Many people seem to be obsessed with science as the secret recipe that will solve and dominate everything and he is one of them with his failed theory.
While such people exist, the speech makes it clear that he is far from being one of them.
He did not present a theory, either. Just a hypothesis, or even a speculative worldview. It is not failed nor could it be because it is still speculative. It needs quite a lot of parameters and delimitation before it can become falseable and therefore perhaps sustain a theory or several.
We human beings when confronted with scientific dilemmas should decide what is good for us and what is not, what is moral and what is not.
Sure, but what would a scientific dilemma be? I'm not sure I know of any, or what they would be like.
A psychopath can come with a bunch of scientists who will justify what we may call inhuman acts but if means justify the end then nothing will stop them from doing horrible things because it will eventually lead to the well being of the community as a whole. Mr. Sam made a laughable comparison, would you rather take your morality from the Taliban or from an *expert* in scientific morality like himself of course.
Actually - and perhaps this would be cleared if probably not more palatable to you if you read more of his texts on the subject - Sam Harris maintains that we should not hesitate to call immorality and moral mediocrity for what they are.
His view, which I largely agree with in this regard, is that Morality is a cognitive skill and there is, in fact, such a thing as moral intelligence and even moral stupidity and moral genius. It is plenty clear to me that he is indeed correct in proposing that it is so. It takes at least a modicum of cognitive capability to be at all moral or immoral, and the most capable a person is of abstract thought, the higher his or her moral capability and duty.
At the end of his presentation the man who came to speak to him on the stage asked him a very good question. What if this woman wanted to cover up herself based on her choice, and what was his answer? he insisted that this is not possible because the girl can never decide for herself in her community what to wear and what not to wear, so assumed that she is definitely oppressed, so even if the girl herself said she is not, he will find out a way to convince her she is brainwashed. This is nonsense.
That is not quite what he says, though, and the difference is very significant. Mostly, he is reminding us of how questionable choices and preferences can be due to social pressure:
10:57
Well, who are we not to say this? Who are we to pretend that we know so little about human well-being that we have to be non-judgmental about a practice like this? I'm not talking about voluntary wearing of a veil -- women should be able to wear whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. But what does voluntary mean in a community where, when a girl gets raped, her father's first impulse, rather often, is to murder her out of shame?
11:31
Just let that fact detonate in your brain for a minute: Your daughter gets raped, and what you want to do is kill her. What are the chances that represents a peak of human flourishing?
Also when he came up with the picture of both, white mother with her daughter on the beach, and a poor black woman with her child. This is racism and generalization because not all black people are poor and hungry. He could have came up with two white mothers, one rich, and one poor, but it was his intention to make this issue a black and white issue,
I'm not finding that part on the transcript. Maybe it is in the video but not on the transcript for some reason?
that he is absolutely right since his theory works on the Taliban.
Actually, a moral postulate that does not "work on the Taliban" would probably be not worth keeping at all.
I'm taking issues with his dishonesty and manipulative nature. What he has presented is not even half scientific. It's all based on misinformation and prejudice.
I... just don't know what you are talking about.
