I think Sam Harris is on to something very significant here, but his theory has proven surprisingly (to me) controversial among scientists and philosophers. I would very much like to discuss it with my fellow Virians. What do you think? Agree or disagree?
Re:The Moral Landscape
« Reply #1 on: 2011-08-08 09:15:34 »
I agree here completely. Despite religious authorities, people can easily agree on some basic values like health, ameliorating suffering, etc.. I think it's the religious memes which operate to stop people from reasoning from such obvious universals in order to preserve the memetic dominance of otherwise obsolete and irrational religious rules.
Re:The Moral Landscape
« Reply #2 on: 2011-08-11 05:57:39 »
[Blunderov] This is really interesting. In the video the questions asked by the MC at the end are very cogent. The subject requires a good deal more thinking about but FWIW here are some of my initial thoughts.
The new field of neuro-philosophy has been made possible by gigantic leaps in neuro-science but I'm not sure that this is sufficient to be able to say that certain moral facts exist or might exist. Harris, to be fair, says that he doesn't believe that science will be ever able to map this space entirely but he does contend that it is possible to map some of it fairly (!) accurately. (Commendably, he speaks in terms of a continuum of behaviours and not in terms of outright black and white.)
The chess analogy is very appealing to me and I do think Harris has chosen an apposite metaphor here - but it may be one that ultimately undermines his own brave attempt to map a more solid foundation for our moral deliberations. He points out that there are times when sacrificing the queen is the only "good " thing to do in a game of chess (most of the time this is a really bad idea as I'm sure evrybody here will know).
In chess, the values of the pieces are mostly quite stable but there are times when the usual values are subverted due to the prevailing dynamic interactions of those pieces. This can be very obvious such as when one player has all his pieces on the board still but is mated by his opponent's last remaining pawn anyway or more subtle such as when a rook is exchanged for a minor piece in order to gain a temporary dynamic advantage which is then turned to other purposes. (It might not be too much to say that the difference between a chess player and an expert chess player is the ability to recognise and manage these shifts in value in a consistent way.)
I'm going to jump here a bit so please forgive this for the moment, but drawing further from the chess analogy, if there are moral "facts", this class of facts seems different from the the usual type of fact (which is fixed and unchanging) in that they may differ from themselves from time to time. Again long story short, this suggest to me that the suitable method for assessing such matters is probably not the scientific method. The scientific method is most interested precisely in that class of facts which do not vary or at leat do not vary in an unpredictable way. (Possibly I am mistaken in this contention: for all I know there is branch of mathematics which loves nothing better- if so i would be most interested to know about it
Harris' project is, it seems to me, precisely the one with which Existentialism takes issue:
<snip> existentialism displays hostility towards abstract theories or systems that propose to describe all of the intricacies and difficulties of human life through more-or-less simplistic formulas. Such abstract systems tend to obscure the fact that life is actually a rather rough-and-tumble affair, often very messy and problematic. For existentialists, there is no single theory that can contain the whole of the experience of human life...
existentialism doesn't argue that the "good life" is a function of things like wealth, power, pleasure, or even happiness. This is not to say that existentialists reject happiness - existentialism is not a philosophy of masochism, after all. However, existentialists will not argue that a person's life is good simply because they are happy - a happy person might be living a bad life while an unhappy person might be living a good life.
The reason for this is that a life is "good" for existentialists insofar as it is "authentic." Existentialists may differ somewhat on just what is needed for a life to be authentic, but for the most part this will involve being conscious of the choices one makes, taking full responsibility for those choices, and understanding that nothing about one's life or the world is fixed and given. Hopefully such a person will end up happier because of this, but that isn't a necessary consequence of authenticity - at least not in the short term.
Existentialism is also not caught up in the idea that everything in life can be made better by science. That doesn't mean that existentialists are automatically anti-science or anti-technology; rather, they judge the value of any science or technology based upon how it might affect a person's ability to live an authentic life. If science and technology help people avoid taking responsibility for their choices and help them pretend that they are not really free, then existentialists will argue that there is a serious problem here.
Existentialists also reject both the arguments that people are good by nature but are ruined by society or culture, and that people are sinful by nature but can be helped to overcome sin through proper religious beliefs. Yes, even Christian existentialists tend to reject the latter proposition, despite the fact that it fits with traditional Christian doctrine. The reason is that existentialists, especially atheist existentialists, reject the idea that there is any fixed human nature to begin with, whether good or evil. </snip>
This is about as far as I have got with all this so far. I'm ambivalent about Harris' contention that values are moral facts. I see the appeal and potential usefullness of his venture but it seems to me that his use of the word "fact" is problematic and needs further enquiry.
I'm not sure Harris would disagree with any point in that list. Which did you think he would object to? Or what aspect of Harris's project would existentialists object to?
I think Sam Harris is on to something very significant here, but his theory has proven surprisingly (to me) controversial among scientists and philosophers. I would very much like to discuss it with my fellow Virians. What do you think? Agree or disagree?
When I mentioned controversy I was thinking of Massimo Pigliucci and PZ Myers. The essence of the objection (as far as I can tell) is that Sam Harris is claiming to derive an ought from an is (contra Hume). Perhaps, but it is more like claiming the truth of a conditional (if these conditions obtain then one ought to do X). More specifically, if we define "good" as "that which leads to human well-being" then X and Y and Z are good. Concretely, if we define "good" to be that which leads to human well-being then the practice of female circumcision is very likely not good.
Does anyone agree with Pigliucci or Myers?
« Last Edit: 2011-08-20 23:50:54 by David Lucifer »
I'm struck by idea that years ago the monks discussed how many angels can fit in the head of pin.
Harris is taking a broad brush swipe at our social dogmas. It seems to me Pigliucci or Myers are exploring the 'strawmen' Harris has presented with his very British arrogance and self confidence, rather then getting on with the sales job to the folk still unable to grasp change is required.
If we could distill and quantify all things then just the scientific method would suffice but we are rather lacking in so many areas most of all human behavior, in a social context or as individuals. We have evolved to make rapid fire in the moment life changing decisions as hunter gathers and then as social beings have layered on rules/framework to function in a group; currently less successfully.
I think Harris is saying look folks we have way more information and tools then we did when we started societies, so lets update the tools we use to make decisions given that Religion, Culture, and their inherent dogma need revamping, I take from Pigliucci or Myers they are discussing the finer points of this new framework when we do not even have a consensus that our current society's methods for decisions are not working. I agree with what I take from all three that its broken, but before we go there lets get the rest of the society on the same page, which is what I think Harris is all about.
When Harris uses timely and politically sensitive examples to make his point it is showmanship but warranted I think. Do Pigliucci or Myers get that distinction ?
We know what morality based on beliefs and dogma gets us; the proposed science based models look more promising to me and I'll let the science give me something new to vote on. In the mean time what do we do with the Self Lubricating Uncaring Tyrants at the reigns now ?
Cheers
Fritz
PS: this has a real resonance in the Technocracy posts from early spring.
I'm not sure Harris would disagree with any point in that list. Which did you think he would object to? Or what aspect of Harris's project would existentialists object to?
[Blunderov] Well for one thing Harris seems fixed on human flourishing as a pole star. Quite what it means to flourish would be a very wide ranging conversation in it's own right but there are anyway some obvious problems with this premise like suicide or martydom for instance. Existentialists would probably tend to consider "authenticity" to be more important than flourishing per se. And probably Existentialists would reject the idea that anything about human affairs is quantifiable in any sort of exact sense. Given that the scientific method seeks exactness it would seem to limit, if not entirely, it's possible usefulness in considering such matters.
Existentialism is, it should be born in mind, a rather loosely defined notion and is not a formal school of philosophical thought or a collection of dogmas. It's major expression is in the form of literature and art. The novel, for instance, is a very powerful device for the elicitation of human psychological truths - oftentimes far more so than any documentary or factual approach could be.
Re:The Moral Landscape
« Reply #7 on: 2011-09-18 06:36:19 »
[Blunderov] About.com Agnosticism / Atheism is a very nice site. It provides refreshers on basic philosophical concepts, interesting new information and ammunition against the godheads. This excerpt seems relevant to the thread.
The case of ethical truths is somewhat unusual because it isn’t at all clear that such a thing even exists. It is certainly the case that many people believe in the existence of ethical truths, but that is a hotly disputed subject in moral philosophy. At the very least, even if ethical truths exist, it isn’t at all clear how we can come to know them with any degree of certainty.
Unlike other statements of truth, ethical statements are expressed in a normative manner. We say that 7 + 2 = 9, not 7 + 2 should equal 9. We say that “bachelors are not married” rather than “it is immoral for bachelors to be married.” Another feature of ethical statements is that they tend to express something about the way the world could be, not the way the world currently is. Thus, even if ethical statements could qualify as truths, they are very unusual truths indeed. </snip>
Author
Logged
