Ray C God is the invisible man in the sky I am referring to.. The NON existent invisible man in the sky..

Ray C ... When Christians say there is a god, they are talking about their invisible god, who lives up in the sky. So, yes. Granted, it is a tongue-in-cheek description of a god, but it has elements of truth to it in that many gods are 1) invisible, and 2) live in some sort of expanse or space outward or above us. The gods of the major religions also tend to be male, obviously excluding many of the Hindu deities, who are depicted as female.

I think you just don't get the joke.

"Noone comes to the 'FATHER' except through me." What about that is not patriarchal?

Ray C "But that doesn't negate nor contradict the fundamental conception of Yahweh as immortal and/or possessing superhuman powers and faculties" No, evidence and facts do that just fine. I cant believe its 2014 and people are still engrossed in this superstitious nonsense.

+Scott K Morality springs entirely from enlightened self-interest. It's actually mundane once you understand it.

+Scott K Even though I am anything BUT a huge Sam Harris fan, I'm glad we can agree on what you've stated, namely that Sam Harris's whole method first requires one fundamental assumption in order to work. That is, first granting that human well-being is something that is morally good. Harris acknowledged this in the video at the onset of his response. It's interesting that secular moral reasoning must first assume something in order to go, just like the common theories of evolution typically first assume the miracle of the Big Bang in their effort to debunk the miracles of the Bible. Evolution first needed a miracle before it could grow legs; secular moral reasoning first needed a miracle before it could grow legs. Maybe people won't like me using the word "miracle" regarding the start of secular moral reasoning, but that's really what it is because the whole fundamental assumption upon which it relies contradicts the whole method of secular moral reasoning. Put another way, secular moral reasoning runs on logic and reasoning, but it does so on the grounds of assumptions of the goodness of well-being. It's a method seeking to be consistent with itself that starts with an assumption that is inconsistent with itself. So, like I said earlier, I'm glad we can agree on this even though we're probably much, much different theologically. Related tangent: I watched the movie Interstellar recently, and I was keenly interested in the part of the movie where *spoiler alert* Anne Hathaway says that nature doesn't commit evil acts, only people do. Matthew McConaughey responded along the lines of "Then the only evil in this unexplored galaxy is the evil we bring with us." Hathaway gave her unspoken agreement. Isn't it interesting then, in that discussion, that the very goodness of Man's existence is called into question? If you ascribed your thinking solely to the merits of that discussion, you might say that the universe would be better off without Man, the one who brings evil. Those two characters in the movie would clearly tell you that without Man there would be no evil in the universe. I wonder what Sam Harris would say about that part of the movie, and how he would refute their objective moral claim that human well-being is destructive to the universe, and therefore according to secular moral reasoning, should be considered morally evil?

+Matt R "...just like the common theories of evolution typically first assume the miracle of the Big Bang..." science does not assume anything - if someone assumes something, that it is not science. Science is about drawing conclusions from the observations, not the other way around. In the case of Big Bang, most scientists thought at first that the world had no beginning, BUT THEY CHANGED THEIR OPINION when they were confronted with compelling evidence. That is the major difference between science and religion. Religion praises the ability to have faith regardless of the amount of evidence against your position. Remember children: the easiest thing for a person to do is fool himself.

Sorry if this will sound silly, im fairly new to this topic. But it seems to me that we do need science in order to advance our understanding of how to achieve well-being, and our morals can in fact be adjusted and constructed depending on the latest scientific findings. As an example, through science we came to know that waste is negatively affecting our environment and carbon dioxide emissions are the causes of global warming. We know that if these problems continue, it will make the lives of our offsprings on this planet difficult. Therefore it becomes immoral not to recycle or not to reduce CO2 omissions when we can.

+Scott K I can't speak on behalf of Sam or anyone. But I'm pretty sure about this. You haven't understood Sam's argument om how science and moral truths. He's arguing that science can in fact help us to figure out if actions are morally good or bad. It is NOT just a matter of intuition. That's completely opposite of what he's arguing. His analogy with economics is pretty spot on, acknowledging that a "moral landscape" and an analysis of it would be far more complicated, maybe even impossible to ever map. The "low hanging fruit" is just an easy example, but asking "which degree of human compassion is morally good" could also be answered if you knew every variable that affected the situation and could map and analyse every historical event, understand every macrosocial and microsocial situation for all affected areas (the world in this case) etc. etc. And even if you can't understand everything, you'll probably be able to "engineer" your way through it by looking at patterns in history, tests in the current world and an approximation of the full model.

You have to be skeptical always. I agree that it was a good question but Im sure the entire lecture answered that before it was asked.

Really? I thought he sort of rambled on...

You're not the type to study at Oxford either are you? Now if it was a proper debate, he'd then afterwards have the chance to ask "did that answer your question?" and he would then have the opportunity to say yes or no and then clarify what his question really was about.

agree

The person who posted this video, is the same guy who asks the question. So it's no surprise he didn't choose one of those titles

+Justice Hunter Great quote! My problem is this though: If science can educate us to make better decisions in a world that is indifferent to how we feel or what we desire, then truly there is no objective moral point, practically zero. With this in mind, how is killing the weak wrong if we want to advance survival of the fittest as a species? If the universe is indifferent to our pain - which i think is true - why aren't humans indifferent too? Regards. p.s: this is not an attack or a desire to start a youtube comments feud, I want to see what you have in mind about this.

+absba9 Thought I would chime in. This seemed like a good question. I think the essay A Critique of Cultural Relativism answers this question. Basically because humans are a social species we have developed a kind of universal truth based on trust. In the Essay trust is the basis for human existence. The examples go something like this. If humans could not trust each other there would be no foundation on which human existence could flourish. If everyone you met either lied to you or tried to kill you, you would avoid people all together: like mountain lions. Trust essentially layed the ground work for language, society etc. To answer your question about killing the weak. I think of society as a new threshold, an evolution of evolution in which our whole conception of survival of the fittest has transformed. If we were hunter/gatherers( were resources were limited) it very well might make more sense to leave the sick and old behind, like you say for the strength of the whole. Which would arguably be moral, as it shows concern for societies preservation. But because we live in a complex society where resources are abundant we do not find ourselves in situations were the weak must die off. If anything imbalances between how those resources are distributed among global populations shows that it's not so much a matter of strong vs weak. It is possible that many are weak directly because of exploitation by those who are strong.

well said.

+Justice Hunter Good thread. I agree with Jacob: we are moving past the individual looking out for herself and her children and into a society of individuals trying to figure out how to best serve the needs of and advance that society. It's a fight against evolutionary human nature. I think Mr. Harris has actually talked about this.

+absba9 There doesn't need to be an objective moral standard. Morals are made by humans for humans, so we're the ones who decide what's moral and what isn't. Of course, since morals aren't absolutely objective you do have to base them on something that is, and due to the way humans work morals are just a way of maximizing our pleasure (or minimizing our suffering, whichever way you want to put it). And then things start to get a bit more complex, since maximizing ones own pleasure also involves helping other, maintaining our well being for as long as possible as opposed to going for short term pleasure, etc. That's where science comes in, it helps us predict the best actions to take to reach our objectives. And we also can't forget everyone is different, so people will also have different opinions on morals at times, but there also are some points in which almost everyone agrees, such as "killing each other is bad". Or maybe I'm just saying stupid shit since I just thought of this on the spot and I'm really tired right now.

I agree. I don't really like Sam Harris that much. that said, I thought it was a great question and a great answer.

+Thomas Maresh I took it to mean "challenged" as in Brian gave Harris the opportunity to answer a very difficult question. Not "challenged to a duel" or anything controversial at all. It's a subtle but important difference

+Thomas Maresh Sam Harris can only fool morons like you... keep buying his books... that's how he makes a living anyway....

***** You're another of Sam Harris nutjob Fanatics... You can't even make a sound argument...

Just a question (probably a stupidly brave question with the quality of some of the replies here); are we confusing correlation with causation with that women's education and reproductive rights example? I know you're not the only one who's making that argument but it strikes me as a bit of a stretch. For instance, couldn't it be just as easily argued that countries that are not doing well prohibit their women from leaving the house because they're afraid? I'm making a sort of warped "women and children first" argument here, I realise, but it seems to be an unjustified assumption that promotion of equality for women came first - and then came the country's demonstrably better performance. Please realise I'm not arguing for women to locked at home. I'm commenting on the intellectual disconnect between those who believe they're keeping their women at home "obviously" in order to protect them (and thereby ensure their community's long-term survival), and those who believe that women being kept at home "obviously" caused the difficulties these countries are facing (thereby threatening their community's long-term survival).

😂😂😂

😂

Can be ,: great fun, illuminating, taking a trip and never leaveing the farm....

"Who are we to say that it's wrong to throw battery acid at children's and women's faces"? -Ham Sarris

@@jeannedarc7533 " ... I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn't felt sexually attracted to mice. I know I have. I mean, most normal adolescents go through a stage of squeaking two or three times a day. Most youngsters on the other hand, some youngsters are attracted to it by its very illegality. It's like murder - make a thing illegal and it acquires a mystique. Look at arson - I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn't set fire to some great public building? I know I have. The only way to bring the crime figures down is to reduce the number of offenses - get it out in the open - I know I have" - Kargol, psychiatrist

it sort of is a challenge, because if he is making a "common sense argument", it's saying he isn't really saying much.

i still don't see how that is a challenge. He was simply asked to illustrate his point more in a more sophisticated way, in order to make the whole point stronger, but the guy already agreed with the claim that sam harris made. But whatever. not like this actually matters. This comment will be seen by a few people, and then disapear into the immeasurably vast, exponentially expanding ocean of (mostly useless) information, that is the internet. So why am i still writing this? Because i'm bored. In a world like this one, with all the unbelievibly mind shatteringly incredible aspects of reality, it is still possible to feel bored. But as my sister once said - "if you're bored, you're boring". I wonder if anyone will read this nonsense comment this far :D, and if someone does - why? not like this is of any value to your life. this string of incoherent sentences does not enrich your experience of reality in any way. And yet you're still here. I will leave you with one thing i know to be true, probably the only thing i am certain to be true, a fact that is undeniable - Grateful Dead is the best band that has ever existed.

Hm.. but the student posed the illustration that it's low hanging fruit. He asked how Harris can use scientific endeavour to make objective claim in morality.. if you follow Harris' response .. he doesn't even say how. He only talks about compassion.. which when I last checked, not a scientific term.

hmm he wasn't merely asked to clarify a point, he was told that the arguments he had presented so far were weak, and asked to provide a strong one. That's being challenged.

He was challenged in the formal sense.

LOL I just saw that😂😂

Pursue Dawkins and make him your girl

@@KevanMajere33 😂

Please listen to other music, thank you √√√

Why not just take on the humble position and say, that you don`t know IF `science can reveal morality`? Nobody holds any obligation of forming a belief on matters that are not suitable for forming beliefs upon.

I know where you're coming from, but everything else in human knowledge depends on axioms as foundation. Really, nothing can tell us that we "ought" to value well-being whatever it's definition. Nihilism awaits those who try. In much the same sense, nothing can prove that B = B. 14 = 14 is not a scientific statement, it's an axiom. We absolutely HAVE to make presuppositions to advance discourse. No school of thought circumvents this. Really, this subject pisses me off because it is a moot conversation ender. tldr; You're right, but if science can't, nothing can.

If morality is a `social contract`, then it should be in the best interest of any person to be moral. And science (allthough it can`t give basic motivation for being moral) can then give information for us to judge the morality of a thing. If science was able to show WHY we are moral beings, this could be maybe be a reason to be moral. Because a lot of people aspire to be `their natural self`. [Even though I personally think this is a stupid reason to be moral.]

If there is something that science cannot answer, then nothing will ever come even close to addressing the question. Science is the best method of inquiry and it is only superseded by more science.

Anubhav Bhardwaj Can science answer your claim?

Danny Boy Calmest listener ever. I hereby forge the scale of calm listening, it is graduated from Dawkins to Trump.

dawkins was the first one who explain how the moral evolve based in genes in his book the selfish gene. Why twins are the ones with the stronger bond, then mother, father, son, similar in apparence, from animals to animals who are not similar at all. The explanation of that empathy we feel, the good and wrong.. is all in the genes, etc.

No. Dawkins and Harris are phonies of the highest magnitude!

I like people who can listen in a debate and do not interrupt people mid sentence.

@@johnbarrett5229 a neuroscientist and biologist are phonies? Perhaps I'm not following your logic?

I believe that may be missing the point, Ryan. I'll try to explain it as I understand Harris' case. When we talk about morality, Harris tries to get to the bottom of what we mean by that. Well, as it turns out, when we talk about morality, what we really end up talking about is the well-being of sentient beings. Throwing battery acid in somebody's face is clearly an immoral action because it clearly diminishes their well-being greatly. It's the widest, most general link to the real world that morality has, and therefore it's a basis for a science. It's for that reason that morality's subjectivity doesn't matter - it's getting past the topic. What Harris says is that we mean "what improves and doesn't improve well-being" when we say "morality". And that well-being can be measured scientifically, therefore it is no longer in the realm of the subjective.

I agree with Ryan, Harris' argument is only valid when you define "moral" as "maximizing well-being", which has some chance of being measured or quantified.

if we accept "well being" and its objective assessment through science as the basis for our moral framework then we have to accept that the evolutionary mechanism of the "low hanging fruit" i.e common sense arguments on morality, placed in our brains over millions of years, are derived from that very concept of "well being". the scale over which that concept of well being extends may vary from an evolutionary perspective( individual,tribal etc) and a modern scientific one( society, multiculturalism,nations etc) and hence the objective moralities of the two may give us different end results. i can't think of an example right now( 3 am) but if i do, i'll certainly post. i hope i made sense though : )

Ryan's point is that having well being as the basis for our moral framework is an assumption

As is the fact that we ought to value health, an assumption. And yet we use it as a basis for the science and study of health. All of the sciences are based on an assumption which must be accepted if the science is to be practised - an assumption. The assumption need only make sense, which in the case of different states of well-being mapping on to what we mean by "morality", it certainly does. Harris' point is not to say that science has the answers to all moral questions. His point is that morality falls into the purview of science, much like equally vague or vast concepts such as health or economics.

James Khan Actually, that's a pretty bloody good summary of this whole page!

James Khan THANK YOU. I scrolled through the comment section and was like "Wtf? Did we even watch the same video?"

James Khan If principle applies to everyone then is it acceptable to from a basis of morality around it. No one actually wants to suffer as much as possible. As such everyone, except perhaps mental illness patients perhaps? still maybe not, value avoid suffering/striving towards well-being. That's about as objective of a framework as we can come up with imo.

I don't see why we need science or religion when it comes to morality. If someone can't tell the difference between right and wrong then they are a danger to society. Think before you act and use your common sense. If you can't then you're an idiot and have a major screw loose.

DEEZ NUTTZ That's not exactly an enlightening comment. "Common sense" is not a well-defined concept. Obviously, moral sensibilities differ from person to person. Your moral values are not common to everyone, so in that sense, there is no "common sense". The interesting moral questions are those that ask about what happens when people's moral sensibilities come into conflict.

It had to be carefully worded, because he basically told Sam Harris that everything he'd said for the last hour-and-a-half was bullshit and a waste of time, yet said it in such a polite and academic way that Sam was forced to follow with, "That's a good question." That is a delicate balancing act!

"he basically told Sam Harris that everything he'd said for the last hour-and-a-half was bullshit and a waste of time" ...No, he didn't. He asked why Sam Harris was using the obvious, common sense examples like "throwing battery acid in peoples face". He was basically saying that it isn't a good example because it's an already solved issue, as most people in the developed world would generally agree that it is morally wrong to do that. I think he was looking for Sam Harris to use science to solve a moral dilemma on the spot. One that wasn't so easy to pick a clear wrong or right.

Nope. You've missed the point. He doesn't just take issue with the example, he said Sam did not address the "really interesting" premise that he'd promised. He wrote an academic paper against Sam's premise, for goodness sake. www.academia.edu/10290501/Science_cannot_determine_human_values?auto=download

Rory Stevens

Cessily Wow, there's a good read. Thanks for posting it.

The grad student was asking Sam to make the case for a strict, direct scientific ground for morality without the super-easy cases answered by so-called common sense (such as "isn't it wrong to throw acid on someone's face). We don't really need a system of morality to explain something that horrendous as "wrong", is the point of the questioner, I think. Sam's answer, however, failed because he never provided that strict and direct scientific basis for determining right from wrong.

@@MrAntiOrdinary science doesn't determine anything about morals. Nor does it claim to.

@@jaymeanderson5121 That's true. But the grad student there got the impression that Mr. Harris thought he COULD ground morality in science. That's why his answer skirted around the question.

Me too, I find this to be true of most of the IDW group.

@tnnt05 organic things break down over time.

+Matt M I think Sam referred to economic systems as an analogy for his exploration of morality through science -- he appeals to simple cases now only to establish that there are certain right and wrong answers, just that the complexity involved in harder cases makes it hard to quantify them. Of course, I agree with you -- Sam was caught off guard, and didn't vaguely begin to give a real answer, but he did try, let's give him that much.

+randombutspecific I know ur right, and he was comparing economic systems to moral systems and our ability to make economic decisions and moral decisions must have some sort of underlying "scientific" basis. Clearly comparing economics to morality would by most rational standards, would commit the fallacy of false analogy, as they are two completely different notions. In answering this question this way, Sam Harris seems completely oblivious as to the nature of argument that his detractors are making (he seems completely oblivious about this to this very day). If he wanted to actually make it a comparable analogy to answer this guys question, he would have to tell us how you can use scientific principles of economics to prove to some Tibetan monk who thinks everyone should live a life of poverty that he "ought to care about an annualized GDP increase of about 4%", or to an Amish farmer that he "should care about technological advancement to improve productive efficiency". Instead he rambles and he makes himself look foolish. This is what he always does, in all of the many many times I have heard him talk.

+Matt M nah that's not the question at all. he's ask what is the true underlying argument behind the easy cases such as looking at basic human well-being in the face of (hehe) acid throwing? and how does science provide us with an answer to that sam's approach is to show that some things are clearly wrong evinced in the easy contexts, he sets this up with his analogy to economics. so he's saying no it can't tell u what to do, but science can tell u what is truly wrong eg someone throwingacid in ur face by ur loss of well-being as a result of that

+Stan Alpha No, literally, that is his question. You as Sam Harris seem to completely miss this argument made by his antagonists, including this statement. As you state, Sam Harris makes an argument that uses science to determine if something is good for our "well-being" or in some other cases he argues that we can use science to determine what maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering. While these two concepts are completely different and can be in conflict, he seems to use them interchangeably. I digress. To respond to what you're stating about this student's question, I'll merely quote him starting at 16 seconds: "you seem to be claiming to do something much much more interesting than that, namely that you can appeal to science to prove something that is SUBJECTIVELY true about morality". Pay attention to that word "subjective". In other words, making a statement such as "not throwing acid in someone's face increases their well being and therefore is the morally right decision", of course this could be demonstrated scientifically. What you CANNOT demonstrate scientifically is the SUBJECTIVE axioms that underly this statement that "I ought to care about an individuals well-being". If you think this subjective axiom is true, cite to me all of the scientific evidence that I "ought to care about a person's well-being." Just as one simple example, there are many, many people in history who were Collectivists who felt that the collective survival of a society as a whole, or even the human race, is the primary "moral good". If that meant throwing acid in an individual's face to achieve this objective by maintaining order in society or some such thing, then throwing acid in someone's is morally "good". Prove to me scientifically that they are all wrong, but Sam Harris is right because of his appeal to "common sense". What is most frustrating about Sam Harris, he seems to have this cocky, demeaning attitude toward Christians, but he does not seem to understand the philosophical nature of this argument whatsoever. He may be a good neuro-scientist or whatever, but he doesn't seem to understand even basic notions of this philosophical argument. It is very simple, if there is no God, and your only appeal to authority is "Science", there is simply no reason whatsoever to believe that "I ought to care about another person's well-being".

+Matt M That's simply not true. The scientific reason to care about another person's well-being is that, due to the observed patterns of human behavior, showing care toward others increases the chances of reciprocity; i.e. if I refrain from throwing acid on other people's faces, it significantly decreases the chances that someone will throw acid in my face, which increases my well-being. Increasing my well-being is a natural goal. The entire basis of morality is survival; only religious charlatans pretend otherwise.

Stephen Hawking said philosophy is dead. That's the way we tried to explain the world before science. Just a thought.

@@doncourtreporter Oh, well if the great Stephen Hawking chimed in, I suppose I will change my mind. Why didn't you tell me this before!?

@@Hegeleze Haha. And he's correct. Who gives a damn about one's "philosophy"? That's nothing like science. And you're almost funny.

Don’t confuse science with understanding. Science left that realm long ago for technological know-how. Think if I asked you what a “door” is scientifically. You actually must assume a prior level of knowledge which science then acts on. Let’s say you respond that science discovers new areas and makes new terms. True, but the atoms are still atoms of the door, right? But then you say we can isolate out the area without the need of talking about doors at all! Ok, now the interesting part - science can’t give an account of the scientist who is doing the analysis. Cut out the human world all you want, you’ll never cut out the human which gives access to the scientific world meaning you’ll never get rid of philosophy. QED.

You determine what you ought to do by analising morality scientifically as a social phenomena. Which then leads you to conclude what is that should be prioritised. Spoiler: sentient creature. Why? No time to explain. But you can figure it out.

"Science is based on axioms that are said to be self-evident." Which axioms specifically? "Logic is also based on axioms that are said to be self-evident." Which axioms specifically? If Harris wants to argue what he is saying that science can decide morality that goes way beyond any things taken to be self-evident in both logic and science which tend to be of a rather more "If you disagree you are literally insane and we will have to lock you up" type. "This simple self-evident axiom, that it is better to promote well-being than suffering, then we can begin to make truth claims about what is moral and what is not. " You can't because it fails for a variety of reasons. 1. Well-being is a pretty nebulous phrase where people have many different ideas about what that means or what it would mean to maximise well being. 2. Sometimes suffering is viewed by most as better than increasing "well being" if it means not abusing the liberty of others or similar abuses of rights (the standard transplant surgeon objection) 3. There are a variety of thought experiments about morality where people have different opinions; there is no scientific measure which will resolve those thought experiments. 4. Many people simply don't agree that the Hedonistic paradise is any paradise at all.

Cathal Ó Broin *>"Which axioms specifically?"* undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions *>"Which axioms specifically?"* editthis.info/logic/The_Laws_of_Classical_Logic *>"If Harris wants to argue what he is saying that science can decide morality that goes way beyond any things taken to be self-evident in both logic and science which tend to be of a rather more "If you disagree you are literally insane and we will have to lock you up" type."* No, it doesn't. Sam Harris is essentially saying: "Science can decide what promotes well-being and what doesn't. If we can accept that promoting well-being is moral, then science can decide what is moral." Accepting the premise that promoting well-being is moral and demoting is immoral necessarily allows science to explain what is and isn't moral on an objective basis. *>"You can't because it fails for a variety of reasons. 1. Well-being is a pretty nebulous phrase where people have many different ideas about what that means or what it would mean to maximise well being."* Which is not an issue at all. I think what you're saying is that the problem with well-being is that it's ill-defined, but it's not, it's being well. Google defines it as "the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy". Well-being is both satisfying physical needs and emotional needs, and keeping one in good health. If you were to say well-being is ill-defined, then shouldn't we stop studying medicine? Because who's doctors to say what medicine is good for us and what isn't? They can't define well-being. But actually, they can, everyone can, it's pretty simple. This is why we give cancer patients chemotherapy, because we know what well-being is. *>"2. Sometimes suffering is viewed by most as better than increasing "well being" if it means not abusing the liberty of others or similar abuses of rights (the standard transplant surgeon objection)"* Preserving rights is preserving well-being, because if you lose rights, well-being is lost as well. If a person needs a transplant, and another person has the organs but is unwilling to give it, you aren't just saving one person and sacrificing another if you decide to take his organs anyways. You're both killing someone and removing the right to life, which is more detrimental to well-being than simply letting the first person die. Plus, I'm not sure why you're bringing liberties and legalities into this. That's rather irrelevant, because just because something's moral or immoral doesn't dictate whether or not it should be legal. *>"3. There are a variety of thought experiments about morality where people have different opinions;"* That's not an issue in the slightest. We can test each opinion and see which yields the greatest measure of well-being. If someone thinks spanking is moral, and another thinks is immoral, we can test that. Plenty of studies have already been done, and we know by this point that spanking is always damaging to well-being and non-violent forms of punishment promote well-being. So, we can easily tell which person is right and wrong. Or, sometimes, they may both be right. *>"there is no scientific measure which will resolve those thought experiments."* No, because the "thought experiments" are flawed. It seems to assume that because two people reach different conclusions, it means they're both right necessarily. But that's just absurd. If we're using an objective basis (well-being) we can actually determine empirically whose opinion is right or wrong. Both people having different opinions proves nothing. *>"4. Many people simply don't agree that the Hedonistic paradise is any paradise at all."* Not sure how this is relevant at all.

Amelia Hartman Re. assumptions in science. The article giving assumptions for science is not only wrong at a basic level it's also clearly aimed at children. If the "supernatural" (however one could define it) did in fact impinge on the physical world, then it is fully possible that science could also have a theory which incorporated it. The "non-overlapping magisteria" claims were adopted by many groups largely for public relations reasons. In fact, that entire explanations makes metaphysical assumptions that are not required in science and appears to be explicitly taking a scientific realist stance. Presumably this is because, as I mentioned, it's an explanation for school children. *Preserving rights is preserving well-being, because if you lose rights, well-being is lost as well. If a person needs a transplant, and another person has the organs but is unwilling to give it, you aren't just saving one person and sacrificing another if you decide to take his organs anyways. You're both killing someone and removing the right to life, which is more detrimental to well-being than simply letting the first person die.* Firstly, how did you perform that calculation scientifically at all? You've just claimed it's more detrimental, but show me your calculations in terms of health, happiness and comfort. Rights are not in any of these except to the extent that my rights contribute to my health, happiness and comfort. Please show me how your scientifically balance between rights, health, happiness and comfort. Secondly, the transplant thought experiment is where one person is killed to save (say) 7 individuals. I'll add that in the thought experiment the person whose organs are removed is peacefully put to sleep without realising. They never feel any unhappiness nor lack of comfort, but those seven the doctor saves have much improved health (they would surely have died otherwise), comfort and health. Clearly looking at the balance there are two possible outcomes. If the doctor performs the transplant then 1 person dies but 7 live in comfort etc. In the alternative situation, 6 die, and one person lives in comfort etc. Thirdly, you appear to be changing your definitions now. You said : *You're both killing someone and removing the right to life, which is more detrimental to well-being than simply letting the first person die,* But clearly your definition of well being includes no descriptions of rights at all so can not appear now in your objection. Fourthly, being dead is not a defined state in terms of well being, so you also can not introduce it now as a factor. Not being around means they are not in discomfort nor in pain nor in bad health. *Well-being is both satisfying physical needs and emotional needs, and keeping one in good health.* If that is your definition of what matters to optimise then I think you'll find very few people agree. This is standard hedonistic utilitarianism and a lot of nasty outcomes arise if you actually follow the reasoning through without shifting to preference utilitarianism when it suits you. *If you were to say well-being is ill-defined, then shouldn't we stop studying medicine? Because who's doctors to say what medicine is good for us and what isn't? They can't define well-being.* Even that is not so simple. A medical researcher attempts to objectively discover the benefits of a particular treatment. These are the facts of the matter. It is not up to a doctor to decide for a person that they should take the medicine. A person may make their own quality of life judgement and decide not to take the treatment, or the family to pull life support etc. It's also not a medical decision weighing up the quality of life vs the financial cost. That depends on the person (or an ethics committee deciding what drugs to buy with public money). As the transplant dilema shows, just blindly optimising for maximum health is also not the best thing to do. *it means they're both right necessarily.* No it doesn't. That's not what you are meant to get out of these thought experiments. *we can actually determine empiracally whose opinion is right or wrong.* No you can't.

Cathal Ó Broin *>"The article giving assumptions for science is not only wrong at a basic level it's also clearly aimed at children."* le random guy on the internet thinks he knows better than Berkeley. They're not the only university to support this, either. web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/NOS%20Over.BasicAssump.html But hey, email these universities and tell them you know better. I'm not going to debate some random dweeb on the internet about whether the universities have it wrong. If you can't accept such a basic point, there's really nothing I can say for ya. *>"Firstly, how did you perform that calculation scientifically at all? You've just claimed it's more detrimental, but show me your calculations in terms of health, happiness and comfort."* You're right, let's ban the government from administering chemotherapy to children. Because, you know, it's _impossible_ to know whether something promotes well-being or not. So who knows what that shit is doing to them! Let's all pretend we don't know about well-being! *>"Rights are not in any of these except to the extent that my rights contribute to my health, happiness and comfort. Please show me how your scientifically balance between rights, health, happiness and comfort."* "Balance" is nonsensical. We aren't talking about the Force here. *>"Secondly, the transplant thought experiment is where one person is killed to save (say) 7 individuals. I'll add that in the thought experiment the person whose organs are removed is peacefully put to sleep without realising. They never feel any unhappiness nor lack of comfort, but those seven the doctor saves have much improved health (they would surely have died otherwise), comfort and health. Clearly looking at the balance there are two possible outcomes. If the doctor performs the transplant then 1 person dies but 7 live in comfort etc. In the alternative situation, 6 die, and one person lives in comfort etc."* You'd be a liar if you told me that you thought that it was immoral to sacrifice the 1 for the 6. The very computer you typed that on was created in an infrastructure that kills millions in order that countries like ours would benefit. Everyone sacrifices others for the greater good. But the aim should be reform so that we don't have to sacrifice anybody. But we all sacrifice others for our society's benefit. That's just an inescapable fact. *>"Thirdly, you appear to be changing your definitions now. You said : You're both killing someone and removing the right to life, which is more detrimental to well-being than simply letting the first person die, But clearly your definition of well being includes no descriptions of rights at all so can not appear now in your objection."* Nope, changed no definition at all. I honestly can't believe you're this stupid, are you just grasping for straw now? _Rights are concepts we made up in order to ensure well-being. That's the very fucking purpose of a right, you moron._ You honestly think rights have nothing to do with well-being. *faceplam* *>"Fourthly, being dead is not a defined state in terms of well being, so you also can not introduce it now as a factor. Not being around means they are not in discomfort nor in pain nor in bad health."* Okay, you are just really fucking stupid now. I'm about to just give up this entire conservation. This kind of stupidity isn't worth my time. Well-being is _being well_, if you fucking _die_, that's the worse of you can possibly be, besides being tortured before hand. My god, you're a moron. You're literally saying dead people are healthy. It's the exact _fucking opposite_. *>"Well-being is both satisfying physical needs and emotional needs, and keeping one in good health. If that is your definition of what matters to optimise then I think you'll find very few people agree. This is standard hedonistic utilitarianism and a lot of nasty outcomes arise if you actually follow the reasoning through without shifting to preference utilitarianism when it suits you."* Nope, just about everyone on the planet basis their morals on well-being. Even the Muslims who flew planes into the World Trade Centers believed their actions were for the greater good. *>"Even that is not so simple. A medical researcher attempts to objectively discover the benefits of a particular treatment. These are the facts of the matter. It is not up to a doctor to decide for a person that they should take the medicine. A person may make their own quality of life judgement and decide not to take the treatment, or the family to pull life support etc. It's also not a medical decision weighing up the quality of life vs the financial cost. That depends on the person (or an ethics committee deciding what drugs to buy with public money). As the transplant dilema shows, just blindly optimising for maximum health is also not the best thing to do."* Eh, no, you're utterly false and your claims can be easily disproven with a simple Google search. If doctors weren't responsible for determining whether a specific medicine is beneficial or not, and it was totally up to the patient, _then doctors who administer bad medicine wouldn't be arrested and sent to prison._ You're living in some sort of a fantasy land. *>"No it doesn't. That's not what you are meant to get out of these thought experiments."* Wow, what a disgusting straw man. You knew you were taking that quote drastically out of context, and you did it anyways. *>"we can actually determine empiracally whose opinion is right or wrong. No you can't."* Yeah. I'm done with you. You don't care for a second to have a serious discussion. You're constantly pulling shit out of your ass simply to make an argument, you don't want to gain anything out of the discussion, you just want to "win". That's why you'd say things so fucking moronic as "being dead is not a defined state in terms of well being", would take my quotes out of context, ignore pretty fucking obvious points that every philosopher and scientist agrees on (the axioms behind science), and then respond to some of my most important points simply by saying "No you can't" without even bothering for a second to ask me to expound on the point. Good day to you, sir. After getting to the end of your post, I realized how little you actually care for the discussion, and so I will not carry it on any further.

Amelia Hartman​​ your entire response is a joke. You deliberately misunderstood every single thing I said. Why bother discussing things with me when you have no intention of honestly arguing. misconstruing what I said (and ignoring every difficult question) doesn't argue against me, it simply makes you look silly.

***** Everybody is trapped in their own little ego bubble, they get influenced by other peoples opinions, each person makes up their own subjective opinions when it comes to morality. But you are right in following a type of golden rule which humans have adapted for social well being. But this golden rule "treat others how you would want them to treat you" was invented by many other cultures way before any bible was written or the mythical JC in the fiction novel the new testament was invented.

***** well he isn't a recorded historical figure either, unless you include the bible as a historical document, as opposed to a collection of myths, poems, and fables etc

***** Paul started christianity, he never knew a living human demigod Jesus. look if you want to believe in a fairytale , that's up to you. But prove to me Dionysus, apollonius, tammuz or Krishna never existed. all the other godmen who pre-date jesus show me the paradox that one is true and the others which pre-date jesus are false. Faith is belief without any evidence, that's what you are doing. Well I guess that favours you, the ignorant sheep get to heaven and watch the wise people of the earth get burnt in some torture chamber created by your loving god who was the designer of the rules, the builder of hell and the one who created the defective human in the first place, if anything he should be burning in hell, but I am not so cruel and couldn't even torture the most evil being for eternity, your god is stone cold cruel. I could never worship a god that tortures his own creation, and your Jesus is supposed to be this same loving god. Thanks but no thanks, I don't need your messed up fairytale that contradict reality and logic. Good luck to you.

***** what historians ? ones that are christians do not count, that is called bias. Tell me the proof, who outside the church says jesus existed? nobody, only a forged Josephus document that is so fake even church historians don't use it out of embarrassment. Just because a heap of ignorant people say something is true doesn't make it so, you have been fooled and are a walking zombie , brain dead to truth. But goodluck to you.

***** to me believing in fairytales is childish. In your opinion Is Jesus the god of the old testament ? The wiki page of the historicity of jesus is so shallow, it does not state any proof other than a forged josephus document and a mention of christians by Tacitus a man who lived and wrote 100 years after the supposed birth of jesus. Now 2000 plus years later a horde of christian historians believe in something to be true doesn't make it so. Whether a man named Yeshua existed or not is even beyond the point. To beleive he was born of a virgin (no sperm) and flew with his body into the clouds of heaven is insanity to the logical mind. And Jesus burns us in hell (under the flat earth) for eternity because we choose not to be insane and believe in the ridiculous.

You probably never seen any rioting, looting or even a simple Black Friday mob. As the Joker said (paraphrasing a bit) when the boat is sinking all the noble/moral people will eat each other alive. The notion that people can advance just with secular morality is PROVEN WRONG EVEYDAY EVENTS for the last well documented/recorded100 years. You dont have any morality without a standard outside Humanity because without that standard you cant justify it. You can understand morality and have it but its never justified objectively. Without God you have nothing. You cant objectively demand from a person to abide to any morality and you certainly cant judge them. Its always your word against someone elses.

@@kostasz7z wish i can prove ur being one-sided and perhaps a bit cringey, but i just woke up and might braindump later on

@@kostasz7z I think you're actually making some good points, but for God's sake please don't quote the Joker 😂

@@kostasz7z So if you don't have a god, where are you getting your morality from, since that seems to be the case. You are somehow assuming that I and other atheists have no more compass without a god when it's just not true. This argument is tired and has no basis in factual reality.

@@matth9359 but you have a conscience and the rest of it.

Well said.

Id ask you to go find the video with Lawrence Krauss speaking to two separate teachers of philosophy. Krauss explains why science slowly pushes Philosophy into being useless as even Stephen Hawking as said, but they show how philosophy isnt useless, it pushing science forward in ways science cant do itself. Its a good video and its not terribly long.

chainblade92 I've watched that video and I'm quite familiar with modern philosophy. I would put Massimo Pigliucci dead centre in the butthurt group or even as the leading butthurt philosopher. I'm not saying all of modern philosophy is useless, just a large amount of it. Philosophy can and should be very useful indeed.

have you read his book? its total garbage.

+Charles D. Jungheim :facepalm: ***Brian Earp, the guy *with* the brain.

I agree... And it seemed intentional and defensive, too... hmnm

You only hear what you want to hear, even if Sam directly answered the question.

titanbubu I am assuming that you think that I'm a religious person, and hence the "you hear what you want to hear" part. However I am an atheist and what Sam Harris did is bring irrelevant analogies which in their turn made no sense. But since you are so enlightened and have heard the "Direct" answer please elaborate, I only look forward to increasing my knowledge.

You are right. He has no idea what to say so just talks crap and hopes he sounds intelegent.

***** The question was why does Sam use "low hanging fruit arguments". And his response was clear, it is usually all we have to go on when dealing w/ complex systems. He used economics (a complex system) as an example, and it was a direct answer to the question. Start small, then build from what we know to be true. i.e. burning down buildings would create jobs however it is an irrational/immoral way to kick start the economy.

You are right. He addresses it more directly in The Moral Landscape, although it's a pragmatic answer that appeals to common sense rather than hard proof, so you might not like it. As I understand it, he basically makes the case that sure, you could define morality otherwise, but you'd necessarily end up with something less intelligible, less interesting, and less useful. What superior moral code could possibly exist that would have a goal other than maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures? Even religious morality, with all of its tangled and distracting dogma, is indirectly focused on maximizing well-being (especially over the long-term in the afterlife). It's just not particularly good at it, just like how primitive cultures endorsing abhorrent practices like slavery, the subjugation and mutilation of women, eye-for-an-eye vengeance, etc. are not very good at it. Given that any alternative definition of morality must be inferior from a practical standpoint, Harris deems it fair to accept the well-being-based definition of morality as an axiom and move on to other moral topics, similar to how we must accept certain axioms to make any progress in fields like mathematics. Sure, you are welcome to believe that 1+1=3, but you aren't going to get very far, and no one should feel obligated to take you seriously.

@@marredcheese see I thought the student was saying that even if we grant that maximizing well being is the goal, that Sam's making the claim of appealing to common sense rather than using science to help maximize well-being. And that you can't just appeal to common sense for the harder cases, like you can for the easy, "low hanging fruit" cases. Science can help us understand how to maximize well-being in some cases, but seems to break down for the harder cases. For example, wouldn't a strictly scientific approach to maximizing well being dictate that 1 healthy person should sacrifice their internal organs to save the lives of 5 other people that needed them to survive? Because 5 humans living well > 1 human living well

I've heard someone ask Sam that very question and his response was deeply unsatisfying and he again appealed to common sense, rather than using science to answer the question

He very much side-stepped the question while using an assumption and then applied it to economics rather than morality, even after conceding the assumption applied to a science that does not seem to follow experts' general assumptions in the first place. He then tried to use this cumbersome connection in a "this follows that" argument and pushed the square peg of economics into the circle shape of morality. Thoroughly underwhelming response to me. I would like to see him have a greater opportunity to answer to hopefully improve on this response as I am left with no greater enlightenment than before I started.

He didn't miss anything. That "low hanging fruit" is specifically the answer. You can't disregard it. If it seems so obvious, there is a reason for that. I feel like far too many people just absolutely don't understand what he's saying. It's sad. The student didn't understand the issue in the first place, if they thought we could disregard the obvious and low hanging. Those ARE the answer.

wowz im coming down off a transcendent trip.

Fair enough!

so very, very wrong. In some sense, killing my mother is bad, whilst killing Osama Bin Laden is good. In both cases people are murdered and you're describing the exact some experience, except the moral domain of each action allows you to feel in one case pride and in the other shame/guilt/anger. Suppose Osama Bin Laden is your father: are you justified to feel a particular way about him, or are you bound to have no justifiable judgement? If Osama Bin Laden is your father then whatever you do may be described to be in some sense wrong and in some sense right... Because you're able to perceive how strongly people feel about him and how strongly they may feel about your actions - due to your association to him - your choices, based on reasoning alone, will dictate how you feel about right and wrong, but your decisions will have no overall effect on what truly is right and what truly is wrong. Eventually you must ask yourself: is there anything categorically good/bad about reasoning? Unless reason is defined empirically, i.e. unless you can appropriately describe choices in reference to real physical objects, you can't really make that call, but even by somehow acquiring such a definition, you could *at best* relate the experience of choice with the sensations the parameters of such an experience allow you to have, that takes you nowhere near defining good and bad, it just specifies the idea of perspective.

well said

+zer o in some sense...

"Void of any intrusive cultural influences I think we would find a consensus on moral rights and wrongs due to altruism and empathy. But can you objectively show why morality should depend on the innate altirusm and empathy found in most humans? I'm an atheist and I'm on the fence with this topic. I think that once you accept certain goals for a moral code to strive for, you can objectively judge individual actions and behaviors as to whether or not they work towards said goals or against said goals. But it just seems that we've pushed the problem back. We've solidified that we can objectively judge actions and behaviors but, at least to me, fail at showing how the goals we use to objectively judge actions and behaviors are themselves objective as well.

Chris Hollier In the way we live today, anything other than seeing widespread reciprocal altruism as the main means of preserving genes corrupts our societes and causes inequality/suffering, which in itself is self-perpetuating and eventually backfires onto the fortunate. It radiates back to the general, logically derived, consensus on diminsihing suffering for everyone, which I can't see as anything but objective since everyone would agree on it in a worst case scenario. If you see his logical conclusion as objective, then this (as far as I've gathered) sole means to accomplish that is too. Therefore, the only method to truly advance our world towards that logical end is just that. Something I think should define secular values further. Watching lectures on human behavioural biology, one realises that we are indeed capable to be shaped into pretty much anything. But wether or not we would ever want to be self-destructive...I can't see it as subjective. It's also combined with the issue of free will and that we really have none. Even saying that would _want_ to be self-destructive is an oxymoron.

Chris Hollier You are a silly bitch.

"the perfect Austrian model is always right..." Somebody's full of shit.

Josh Carter You need to elaborate on that. Because cussing at someone is not an argument.

Too much cursing, fine. Let me put it this way, there's no such thing as a perfect economic model that is always right

Wave Strike you say Austrian model always right???/ Keynesian models have predicted low inflation and low interest rates. You Austrians have predicted high inflation and high rates for U.S bonds. The IMF has shown that the Austerity in Europe has a correlation with low economic growth and many times contraction(Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Lativa) You could not be more wrong about the facts.

Timzactive Take a guy like Peter Schiff predicting the housing bubble crash, he was in no way "blindsided." Keynesian fruits like Barney Frank argued in front of the entire nation and in front of the entire congress that there was no problem with housing. Let's keep it to the specific example Harris was giving and I think you will have to agree.

Adam Goldfarb Can you point to the spot in the speech where Harris calls morality "an objective thing"?

Oh, yes you can. Congrats on the pantomime logic there. Just asserting something doesn't make it so. As my counter assertion absolutely proves.

Abradacamera - I hope it's not too late to say that your comment was complete nonsense. How do you move from "is" to "ought"? Harris was effectively claiming that you can, Douglas Groothuis said that you can't. His "pantomime logic" was based on Harris's failure to demonstrate what hasn't been demonstrated in the history of science and philosophy. Do you want to justify your "Oh yes you can"?

Scientific observation easily demonstrates that the election of Adolf Hitler on August 19, 1934, as president of Germany was objectively tragic. It OUGHT not to have happened. Votes for Hitler were morally wrong as it led to the destruction of well-being that was obvious even before the events of the following eleven years. To discern an 'ought' or 'ought not' is the purpose of morality. What other than science (reason) can guide us on any moral question?

all he did to answer was say that wellbeing must be the ultimate good, because it's the only thing that can be. the reason this is a poor answer is that wellbeing has no clear definition. it's just a placeholder word which has no meaning. the thing being defined can't be part of it's own definition. it's circular to say wellbeing is the good. "well" and "good" are the same.

DripStopShop I see what you mean but on the other hand "wellbeing" despite its rather banal overtones has a very defined meaning beyong that of "good" and "existence" The problem arises if one's wellbeing is charcterised by the great feelings one has when executing gays or beheading journalists or burning Jews etc. Such cases require that we add a rider to the definition which excludes the "wellbeing" arising from the "non wellbeing" of others!

telemachus53 if wellbeing has a clear meaning, as you say, then i've never heard it, and, if there is such a meaning, why not just refer to that instead of the circular-sounding, place-holder-esque wellbeing?

DripStopShop Try asking anyone what they perceive as a feeling of wellbeing. I think the reply will be similar. As far as using one word to describe another, it's one of the beauties of English. Why say, for example "autonomy" when you mean independently governed region or country. I think wellbeing carries with it a certain conotation of inner peace.

telemachus53 as for synonyms (and synonymous phrases, like you gave), of course i have no problem with them. what we're talking about are not synonyms, though. wellbeing is more a synonym of goodness than it is a synonym of whatever wellness supposedly means. as for the meaning of wellness, you first assert, with no argument, that it's a feeling or set of feelings. then you make the second baseless assertion that people can intuitively identify which set of feelings are the good ones. that's not a clear definition at all, let alone the fact that it's completely arbitrary.

Wrong, the student (I'm sure he's got his PhD already by now) actually wrote an article critiquing Harris. And I think he is spot on. Harris is just wrong here.

@@zgobermn6895 allahu akbar brother

@@zgobermn6895 Link please

Not so much an "I don't know" but a "We'll never know the EXACT right answer, but we have a good idea what the WRONG answers are."

Lol

Abhishek Roy awesome comment lol

Ok Abhishek Roy

You just didn't get it kiddo. One day you will get your big boy pants.

Who knows, I think he was just trying to sound clever.

I think it's along the basis of Sam Harris saying science can determine morality, but in the cases he refers to the moral is easily determined. He does not use science to determine difficult moral decisions: and I think the student is trying to see why Harris continues to appeal to easy moral qustions, rather than difficult philosphical questions snd furthermore is there is such thing as ultimate moral truth.

Buggered if I know, but I bet he winds up being a politician.

I would say he asked if Sam was appealing to common sense or consensus when referring to Sam's idea that personal well being was the best way to justify objective morality specifically using the example "i think we can all agree throwing acid on your face is bad" .. but I think the guy missed the point. The REASON it's bad is because it's detrimental to the health of the affected person which affects not only the relationship between the two parties, but society on a larger scale due to the aftermath/impact of the event. Using empathy and compassion as well as the actual result of the action to determine the most beneficial outcome to all involved helps determine the most accurate moral response to a situation without personal subjectivity coming into play. It may sound like a cold calculated weighted answer, but it all boils down to 1. What's best for the individual, 2. What's best for society that will yield the best net return to the well being of the individual? 3. What does empathy, sympathy and logic guide you do to in light of the fact that the (1) and (2) apply to everyone else around you from their subjective experience. While it does not imply Objective moral values, it does imply the inherent framework and beginnings of what we call a social contract, and I believe the nature of that contract will develop independently of outside influences if the tenets are adhered to and not subjugated by any moral authority, tautology or untoward agendas.

Mark Brewer So well put...

John Din this whole video didn't make sense, the guy's question was a complete confusing cluster fuck and Sam's answer was an elaborate "i don't know what you're asking so I'll just explain how science explains morality for a bit"

nope, philosophy is more the discussion (99% philosophical discussion remain unresolved) with equal number of people each side of the fence, science is about the result and changing the accepted consensus, it's not aimed at keeping the discussion going deeper but moving forward

So you think Sam Harris' position that we should act to increase the global well-being of every conscious being on the planet to the greatest extent that science allows us is flawed? Care to elaborate?

Jonny Cook You are making the same obvious statement that he or anyone else could but then failing to ground it in any practical context of how that is different from what has been happening for the last 1000 yrs of scientific development and its impact upon our day to day lives. Harris takes his contention that science is the ultimate provider of morality too far and this answer clearly shows that he is unable to articulate that. It is far too a narrow perspective, arrogant and disingenuous to ignore the numerous other methods of thinking and human disposition for faith to simply say a method of disproving theory will be our ultimate guiding light and all other methods should be ridiculed.

what? I think it's you who is out of your depth. And I'll never fucking understand how those who think they know what happens after you die call the other people arrogant. Your post is just ad hominem name calling. Read some more books aside from the bible if you haven't burned them all

Lark Macallan hmmm, ok confused person, what makes you think I burn books, read only a bible or that I am in anyway religious? oh thats right - the world is in black and white, it is a polarised binary place where you are either atheist or christian. Sorry to burst your bubble but as an agnostic I have my own take on things and find the extremism and totalitarian thought of militant atheists as reprehensible as any extremist religious sect.

He did answer the question and he put it in a very simple way to be understood for the 5 minutes he had. Is he supposed to write a book for each answer? otherwise he's "Shallow" lol

Spot on. Ill just add that scientific guidelines for morality in relation to human suffering isn't a question of who's right. If I show you or anyone else a scientific proof, then is it my idea? No, I'm just showing you how the world works. If you disagree then you have to show proof to the contrary. And no where in this discussion is there an actual side. We are all just trying to accurately portray reality.

Read his book

bones witkowski can you recommend one that tackles the things i brought up?

I think the reason why people would sometimes object to the idea "morality leads to well-being" is because most of the time, that well-being is subjective. I know there is an objective pursuit to well-being, but every country and every culture in the world has literally done that, and look at us now. pure chaos. so to say "well being" is the basis of morality, that's kind of naive and incomplete.

How are you defining well being and how do you think it is subjective?

what if you harm someone so that future (and greater) harm may be avoided?

I'm not sure that's the same kind of harm the discussion was about, and I think you know that, that's why you put the inverted commas around. True, interactions are far from simple, that doesn't mean that you can't make some general guidelines with the caveat that all cases should be considered individually ( which is more-or-less what @rmcdaniel423 did). In the case of your scenario, did you state your opinions ('the food is bad') or was it a statement of fact ('they cook rats and serve them as chicken')? If it was a fact, was is true? If it's just an opinion, the owner of the business and maybe even other customers can publish their rebuttal the same way. If it was a factual statement stating as fact that which wasn't evidently true, that's libel, and that's a court case right there, but the chance for rebuttal is still there.

+Jim Jones I agree, although I don't think anyone can answer the question, religious or irreligious. Given that, I find a secular approach to morality by far the more reasonable. As do religious believers, since the vast majority sift the scripture(which they claim as an absolute guide) in order to select the nice bits and ignore the nasty bits. By definition they're not doing this sifting using a religious moral framework so it's pretty clear that they're secular moralists who turn to scripture to justify moral choices they've already made.

+Jim Jones destroying and starting over was the example...

+Jim Jones Of course we can tell whats right and wrong through more than instinct, all you need to do is have a metric. Healthy is good, sick is bad. Why? Because being sick leads to discomfort, damage and possibly death often with no 'upside' which all can be measured through various medical tools, you don't even need the patients testimony to determine that its bad. That's also how we know gruesome violence is bad, it rarely leads people directly involved to being healthier. The more advanced we become the more we can measure these types of things completely objectively. People don't like the entire idea of this because it would take away their own personal comfort or determinism of whats moral. Its no different than religious people NOT wanting a 100% confirmation of religion but rather requiring faith and personal revelation because then it can conform and be twisted to their own wants and needs. Its entirely possible to determine whats moral without subjective or emotional involvement but its going to be a VERY long time before people will set aside their own selfish views to accept it.

+Jim Jones The economics example was to illustrate that, although we do not know yet how to properly respond, we are CONVERGING on a solution. He's saying that trivial moral questions like whether throwing acid on someone's face is good or bad is akin to an economic question of if destroying material wealth will solve a global banking crisis. Like you say, we've become much, much more pacifistic over time as a species, perhaps we are CONVERGING on a moral 'solution.' I have my hangups about this, but his response has definitely convinced me to check out his book.

I understood perfectly how he addressed the question: "If it exists, it falls under the umbrella of science, so... there you go." That's exactly ALL he said.

I didn't say that's is exactly WHAT he said. I said that it was exactly ALL he said.

+bodhisattva99 he's producing a straw man argument once he makes the undeniably intuitive but nonetheless unjustified assumption , one which cannot be verified by science, that 'effect on wellbeing' is the sole criteria for determining the moral status of actions.

Way to make that about race, guy. Congratulations on that leap. Go fuck yourself. Superstitions? What the fuck do you know?

Why? Why do you need Hollywood celebrities for everything? Do yourself a favor. Stop watching TV. Everthing doesn't have to be funny.

@@thomasmills339 Why are you so triggered

brian milligan he’s just saying they look like famous actors. Calm down

+Schrodinger I would argue that there is a goal that every person agrees on, namely the goal of personal happiness. Feel free to challenge me on that point, but if we accept that every person's goal is happiness then it would be an objective solution to make sure that happiness is maximised in our society.

+Schrodinger Yeah where I disagree with you is the idea that we each just get to define what is good and what well being is. There seems to be something intrinsic to the human animal, and I might argue, all intelligent social creatures, that compels us to empathy, to compassion. And intelligent, social creatures are the ONLY determiners of morality, because morality is delineating what is right and wrong in a social context. In other words, I don't think you can choose to have compassion or not. You can choose to act on this compulsion, or not, but you can't choose not to have it. I think this is what is at the core of secular humanism. The idea that morality is not a concept to be prescribed, but rather something we are trying to describe, that stems directly from our inner compulsions and our interactions with other beings. About this time is usually where I usually get counter-examples about psychopaths, serial killers, and nazis. I would argue that things like these are just statistical noise. What you see in human societal evolution is a very clear trend: the more choice a society is given, the more older, primal concerns like hunger are mitigated, the more humans tend to emphasize compassion and empathy within the current moral context.

+Schrodinger So if morality is subjective... thanks

+Schrodinger But Sam Harris is not saying people can't have different goals however. You could argue, that the concept of health is relative, because you may not like to vomit profusely, but I do! I like to vomit all my stomach acids several times a day - who are you to tell me that this is not _healthy_? You can argue that chemo isn't healthy, in fact it's literally poison, but it _treats_ cancer, which can be healthy in the long term in comparison. The moment that we grant, that health relates to lack of pain, comfort, lifespan and other such factors, we can say meaningful things about what is healthy and what is not. The first example with the guy who likes to vomit - instead of letting him hijack the word healthy, we should just be _honest_ and say; no, he's not healthy. But he has every right to _choose_ to be unhealthy, as his goal. Likewise, you have every right (well, to the extent that you do not harm others) to be immoral or unethical, if you do not agree with the predominant consensus of what is considered moral. -You just don't get to claim the label, that's all.

+nejtilsvampe //But Sam Harris is not saying people can't have different goals however.// He does say that some goals are, objectively, more right than others. //But he has every right to choose to be unhealthy, as his goal.// But, that's the ought. If we're not going to tell him that he ought to be healthy, or ought not be unhealthy, then there's no point to this exercise. Sam is full of horse shit. That doesn't say I ought to, or ought not, listen to what he says. I think it's sometimes helpful to listen to horse shit, so that we can know how not to make mistakes.

@Viet Male Because of his business model. Doesn't run ads, or endorsements, so isn't subject to external pressures.

You are a fucking idiot. That's on abjective fact backed up by your own statement.

No because objective morality is a noun. Being absolutely certain is an adjective. Words can have two different meanings. I'm not using the spiritual meaning of the word when I use it to reinforce my premise. No violation of logic. However if you would like to provide evidence that there is a supernatural god that created objective morality please provide the evidence. I'll wait lolol!

Ok, how about bible prophecy? How do you explain the writers of the Bible knowing the universe was expanding Psalm 104:2? Or the bible knowing that light existed before stars Genesis 1:1? Quantum physics shows that solid matter is at it's core just solid light. And if you believe in evolution, can you justify that belief after knowing that it violates entropy? And don't tell me that only applies in a closed system, because the universe IS a closed system. Basically, can you tell me how what is basically a physical software program like DNA exists without a programmer? At the very least you end up with pantheism, because why else would the universe create molecules that think, self identify, self replicate, and are consicous? And speking of consiousness, can you tell me how subjuective experiances like thought, memory, ideas ect can arise from what is essentially atoms? Do you realize that for this to occur there must be another dimension of reality at play, which, by the way, are at least supposed to exist according to the latest theories in physics?

A;so, I find it hilarious that someone involved in the scummy activity of healthcare markrting would comfort themselves about their amoralness by deluding themselvrs into beliving the reality of good and evil doesn't exist.

No evidence!! Lolol !!

I'm not sure he answered the question either.

It's also interesting that talking has also created some of our greatest crises. I'm not trying to contradict you, I'm simply complementing your statement to emphasize the power of speech. What are your thoughts?

People can have different views on what is necessary and what is not. Hitler might have thought that it was necessary to kill millions of Jews for whatever agenda he believed in, and there is no way you can say he is morally wrong if you have no objective moral law that is not given by another human but given by something that transcends us.

Darwin42 I'm still waiting for his contributions to physics to be revealed.

He's not a physicist. Neuroscientist I think

+Επανεινωνδας Κοσμας well yeah he isn't a physicist

Alex Palmer touché. Doesn't change the nucleus of my statement. He heralds himself as someone that knows better based on his scientific expertise but all he's really acclaimed for is his philosophies, and those are amateurish at best. He's a smart guy, no doubt, and he presents himself well, but not at the level he thinks he does. He simply not the force he and his fans pretend to be. For the most part he panders to his base and it's only his base that praise him.

+Επανεινωνδας Κοσμας fair enough statement

In other words, you must assume that there is good and then you can prove that there is good.

Pasquale DeZiro wtf? If there are states of being that are preferred over others, we can find them with science

havenotchosenyet yes exactly. IF there are preferred states of being (if there is good) then we can prove them with science. But as your IF suggests, this ‘preferred state’ or ‘good’ must be assumed before it can be proved.

There is to Sam Harris. It's 'thinking for more than 3 minutes'. xD

The response of Atheists is the same when it comes to the Origin of the Universe: "Well, we don't know and so do you" What !!? First they make the most proposterous claim Ever of the Vast Universe popped out of Nowhere and then The solar system came about just like that and then some mere natural conditions caused the inception of Life. Nonsense times infinite.

Did you even listen to his answer, try again without your bias.

Samuel Shipman lol I actually watched this whole debate, why don't you try reading my comment without bias, and then watching again without bias?

In his argument I think (I could be wrong), is that the "low hanging fruit" is all that is needed to satisfy the basic argument. For example, if one states: "There cannot be objective morality". Another states: "We all think throwing acid on people is bad". Then it has been proven that objective morality exists and it can just be disregarded as common sense to another. However, it is evidence that suggests it. Certainly one can always ponder more "gray areas" however, the black and white, is all that is needed to satisfy the question (objective morality), despite the questioner not being philosophically interested in that case. Edit: I read the users blog post. Apparently Harris has made the claim from one of his books (I have not read) that science is ALL we need for morals and that was the basis of his question. So, in that case, I would agree that he dodged the more difficult question. If he made such a statement (taking the questioners word for it) Harris should be able to reproduce examples of such a claim.

kurt knapp Well said Kurt. I haven't read the book either, but I'm impressed you took the time to do the follow up. Haha I'm generally used to half baked, logically disjointed rage posts, so something well thought out and researched is nice to see.

***** nope. What you are saying however is called the Fundamental Attribution Error. I'm not religious ;)