I so disagree. You are giving way too much importance to artifacts that rise from different circunstances and lack of moral wisdom.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral Questions
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
I so disagree. You are giving way too much importance to artifacts that rise from different circunstances and lack of moral wisdom.
Maybe. It's not like I have a concise list of what I regard to be core, but questions of value is definitely on that list. It would be on my list for any sort of human ideology, because all ideologies involve questions of value or assumptions about what does and doesn't have value.
I don't understand what you're saying here. What is "moral wisdom?" What do you mean by "artifact?"
Back to the OP, Harris offers the "(aggregate) well being of conscious creatures" (WBCC), as a perspective from which to derive a universal set of values.
So until we have evidence of an afterlife, we could for example, say that suffering in this life as an exchange for heaven in the unproven afterlife, would go against universal values.
On the other hand, a person who sacrifices himself in order to save others would be acting in alignment with universal values.
So until we have evidence of an afterlife, we could for example, say that suffering in this life as an exchange for heaven in the unproven afterlife, would go against universal values.
On the other hand, a person who sacrifices himself in order to save others would be acting in alignment with universal values.
Moral wisdom is the capability to perceive wide patterns of interconnectedness, causes and consequences and deal construcively with them.
Artifacts are oddities that arise from unusual circunstances without truly meaning much.
Harris is arguing that, if we begin with an axiom (which Icehorse has correctly identified, in Harris' case, as "the [aggregate] well being of conscious creatures"), then science through the establishment of fact, can in some cases determine what values are logically consistent with the axiom. Harris' position in no way, shape, or form requires all humans to have precisely identical values.
In fact, Harris argues that, just as there are different foods that are healthy for us, there are likely to be different values that can be logically derived from the same axiom. That is, Harris foresees a diversity of values, rather than single set of values.
Last, Harris explicitly rejects the notion that getting everyone to agree on a set of values is necessary or even desirable. To Harris, that would be like the notion that everyone, including the village idiot, must agree on string theory in physics for string theory to be considered true or useful.
Last edited:
I don't see how your comments address Harris' arguments.
Last edited:
I don't see how this amounts to a serious objection to Harris' argument.
I could be wrong, but some of the comments in this thread lead me to believe that some of us think Harris is advocating for the notion that scientists should become the world's authorities on values. If so, that is a straw man. Harris is not advocating for that notion.
"Outhouse"? Really? Am I supposed to take that as some sort of a challenge?
That helps a bit, I think. I would just call that plain old "wisdom" and eschew the word "moral" from it. I don't see anything moral about that concept; seems to me that is common animal adaptation and survival. I'm still not following the categorical distinction of these supposed artifacts, or how what I observed about human cultures suggests an assured lack of wisdom. Different cultures develop different methods of adaption and survival. What works continues to be used, what doesn't is eventually discarded; what is wise for one time and situation may not be such for another. But this is probably getting tangential to the purpose of the thread. >_>
Sure. I don't disagree with the fundamental thrust of what is being suggested. I do think that it needs to be remembered that sciences are intended to be a descriptive endeavor, not a prescriptive one. When sciences tread the line into prescribing, it's transcended into another territory. And if we begin to regard the sciences as a prescriber of morality, it begins to have much more in common with dogmatic religion or applied sciences (aka, engineering). It's not at all curious that a person such as Harris would advocate that. He has a vested interest in grounding his system of ethics in something he values or respects - namely science - and not in something he doesn't.
Are you attempting to suggest that Harris is like everyone else in that he has a vested interest in grounding his ethics in something he respects?
By the way, he only partly grounds them in science. He more precisely grounds them in his axiom, the (aggregate) well being of conscious creatures.
This is what comes as my just waking up from a nap. My apologies. I'll correct it.
Perhaps "vested interest" isn't the right way to put it. Irrespective of conscious interest, anybody is going to ground their ethics in something they value or respect. If someone like Harris (or myself, frankly) started "traditional" ethical sources (aka, the Bible) I might have to eat my shirt. XD
I have some trouble understanding why the idea of using science as a tool to evaluate ethical ideas is controversial. It seems very common sensical to me, though I appreciate the empirical difficulties in making such inquiries. The complexity of the systems involved, the trouble doing proper replication, and the inability to (in many cases) use proper experimental controls makes it difficult. A substantial amount of evidence would need to be accrued to move from what would in most cases by observational studies to statements of causes, and then to value-driven prescriptions to implement results in society. That last part would honestly be the hardest. We don't have a political system that respects science very much, never mind attempting to use science-based results to improve society.
Quintessence: "I have some trouble understanding why the idea of using science as a tool to evaluate ethical ideas is controversial."
Probably two camps here:
1 - For the faithful, it's another erosion of what's left of their traditional turf.
2 - For the rest, not sure either.
Probably two camps here:
1 - For the faithful, it's another erosion of what's left of their traditional turf.
2 - For the rest, not sure either.
I love it when the idea of "ethics is the sole purview of my one true religion" is so foreign to my brain that I occasionally forget that it exists. XD
In some cases, it might stem from an unwillingness to subject one's ethics to the test of whether they increase or decrease the aggregate well-being of conscious critters.
But I'm sure there are at least a few other reasons.
One reason, doubtlessly, is the perception that science is ideological in nature.
Another perspective borrowed from Harris... If you trust and appreciate science, that implies that some of your core values are scientific in nature:
- you value evidence
- you value logic
- you value discovery
- you value parsimony
If you're debating a person who doesn't share these basics values, you're stuck. What evidence or logic can you use with a person who values neither?
So does this collection of values constitute an ideology?