Guest Franklin Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 I've intentionally not put this in the fav youtube vids as it is more important than just another youtube loltrack. This talk is based on his new book "The Moral Landscape" and it's already provoked such a change in thought in me over the past few days there must be a few others that would be interested. My first degree was in philosophy with the vast majority of my study divided between normative (theoretical) ethics and cognitive science (mostly philosophy of clinical psychology). Since then I've spent another 4 years at uni part-time studying neuroscience and clinical psychology and still working as a therapist for motor vehicle accident survivors. But I've continued to be interested in normative ethics. From my very first ethics course we were taught to Never invoke a religious argument as anything not falsifiable would be tossed immediately. At the same time though there was a feeling that no matter what ethical theory we touted and followed (virtue ethics, deontological ethics, consequentialist ethics or whatever else), the spine of religion-based ethics would always stay unbroken because it could pin down specific tenets to be followed. Two weeks ago study results were released from UBC and U of Oregon suggesting that people feel that atheists are as trustworthy as rapists. as rapists... because they have no religious moral guidelines to follow (obviously this is a sample of american college kids, but still). Even at the university level we've been taught that science and morality do not, and can not, overlap ---even if we reject a morality based on religious teachings. Well after reading just the first page of the introduction of this book those teachings collapsed and I have that feeling that Harris may have just broken the spine of religion's hold on our moral compass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Interesting post - I'm fairly familiar with Sam Harris from various youtube videos and talks he has done which appear online. I haven't got round to reading this particular book of his though and I do plan on giving it some attention. Here is how I see things - you can talk about "what is the most sustainable behaviour we can adopt in society?" - rather than resorting to subjective, opinionated "morals" which are not based on measurable, physical referents - whereas the notion of "sustainability" can be rooted in technical, measurable and most of all falsifiable areas. So if a certain behaviour elicited by someone is not sustainable (meaning, it does not sustain or support life systems), then scientifically speaking, it can't hold up well. So this eliminates the notion of subjective morals. Your thoughts on this Franklin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheatheman Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Two weeks ago study results were released from UBC and U of Oregon suggesting that people feel that atheists are as trustworthy as rapists. as rapists... because they have no religious moral guidelines to follow (obviously this is a sample of american college kids, but still). some rapists are atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murve33 Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 I don't think religion and morals go hand-in-hand in any way whatsoever, other than the fact that many people "find" their morals from their religion. But, I'd like to see what Harris says about all that, so I'll give it a read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheatheman Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 this guy speaks without discrimination, and that is a good thing. but it seems like he wants to live in THX1138's world. because despite what he says, universal morals will take away the freedom of some, and he says he thinks everyone should be able to do what ever they want voluntarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 dude is very smart and well spoken...but I wonder if he's missing the point (or if I am)...seems his argument is based on the assumption that everyone agrees maximizing the highest amount of human happiness for the largest amount of people is goal #1...whereas religious types would say that no, truth is goal #1, with happiness subordinate to that...in fact in many cases they might argue suffering leads to truth...so I'm not sure what dude's point is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YO303 Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Morals are for ants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheatheman Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 dude is very smart and well spoken...but I wonder if he's missing the point (or if I am)...seems his argument is based on the assumption that everyone agrees maximizing the highest amount of human happiness for the largest amount of people is goal #1...whereas religious types would say that no, truth is goal #1, with happiness subordinate to that...in fact in many cases they might argue suffering leads to truth...so I'm not sure what dude's point is... that is the true teaching of the bible, that we die to ourselves. "He who finds his life will lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake will find it." He is accepting that happiness for all is a truth, when really, according to him, it is a factual issue, it is either right for happiness to be maximized, or it isn't. but he needed that to be a given for his talk. thought provoking though, and i would definitely read the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 it was a telling moment when the host/emcee s asked "well what if that lady in the burkah self-reports as happy?" and he stumbled a bit about "false consciousness" and then reverted to "what is best for the whole." He seems like the geeky kid going "here is the sandbox, I don't care what you build in it, as long as you respect the borders of the sandbox" (ie., his "moral terrain")...not everyone is going to agree to that, and some will just kick sand in your face... seems to me once a person starts asking questions about ethics, morality, the common good, they have already irreversibly separated themselves from religious zealots...the two are oil and water...I don't think he's going to convince anyone to buy his a priori assumptions unless they are already a "seeker"... That said I think it's safe to say all people want freedom, happiness, opportunity, security...the squabbling is not just over how to define them, but over the relative weights you assign each one... His point about neuroscience giving us insight into things is well taken though. I really want to see the guy waving the results of some "future MRI" in the face of a would-be suicide bomber going "see? Here's your 'delusion center'!" I don't think that would get the desired result... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Wait - if morals come from religion, then what do atheists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheatheman Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 universal freedom is a paradox, because those who wish to have power over others would not be free. and i don't think harris is making any strides penetrating the veil of fundamentalist islam. he has two options, let them be, or destroy them, which many would argue the US is already doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YO303 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Wait - if morals come from religion, then what do atheists? It is a well known fact that all atheist at one point in their lives will rape and murder due to lack of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Wait - if morals come from religion, then what do atheists? It is a well known fact that all atheist at one point in their lives will rape and murder due to lack of religion. Fuck I can't wait to get to that point. It sounds exciting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murve33 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Wait - if morals come from religion, then what do atheists? It is a well known fact that all atheist at one point in their lives will rape and murder due to lack of religion. Fuck I can't wait to get to that point. It sounds exciting! Yea, this is what I was getting at with my post. The two (morals/religion) don't go hand-in-hand. I am curious to see how Harris says science and morals go hand-in-hand. I've always believed that a person just gets their morals from their environment/self. Religion happens to be an environment, so many people get their morals from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Yeah of course - morals are a social construct. We derive our morals from our interactions with what society deems acceptable normative behaviour. Deviant behaviour is punished in a variety of ways, depending on the society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candiru Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I've always thought that morals are based on our collective safety. And if certain morals are objectively unfair, it's because their purpose is to manipulate because of the idea that they are handed down from some infallible diety. An example being that "lust" is bad, therefore clergy members can not have sex or procreate, so they can not own property, and all of their money goes back to the church when they die. Suckers for "morality". But the scientific rationalization would be that "lust" is an instinct we are not meant to supress. Amen to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Franklin Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 dude is very smart and well spoken...but I wonder if he's missing the point (or if I am)...seems his argument is based on the assumption that everyone agrees maximizing the highest amount of human happiness for the largest amount of people is goal #1...whereas religious types would say that no, truth is goal #1, with happiness subordinate to that...in fact in many cases they might argue suffering leads to truth...so I'm not sure what dude's point is... it was a telling moment when the host/emcee s asked "well what if that lady in the burkah self-reports as happy?" and he stumbled a bit about "false consciousness" and then reverted to "what is best for the whole." He seems like the geeky kid going "here is the sandbox, I don't care what you build in it, as long as you respect the borders of the sandbox" (ie., his "moral terrain")...not everyone is going to agree to that, and some will just kick sand in your face... seems to me once a person starts asking questions about ethics, morality, the common good, they have already irreversibly separated themselves from religious zealots...the two are oil and water...I don't think he's going to convince anyone to buy his a priori assumptions unless they are already a "seeker"... That said I think it's safe to say all people want freedom, happiness, opportunity, security...the squabbling is not just over how to define them, but over the relative weights you assign each one... His point about neuroscience giving us insight into things is well taken though. I really want to see the guy waving the results of some "future MRI" in the face of a would-be suicide bomber going "see? Here's your 'delusion center'!" I don't think that would get the desired result... the idea is that studies in psychology and neurobiology will show us what kind of life maximizes happiness, esteem, courage etc etc. For our species to Flourish we must heed some sort of moral signposts which in most cultures around the world are still based on religious teachings--even we still have laws which are out-dated and based on religion, hence his talk about corporal punishment in southern US schools. We know this practice leads to continued violence as long-term studies are quite clear. His point about the burkha is that the very idea of hiding oneself demonstrates a subservient attitude promoted in that culture predominantly by men and based on the position of women as subservient in their religious texts. Despite an individual female's decision or desire to wear the burkha it is bad for women (test cortisol levels, serotonin levels etc) and so could be considered by lawmakers to be inappropriate for societies to promote. It wouldnt be something handled on an individual basis (like your comment about waving an MRI in somebody's face) as it would merely inform policy. As for your comment about truth... well that's not his primary goal in this. Harris's arguments here are weak so far as I understand them. There will always be people who suggest that perhaps they and others were meant to lead lives of suffering... that some deity created the world in a way so that they floundered and did not flourish in all cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Despite an individual female's decision or desire to wear the burkha it is bad for women (test cortisol levels, serotonin levels etc) and so could be considered by lawmakers to be inappropriate for societies to promote. C'mon, any link between a broad indicator (cortisol, serotonin levels) and something as specific as burkha wearing would be tenuous at best. What will be really interesting to see is if we're ever able to get to the point where we can literally "see people's thoughts" using some sort of imaging device, so that lying to others and to oneself will be impossible, and giving perfectly targeted therapies will be possible (I guess this is what Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was all about, though I haven't seen it). If we can ever understand the brain to this degree, it will be truly amazing (and scary). But that doesn't mean we'll have any better idea how to use the data to craft public policy... For example.. This is sort of close to home as I have had a longstanding argument with my father about his medicating my 3 younger siblings. He has all of them on ADD meds, and I believe at least two of them on antidepressants (since a very young age, the oldest is now 19, youngest 15). I think he's a psycho, but he can argue quite intelligently and persuasively for his position. He usually argues from the standpoint that if they didn't have the meds they'd be a bit wild and hard to handle, might start acting out and using drugs (oh the irony)...now from my point of view, even if you have some little hellions, why not move to a more rural setting where they can run around and build tree forts and be rambunctious... In other words, are people fucked, or is the world fucked? Depends on how you look at it. Using your example, if you find a low serotonin level in Mrs. Burkha, should you take her out of her oppressive environment (making an assumption here), or should you just give her a happy pill to improve her outlook on life? Both might lead to the same result (higher serotonin). So it would seem Sam Harris has nothing to offer here...would be curious what he has to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lianne Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I am no philosopher or grand thinker - so forgive my stupid interruption. But all this talk sure starts to reek of 'us' and 'them', doesn't it? Those silly Burka people; they think they know what makes them happy, but we know better! Whether based on religious codes or more thorough, 'objective' scientific investigations, morality can and often does descend into that. And whatever your thoughts on religion or 'God' are, I've found that many have an unquenchable drive for the 'mystical' or 'divine'. They are well aware of the absurdities and logical difficulties in their belief systems, but only found 'real' joy when they took that Kierkegaardian 'leap of faith'. What do you do about that? Are we ultimately aiming to enforce some kind of secular utopia - albeit in a more polite way than has been attempted in the recent past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Franklin Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I am no philosopher or grand thinker - so forgive my stupid interruption. But all this talk sure starts to reek of 'us' and 'them', doesn't it? Those silly Burka people; they think they know what makes them happy, but we know better! Whether based on religious codes or more thorough, 'objective' scientific investigations, morality can and often does descend into that. And whatever your thoughts on religion or 'God' are, I've found that many have an unquenchable drive for the 'mystical' or 'divine'. They are well aware of the absurdities and logical difficulties in their belief systems, but only found 'real' joy when they took that Kierkegaardian 'leap of faith'. What do you do about that? Are we ultimately aiming to enforce some kind of secular utopia - albeit in a more polite way than has been attempted in the recent past? Lianne, this is very much an us vs. them issue which lots of people are going to have a huge issue with. Harris purports that there is a big difference between the "good life" and the "bad life" (or less than good life). By studying the brain (also by long-term psych studies) we can figure out what sorts of life maximize well-being. Harris is NOT allowing for moral relativism at all which has been all the rage for a long time. lump, i'm thinking about your post still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Franklin - did you consider my response? Let me know your thoughts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheatheman Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 all of this talk about women in burqas being happier if they didn't have to wear them is completely pointless unless you discuss how any of it will come about. how do we create a world where muslim women do not have to wear burqas? well, you have to eliminate islam. in fact i'm pretty sure that harris thinks all religion should be eradicated. so how do you do that without killing people? i don't think you can. so why even talk about it if you won't do that. maybe harris' answer is try to spread some type of awareness, that we should send out Übermensch, atheist evangelists. i think when you get down to it, this "solution" is just as messy as it claims the problem is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grue Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Interesting talk, but also kind of disappointing if you have some background in contemporary ethics. Of course, if you begin by assuming that what we ought to do is maximize well-being, then yes, science has a lot of tell us about what constitutes well-being and so plays an important role in moral thought. But his basic assumption--that facts about value ultimately depend on experiences or states of consciousness--is wildly controversial among people who spend their lives thinking seriously about ethics (philosophers, in other words) and science isn't going to help decide whether it is a plausible assumption. Another of his assumptions--that the morally required action is that which maximizes these valuable states of consciousness--is even more controversial. In other words, he seems to be presupposing that there are no deontological constraints on action. So, even if science tells us what does and doesn't constitute human flourishing, that doesn't show that science can tell us how we ought to behave, since according to many people, human flourishing is not the only morally relevant consideration. I haven't read the book, however, so maybe he engages with these issues more seriously there. Regardless, I do applaud his basic premise that religion is not the sole (or real) authority on moral matters. I also applaud his defense of objective moral facts. If anything, though, these views are the orthodoxy among contemporary English-speaking philosophers, so his presenting them as startling discoveries is a sad commentary on the disconnect between public understanding and academic philosophy. Also, sadly, he doesn't really help things toward the end by presenting non-cognitivism as the shared view of "most Western intellectuals" which is absolutely false, at least among those Western intellectuals who actually study ethics (that is, the relevant ones). For example, a version of Harris' argument concerning the objectivity of morality was already defended by G. E. Moore in his book Ethics, written 100 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I am no philosopher or grand thinker - so forgive my stupid interruption. But all this talk sure starts to reek of 'us' and 'them', doesn't it? Those silly Burka people; they think they know what makes them happy, but we know better! Whether based on religious codes or more thorough, 'objective' scientific investigations, morality can and often does descend into that. And whatever your thoughts on religion or 'God' are, I've found that many have an unquenchable drive for the 'mystical' or 'divine'. They are well aware of the absurdities and logical difficulties in their belief systems, but only found 'real' joy when they took that Kierkegaardian 'leap of faith'. What do you do about that? Are we ultimately aiming to enforce some kind of secular utopia - albeit in a more polite way than has been attempted in the recent past? Lianne, this is very much an us vs. them issue which lots of people are going to have a huge issue with. Harris purports that there is a big difference between the "good life" and the "bad life" (or less than good life). By studying the brain (also by long-term psych studies) we can figure out what sorts of life maximize well-being. Harris is NOT allowing for moral relativism at all which has been all the rage for a long time. lump, i'm thinking about your post still. Not only that, he doesn't allow for any gradations in the religion that he is arguing against. There are something one and a half billion Muslims on the face of the earth, and to say that all of them act the same way according to their religion is disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Franklin Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Despite an individual female's decision or desire to wear the burkha it is bad for women (test cortisol levels, serotonin levels etc) and so could be considered by lawmakers to be inappropriate for societies to promote. C'mon, any link between a broad indicator (cortisol, serotonin levels) and something as specific as burkha wearing would be tenuous at best. What will be really interesting to see is if we're ever able to get to the point where we can literally "see people's thoughts" using some sort of imaging device, so that lying to others and to oneself will be impossible, and giving perfectly targeted therapies will be possible (I guess this is what Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was all about, though I haven't seen it). If we can ever understand the brain to this degree, it will be truly amazing (and scary). But that doesn't mean we'll have any better idea how to use the data to craft public policy... For example.. This is sort of close to home as I have had a longstanding argument with my father about his medicating my 3 younger siblings. He has all of them on ADD meds, and I believe at least two of them on antidepressants (since a very young age, the oldest is now 19, youngest 15). I think he's a psycho, but he can argue quite intelligently and persuasively for his position. He usually argues from the standpoint that if they didn't have the meds they'd be a bit wild and hard to handle, might start acting out and using drugs (oh the irony)...now from my point of view, even if you have some little hellions, why not move to a more rural setting where they can run around and build tree forts and be rambunctious... In other words, are people fucked, or is the world fucked? Depends on how you look at it. Using your example, if you find a low serotonin level in Mrs. Burkha, should you take her out of her oppressive environment (making an assumption here), or should you just give her a happy pill to improve her outlook on life? Both might lead to the same result (higher serotonin). So it would seem Sam Harris has nothing to offer here...would be curious what he has to say... It may be a tenuous link as stated but the idea would be that testing of large samples of women and men in all cultures with all kinds of different belief systems, hierarchies etc would lead to determinations of what and what does not constitute "good lives" vs. "lesser good lives" or "bad lives." We are still VERY far away from the ability to actually accomplish this but at least the path is clear. The creation of anti-burkha policy would only be a small step in fixing women's problems in that culture (unfortunately). As far as medication goes I'm not sure how Harris feels about that. From what I've read to date he is not relying on pharmaceuticals to promote well-being. His definition of "well-being" and "flourishing" does not rely on anything but natural chemicals produced in the brain (that's what happiness and is after all). it's about child-rearing, moral subscriptions, and providing proper environments for us to grow, live and naturally be happy while ridding us of practices that promote divisiveness, hate, egotism etc. I think he thinks that both the people and the world are fucked for the most part, but that we have the capacity to change it by looking to physical facts in the brain. Removing legislation that supports corporeal punishment will decrease violent acts in those children as they grow. Empowering women so that they can attend school, have independent lives, remove burkhas or whatever will lead to greater happiness and fulfillment for those women. From long-term studies these children and similar women then have a better shot at leading more productive/fruitful lives. obviously a very small act but one of thousands we can and should do. As for what your father has done I'm sorry to hear that. One of my 6 yr old nephews is in a similar position... there are some people that move towards pharmaceuticals too quickly and there are some kids that do not seem to cope well these days without some sort of medication. is it the environment? has the environment affected their brain already? I can't imagine what fathers and mothers must think before making decisions like that. I know that my bro/sis in-laws have been devastated for the better part of the last year. the kid gets kicked out of school every single day...has threatened to kill people, has broken into houses, and is basically a pint-sized maniac on a good day. As for looking into people's thoughts I think we are rather close in limited circumstances. I'll try to find a source for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.