Sam Harris: Science can answer moral Questions

[Draupadi]

Science can't absolutely answer all questions of morality and may have limited power in determining how we choose to behave. But it not the only method. I myself believed that science has this potential because unless you can't see the results of a particular action, you can't judge whether it is right or wrong. In this case I would like to take up the case of beating children because I can relate to it. In my country most kids grow up being beaten, not by teachers which does happen but mostly parents. You can even get beaten for being stubborn not to eat a particular food.Some parents don't even spare their adult children. I also grew up like that and I considered it a norm and not wrong seeing that people around me had no problem with it and touted it's benefits. Growing up I did come to know about countries that have no such rule. It surprised me and I started to find out the reasons behind it. I came across studies that point out how it adversely affected the mind of children in the long run and my mind was changed.

 

[s2a]

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Talk Video | TED.com

Harris makes an argument which -- poorly summarized -- goes something like this: If we first assume an axiom -- such as that human well-being is our goal -- then we can in many -- but not in all -- instances answer questions about what actions or behavior increase or decrease that axiom (e.g. human well-being) via facts established scientifically.

For instance, we can in theory at least scientifically answer the question of whether corporeal punishment of school children furthers or promotes their well-being and the well-being of those who interact with them now or later on in life. And, assuming human well-being is our goal, the answer to that question will guide or determine which values we choose regarding the issue of corporeal punishment.

Harris' argument, of course, is in direct contradiction of the conventional wisdom that facts and values belong in two separate, non-overlapping spheres, and that facts can never determine values, or perhaps even be guides to values.

Please discuss.

Love me some good Ted talks.

I guess, the argument is distilled further as to whether or not "knowledge" is a good thing, or a bad thing.

Like most things, especially as may regard "morality", it depends.

Is cloning "evil"? If it may save a human life?
Is nuclear reaction a good thing if it can power 10,000 homes "cleanly"?
Are automobiles a "thing" that enhances everyday freedom of mobility, or a scourge of pollution and insulation?
Is the internet a tool for sharing information around the world, or a cost of sharing information around the world?
Does a cell phone expand our horizons, or make us the focus of ever greater spying upon our individual freedoms/liberties?
Does a bomb even care who is blown to bits afterwards?

Hmmm. I would offer this much...NOT knowing "anything" about "something" is always more dangerous than knowing (most) something/everything about "anything" (or dismissing as nothing).

From the history of recorded human time, the folks that survive and thrive to pass along their DNA are those that "know" more than those that know less, or nothing.

Knowing how to make a spear was an advantage over any tribe that did not. You are welcome to debate the merits of that (and all subsequent knowledge)as being either moral or imoral...but I'm fairly confident that your forbears made the spears and learned how to use them first.

 

[Draupadi]

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. 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.

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.

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. 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, that he is absolutely right since his theory works on the Taliban.

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.

Both science and religion can't provide all the answers and can be misused. That doesn't mean we dismiss it all.

 

[atanu]

Nuber of scientific hypothesis on an issue never reduces . Never.

From this POV, I think science alone cannot arrive at unequivocal solutions and more so for moral ethical issues.

But, possibly, wisdom of a sage and science together can solve issues in better way.

 

[icehorse]

Draupadi gives us a fantastic example!

Harris is saying that we can have universal moral "expertise". There is no claim of perfection or 100% solutions. For example we can say that a particular doctor is an expert in treating cancer, even though she cannot cure all cancer patients.

So perhaps the first point of debate is this one: can we agree that universal moral expertise is possible (even if incomplete)?

To take Draupadi's example, I claim that we know enough to say - universally - that beating kids is immoral. That doesn't mean we have answers to EVERY moral question, but we have an answer to that one.

 

[icehorse]

What would be an example of a moral question where we would pretend that we don't have some expertise?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Nuber of scientific hypothesis on an issue never reduces . Never.

From this POV, I think science alone cannot arrive at unequivocal solutions and more so for moral ethical issues.

But, possibly, wisdom of a sage and science together can solve issues in better way.

For answers, actual answers, to moral questions are found in philosophy rather than the scientific method. And philosophy isn't inherently religious or motivated by the divine. Though science can help explain them philosophy itself is what provides the answer.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

The important point to make about Harris's book and speeches about this topic is as follows:

1. His concepts are extremely difficult for the average person to fully digest at first glance.
2. As such Harris goes out of his way to give examples in his book to help readers understand what he is saying
3. he uses the term human health, or what makes a healthy person. He explains that there still is no exact answer to that. However the health field is full of science and tangible advantages to the world.
4. As a result we need not define human health entirely, to allow the medical field to flourish and make lasting progress.
5. In the case of morals, it is true and the same, if understood in the same context, morals may never be fully defined, but that is hardly an excuse to say science has little to say on the topic, just as we see in health field.

If one were to grasp how that works 1-5 one can grasp the depth of what Harris is offering the world.


For the record, I agree with much of what he says. I am a Christian, and I find most of what so called Christian authorities teach is rubbish at best, Harris is going to force us to take morals to a new level. Bravo to him for that.


Yet, as he cites in his book, the struggle that he did not expect has come from within his community and not the religious community. He can't even make out of his circle, in order to bring this to the world.


Underlining, my first point, that his arguments require a serious study and not a cursory glance, which Harris knew would happen before he wrote the book, but decided the information too valuable to not write it.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

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.

So does the question of "what is human health" or "what is peak physical fitness"
Yet that hasn't stopped loads and loads of scientific discoveries in the field of health.

Just because we can't define morals, as in the case of human health, we shall not be stalled to make great gains in scientific discovery in the name of health and now morals.