also has a degree in philosophy. Furthermore he studied Budhism and meditation. So maybe you just didn't get it what he was actually claiming, which is quiet modest and even self-evident to a certain degree if you think about it..

If you think holding PhDs are definite qualifications for understanding the concept of life, I will bluntly tell you that it is the greatest blunder you would do in judging a person in this regard.

Now there is a misunderstanding due to my last post, that I must clear. I do not think the speaker's concept is wrong with what he is saying - what I meant to say is that he did not and he cannot present the complete concept of life. These people are remarkable in complicating the most simplest of concepts. The concept of life is fairly simple - but only when you thoroughly know and understand the underlying reality - which is why modern physics is very important.

What do you mean by "he is not wrong in his own place"?

The topic given to him is itself absurd and the speaker simply presented the old wine in a new bottle, messing up what he ultimately wanted to say, because I really could not figure out what his ultimate message was. If it was just this that some fields of science can help distinguish between black & white facts of morality, then that is superfluous.

What he is talking about are facts, that can be known about human happiness, that is: universal facts. He is not wrong that these things can be known "anywhere". He is not talking about very detailed value judgments(which have one or several definite answer, hence the food analogy), but he explains very clearly that although there are "many roads" to happiness does not make it a vacuous concept and we know quiet a large number of things that are OBJECTIVELY either detrimental or beneficial to human well-being.
You won't disagree that there CAN be objective things known about human happiness (just like the examples he gives), will you? That would be pretty idiotic.

Exactly, I do not disagree that there objective facts about life. But then why do you need PhD to know that?

The term "happiness" you raised is of great significance. The concept
of happiness requires careful understanding. It is another topic so I leave it for some other time. But I tell you this - the concept of happiness that you currently carry is not the proper one. The knowledge of the concept of happiness or the lack of it is what makes all the difference in a man's life.

Now you disappoint me. How did you get that ridiculous idea? Think about it! Morality is anything but trivial. Look at human history, look at human behavior right now. There are thousands upon thousands of examples of immoral behavior that has been considered
moral at the time, has been institutionalized and kept going by entire cultures.

My friend, you cannot ridicule me for that, because I totally know what I said. I again reiterate - for defining morality all you need is a pure heart and a great sense of justice. Morality is not subjective, traditions may be. You are mistaking morality with traditional viewpoints of day-today life.

What constitutes a moral act has been changing and shifting since humans exist and has been and still is a matter of debate, tradition, upbringing and opinion. I mean, not even all countries could agree on the convention of human rights! And to change this relativistic approach and fill it with facts is exactly what science is for, just like in all other fields of interest.

You are completely mistaken. What constitutes moral acts is fairly simple to know. The only prerequisite is as I mentioned - pure intentions and sense of justice, and to add a common amount of common sense as well. Morality does not changes, only the perception of people about morality changes.

We can discuss this in detail if you wish.

You are jumping between individual morality, which is intrinsic for basic things (no murder, rape, theft) and collective ethical or moral behaviors and standards. It is about questioning traditions that are kept for their own sake.

Okay, but I wanted to raise the point about why exactly we need to follow moral principles. Those questions make you think in that direction.

The reason "to be a good person" doesn't need science, what this is about is "what is a good person?" "What kind of behavior increases human happiness or well-being?

Questions that are relevant to this speech would be something like:
"Is it a good idea for a society to hang its homosexuals?, to stone its adulterers?" "Is it a good idea to force children to wear burkas?(directly or indirectly through group pressure) or to subject them to physical harm and humiliation to build their character and benefit their development?

I hope you get what I'm saying since you have it pretty confused right now

I totally got what you are trying to say, forgive me for my hasty post. The questions you posed are relevant but again why do you require a Sam Harris for that? No sane person can deny that forcing someone to do something, for example wearing burqa, is not an act of morality. But if the person forcing it says that we believe that it benefits women to wear burqa for whatever reasons, how can you refute that unless you know exactly why he is wrong. That is when I say we require the complete understanding of life, not in pieces, to make judgments even on the most trivial subjects.

My friend, I may sound confused to you, but trust me when I say that you are far from reality right now and so are 99% of our fellow human beings. And I know exactly what I am saying. The points I raise are important to ponder upon, even though they may seem out of context.

P.S. It took me more than an hour to write this, just imagine how much I like you.