# Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions



## Equity (Sep 13, 2013)




----------



## nml (Jan 21, 2012)

have you read his book? 

I like Sam. I think he's the smartest of the new atheists (or at least the best philosopher). 

And Sam's a great speaker. Calm, erudite, super logical.


----------



## Der Ubermensch (Oct 30, 2012)

I have slow internet connection so I can't see the video but I bet it has something to do with evolution...Evolution as we know it is a lie !


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Sam is _the _man. 

I have massive respect for him.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

There was once a man named Sam Harris who was very popular among fishmongers. He spoke the word: facts can dictate to morality. And thus spake Sam Harris: "Here are some facts, now just admit morality." And lo! It was so. The word went out to all fishmongers and their wives! All present said: "By Jove, he's got it!" And there was much hysterical applause, inane uproar and hullabaloo.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

fredbloggs02 said:


> There was once a man named Sam Harris who was very popular among fishmongers. He spoke the word: facts can dictate to morality. And thus spake Sam Harris: "Here are some facts, now just admit morality." And lo! It was so. The word went out to all fishmongers and their wives! All present said: "By Jove, he's got it!" And there was much hysterical applause, inane uproar and hullabaloo.


What a weird criticism with zero counter-argument.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

ugh1979 said:


> What a weird criticism with zero counter-argument.


He's a deep thinker ugh. Leave him be.  jk


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

bwidger85 said:


> He's a deep thinker ugh. Leave him be.  jk


*burns incense to Einstein*


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

ugh1979 said:


> What a weird criticism with zero counter-argument.


I believe I rephrased what he said. In essence: "there is no room at the inn for psychopaths. The facts I have presented adequately measure happiness and misery. Therefore, follow the facts by alleviating the suffering I see, and judging the psychopath who does not recognize them, evil."

As I see, he simply asserts morality relates to facts because most people in the west hold to their moral convictions as if they were objective facts. He appeals to the "rational" moral consciousness of the populous which he hopes will act as a buttress to objective facts in a "flourishing" culture. His argument therefore is no more than an appeal to conditioned moral sentiment. It doesn't satisfy me in the least.

Perhaps there are stronger objections I have yet to see, or perhaps I expect too much from public speakers. Perhaps only God and madmen can answer what concerns me. Perhaps I am just such a thoughtless cretin as the user above me whose profile picture until lately read: "WINNING!" stamped onto a stoopid gormless face.


----------



## Ramondo (Feb 16, 2011)

Der Ubermensch said:


> I have slow internet connection so I can't see the video but I bet it has something to do with evolution...Evolution as we know it is a lie !


Your internet might not be your only slow connection.


----------



## nml (Jan 21, 2012)

well...

Although I like Sam and think his project is well motivated, it is rather naïve. His book seemed to annoy so many philosophers (including philosophers sympathetic with his naturalism!) because he basically just ignores most of moral philosophy...if he didn't he'd see his arguments have been made before, and shown to be problematic before.

which is strange considering his background in philosophy...

But I still like Sam because a) he's smart, b) he likes science, and c) his moral convictions seem pretty sound. Hopefully he'll write the book he's capable of soon.


----------



## slider (Feb 9, 2013)

sam harris is nothing short of awesome


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

I would appreciate someone pointing out how he was persuasive. Please do make his arguments in concise form. 

I heard a rallying speech against fundamentalism; followed by his asserting the supremacy of materialism in determining moral truth, because we all have a brain; then likening a knowledge of facts to moral conviction in saying living creatures of most "complexity" are worthier of sympathy than rocks. This lead into arguments and examples for conventional sentiment bound together by a series of categorical imperatives: "we must just admit this" etc. From whom could one not hear this?

I don't know whether the love of a fundamentalist need be the same as a westernized view of love to be accounted for. Maybe the fundamentalist knows some thing the western audience don't. Subjectively, people love differently; and surely love has as much to do with intent as "well being" judged by its affects. The effects may be unfortunate, but violent love may also take violent effect. One can kill what ones loves because they love! One can massacre others in droves because they love! One can torture others as an expression of love because they love! I dare say the effects measured through brain chemistry appear similar to one who simply massacres: yet one side loved despite! What does the ideal Buddhist priest know of that? Convergence is pragmatic, not truthful. Everything he said depends on the judge of it. Subjective morality leads facts. He evaded the question.


----------



## Ramondo (Feb 16, 2011)

nml said:


> well...
> 
> Although I like Sam and think his project is well motivated, it is rather naïve. His book seemed to annoy so many philosophers (including philosophers sympathetic with his naturalism!) because he basically just ignores most of moral philosophy...if he didn't he'd see his arguments have been made before, and shown to be problematic before.
> 
> which is strange considering his background in philosophy...


He has a BA (an undergraduate degree) in philosophy and a PhD in neuroscience. If it were the other way round, he might get a more sympathetic hearing from philosophers. Most people and their dogs have an undergraduate degree in something, and that doesn't make them experts. 
I like Sam too. He's courageous, funny, and makes some very good points. Is he a professional philosopher or a 'leading ethicist' though?
I've read the book. I think he's demonstrated that science and rational thinking can help in making ethical decisions, and he's certainly right in claiming that religion is irrelevant. But I can't follow him all the way with his scientism.


----------



## Richard Pawgins (Jul 11, 2013)

subs


----------



## nml (Jan 21, 2012)

Ramondo said:


> He has a BA (an undergraduate degree) in philosophy and a PhD in neuroscience. If it were the other way round, he might get a more sympathetic hearing from philosophers. Most people and their dogs have an undergraduate degree in something, and that doesn't make them experts.
> I like Sam too. He's courageous, funny, and makes some very good points. Is he a professional philosopher or a 'leading ethicist' though?
> I've read the book. I think he's demonstrated that science and rational thinking can help in making ethical decisions, and he's certainly right in claiming that religion is irrelevant. But I can't follow him all the way with his scientism.


But I'm not sure he has demonstrated that science can help in making decisions, or at least not in the way he thinks he has.

The argument seems to be:

1) lots of people think science has nothing whatsoever to say about moral problems

2) some appalling instances of abuse do harm that can be measured scientifically

(e.g. what if it could be shown that women totally being denied education hampers the development of certain regions of the frontal lobe. or some such)

3) so science does have something to say about moral problems after all.

But most philosophers already agree with all this.

And Sam _did_ portray his book as an attempt to challenge the supposed division between scientific facts and values, the philosophical, "meta ethical" is ought gap, and show how progress in moral enquiry might finally be made. But he doesn't really do anything of the sort. Instead he focusses on some examples of cruelty that everyone already agrees are appalling, and has the habit of making the debate between right thinking science believing people on the one hand, and deranged fanatics on the other.

You're left with little clue how we might make progress on the genuinely thorny ethical issues (abortion, marijuana legalisation, euthanasia, America's foreign policy, etc. etc.) with the above method. And I don't recall an example of how we might in his book or in his speeches, presumably because he doesn't know how.

but I still like Sam like I said even though the book has (quite big) problems.


----------



## DarknessVisible (Nov 6, 2011)

He's a good speaker but a lazy thinker. There are some well written critiques explaining the problems with his claims:

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/11/sam-harris-is-wrong-about-science-and-morality/

http://enduringengland.blogspot.com/2013/05/sam-harris-and-ethics-of-torture.html?spref=tw

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/books/review/Appiah-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2010/10/science-and-morality/

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/sam-harris-and-scientism/?smid=fb-share&_r=0


----------



## Der Ubermensch (Oct 30, 2012)

Ramondo said:


> Your internet might not be your only slow connection.


What's the matter, your monkey brain can't accept the fact that evolution can't stand it's grounds ?


----------



## Daniel C (Apr 17, 2012)

The problem I have with people like Harris is that, in their aversion of religion, they seek positions that are almost equally preposterous. The idea that facts dictate morality is simply logically untenable. Two centuries and a half later, no one can still evade Hume's is-ought-fallacy. Science can help to provide information needed to make a balanced moral judgment, no doubt, but the idea that it can provide the judgment itself is bizarre. It would require some normative faith in science that would almost be religious on its own. Accepting the real consequences of atheism seems to be one step further than Harris's semi-metaphysical scientism.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

Is killing someone immoral?
Is killing someone detrimental to their well-being? 

I think Sam Harris is trying to point out these are the same question. And the second is obviously less of a philosophical question and its a question we answer with basic science of the human body.


----------



## Ramondo (Feb 16, 2011)

Daniel C said:


> The problem I have with people like Harris is that, in their aversion of religion, they seek positions that are almost equally preposterous. The idea that facts dictate morality is simply logically untenable. Two centuries and a half later, no one can still evade Hume's is-ought-fallacy. Science can help to provide information needed to make a balanced moral judgment, no doubt, but the idea that it can provide the judgment itself is bizarre. It would require some normative faith in science that would almost be religious on its own. Accepting the real consequences of atheism seems to be one step further than Harris's semi-metaphysical scientism.


The idea that 'is' can't lead to 'ought', or that knowledge can't benefit morality is overplayed, I think. Descartes used to experiment on live animals because he viewed them as emotionless automata. We now know through science that animals do feel pain and suffering, and this leads to a moral injunction not to be cruel to animals. There is much that science can tell us about morality.


----------



## DarknessVisible (Nov 6, 2011)

Ramondo said:


> The idea that 'is' can't lead to 'ought', or that knowledge can't benefit morality is overplayed, I think. Descartes used to experiment on live animals because he viewed them as emotionless automata. We now know through science that animals do feel pain and suffering, and this leads to a moral injunction not to be cruel to animals. There is much that science can tell us about morality.


In that example, science tells you nothing more than that animals feel pain. The idea that inflicting pain is wrong or cruel is a moral judgment. That's the problem with Harris. He assumes utilitarian morality as universal and self evident. He then says science replaces morality while refusing to ever engage in moral debate. Yes, science can help achieve your ends once you know what those ends are. But science doesn't tell us what ends we should value.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

DarknessVisible said:


> In that example, science tells you nothing more than that animals feel pain. The idea that inflicting pain is wrong or cruel is a moral judgment. That's the problem with Harris. He assumes utilitarian morality as universal and self evident. He then says science replaces morality while refusing to ever engage in moral debate. Yes, science can help achieve your ends once you know what those ends are. But science doesn't tell us what ends we should value.


If morality isn't about well being then what is it about?


----------



## DarknessVisible (Nov 6, 2011)

TerminalBlue said:


> If morality isn't about well being then what is it about?


What is well being? Is it the same thing for every person and animal? Whose well being is more important when in conflict?


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

DarknessVisible said:


> What is well being? Is it the same thing for every person and animal? Whose well being is more important when in conflict?


What's "important" doesn't matter I don't think when it comes to morality.

When someone harms someone else, it is immoral. I also expand that to animals so I'm being immoral when I eat another animal. I still do it but it is definitely immoral.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

TerminalBlue said:


> What's "important" doesn't matter I don't think when it comes to morality.
> 
> When someone harms someone else, it is immoral. I also expand that to animals so I'm being immoral when I eat another animal. I still do it but it is definitely immoral.


I disagree. There are times when harming someone else can be the right thing to do (such as if they are going to harm you or other people), just as eating an animal can be the right thing to do (we need to eat to stay alive).

It's always a case by case basis. There is no objective morality. Only subjective based on the particular situation and from whose perspective.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> I disagree. There are times when harming someone else can be the right thing to do (such as if they are going to harm you or other people), just as eating an animal can be the right thing to do (we need to eat to stay alive).
> 
> It's always a case by case basis. There is no objective morality. Only subjective based on the particular situation and from whose perspective.


Can something be the smart thing to do but also immoral? Or can something be the "right" thing to do when it comes to survival but also immoral?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

TerminalBlue said:


> Can something be the smart thing to do but also immoral? Or can something be the "right" thing to do when it comes to survival but also immoral?


That depends on whose interpretation of morality you are applying. If it's the person carrying out the action, or their supporters, then they could well see it as moral and right (so smart), where as others could see it as immoral and wrong.

Therefore, something can be the smart thing to do in the opinion of the person carrying out the action but immoral in the opinion of others.

Then again, some people will willingly knowingly be immoral as they don't care enough about any repercussions it may bring, often due to the reward being significant enough to justify the risk. In that respect it could be the smart thing for them to do (from their perspective) as long as they didn't get say caught for example.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> That depends on whose interpretation of morality you are applying. If it's the person carrying out the action, or their supporters, then they could well see it as moral and right (so smart), where as others could see it as immoral and wrong.
> 
> Therefore, something can be the smart thing to do in the opinion of the person carrying out the action but immoral in the opinion of others.
> 
> Then again, some people will willingly knowingly be immoral as they don't care enough about any repercussions it may bring, often due to the reward being significant enough to justify the risk. In that respect it could be the smart thing for them to do (from their perspective) as long as they didn't get say caught for example.


I need to start over. The claim is that morality is about well-being. In other words, when someone or something is negatively affecting someone or something else, it is immoral.

Perspective is irrelevant in my view (I think).

I'll add, I believe I'm being immoral every time I eat meat. I still eat meat because of the benefits I feel it provides. Eating meat may be smart or "right" when it comes to survival but it is still immoral to harm (or support the harm) of other living creatures.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

TerminalBlue said:


> I need to start over. The claim is that morality is about well-being. In other words, when someone or something is negatively affecting someone or something else, it is immoral.
> 
> Perspective is irrelevant in my view (I think).
> 
> I'll add, I believe I'm being immoral every time I eat meat. I still eat meat because of the benefits I feel it provides. Eating meat may be smart or "right" when it comes to survival but it is still immoral to harm (or support the harm) of other living creatures.


OK fair enough. Yes I agree with you in that respect.


----------



## DarknessVisible (Nov 6, 2011)

TerminalBlue said:


> I need to start over. The claim is that morality is about well-being. In other words, when someone or something is negatively affecting someone or something else, it is immoral.
> 
> Perspective is irrelevant in my view (I think).
> 
> I'll add, I believe I'm being immoral every time I eat meat. I still eat meat because of the benefits I feel it provides. Eating meat may be smart or "right" when it comes to survival but it is still immoral to harm (or support the harm) of other living creatures.


I hope you see that the moral reasoning you are going through is important and independent of science. You can break the meat eating question into two parts:

Is meat eating beneficial to my health?
Is it wrong to harm living creatures?

The first question is addressed by science, while the second is a moral question. To say that science answers moral questions is as ridiculous as saying that physics problems should be solved using ethics. It's simply a matter of using the right tool for the job. Science and morality are both necessary and complementary when we must apply theory to real world situations.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

DarknessVisible said:


> I hope you see that the moral reasoning you are going through is important and independent of science. You can break the meat eating question into two parts:
> 
> Is meat eating beneficial to my health?
> Is it wrong to harm living creatures?
> ...


Science can help us answer the second question as well. If morality is just about well-being, and science provides information on what well-being is, I'd say science gives us everything we need to answer the question.

I'm not saying philosophy has no role in answering moral questions, I'm saying science can better answer moral questions given the understanding that morality is about well-being. Because if morality isn't about well-being then what is it about?


----------



## HelpfulHero (Aug 14, 2013)

Additionally, science can give us insights into which h kinds of people will make which kinds of moral evaluations. So we can say for example that an action has a discrete "moral" being literally, in that we may be able to predict the immediate first order ramifications/response of an action. Ie we can probably predict pedophiles by neurological structure, big data, etc and we can predict the statistical outcomes on a group of children that get molested. Forgive the graphic example, but often it seems easy for some to use impersonal terminology to rationalize gross behavior in abstract


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

as people have said, can't get an ought from an is. duh.

plus if we're gonna go ahead and have a utilitarian ethic, i'm 99% sure that you're all evil mother ****ers by those standards.

if science can make ethical people please point one out to me. someone at least as ethical as someone like Peter Singer.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

andy1984 said:


> as people have said, can't get an ought from an is. duh.
> 
> plus if we're gonna go ahead and have a utilitarian ethic, i'm 99% sure that you're all evil mother ****ers by those standards.
> 
> if science can make ethical people please point one out to me. someone at least as ethical as someone like Peter Singer.


At about 3 minutes in the video below, Peter Singer says something like "there's no evidence that lettuces feel any pain". It was in a discussion on morality. I think this is just an example of how science can help us determine what is moral or ethical.


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

TerminalBlue said:


> At about 3 minutes in the video below, Peter Singer says something like "there's no evidence that lettuces feel any pain". It was in a discussion on morality. I think this is just an example of how science can help us determine what is moral or ethical.


what are you saying? i don't understand. what is the example of science helping?

in the context of private feelings there is no evidence that lecturers _feel_ pain. this is a common discussion within the realm of the philosophy of language. i think you're just wanting him to speak scientifically when he's not doing science, he's doing philosophy.


----------



## HelpfulHero (Aug 14, 2013)

They're not independent unless you hold to a mind body dichotomy that is ludicrous in view of modern science.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

andy1984 said:


> what are you saying? i don't understand. what is the example of science helping?
> 
> in the context of private feelings there is no evidence that lecturers _feel_ pain. this is a common discussion within the realm of the philosophy of language. i think you're just wanting him to speak scientifically when he's not doing science, he's doing philosophy.


The example was: There is no evidence to suggest lettuce feels pain so therefore it is not immoral to eat lettuce or other plants. This was Peter Singer's example. Had there been an experiment showing us lettuces do feel pain, we would have to call it immoral to eat lettuce.

Overall, I think the point is that morality is about well-being and science has a lot to say about what well-being is. So science can provide us with information to make a judgment on what is or isn't moral.


----------



## inerameia (Jan 26, 2012)

How is there scientific morality? Is it just code expected to provide social benefits?


----------



## NeuromorPhish (Oct 11, 2012)

Granted, scientific evidence can be obtained about what actions or causes bring the most well being (given a sufficient definition of what well being is). But this doesn't mean, what Sam Harris assumes as self-evident, that pleasure and well being is objectively _good_. As other people have pointed out in this thread, taking this premise for granted without justification is a problem for Sam's argument. IOW, the idea itself seems powerful, but its foundations are loose.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

NeuromorPhish said:


> Granted, scientific evidence can be obtained about what actions or causes bring the most well being (given a sufficient definition of what well being is). But this doesn't mean, what Sam Harris assumes as self-evident, that pleasure and well being is objectively _good_. As other people have pointed out in this thread, taking this premise for granted without justification is a problem for Sam's argument. IOW, the idea itself seems powerful, but its foundations are loose.


We know that humans require a functioning heart in order to live. We know that stabbing a human in the heart will result in a less than fully functioning heart. Stabbing a human in the heart is objectively immoral. That is unless you can demonstrate a human is better off with a stab wound in the heart.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

TerminalBlue said:


> We know that humans require a functioning heart in order to live. We know that stabbing a human in the heart will result in a less than fully functioning heart. Stabbing a human in the heart is objectively immoral. That is unless you can demonstrate a human is better off with a stab wound in the heart.


It's not objectively immoral if it means the person being stabbed in the heart then doesn't stab you and your children in the heart.

There's no such things as objective morality. Every action has to be considered subjectively moral in context.

What's moral for one person can be immoral for another. Not everything is best for everyone.


----------



## NeuromorPhish (Oct 11, 2012)

TerminalBlue said:


> We know that humans require a functioning heart in order to live. We know that stabbing a human in the heart will result in a less than fully functioning heart. Stabbing a human in the heart is objectively immoral. That is unless you can demonstrate a human is better off with a stab wound in the heart.


I think the issue with this kind of reasoning is that it assumes human life to be objectively good, which, although it might seem self-evident to most people, is not a _fact_.


----------



## Gavroche (Jan 12, 2013)

One of my questions with Harris' thinking is that in the end how is his moral view any different from utilitarianism? It seems that although he holds science up in such an instance, he is still relying on non-scientific value judgements to make moral judgements. 

For example, if Harris would say that killing a child is immoral as I assume he would, consider this morbid situation:

Let's say there was a situation where someone was holding two children hostage, declaring that he would kill them if you did not kill a certain other child, and that if you killed that other child, he would set the other two free. The utilitarian would say that the moral choice is to kill the one child so that the other two live. I don't see how Harris' moral ideas are any different since I assume he would choose the latter option as well to minimize the suffering and maximize the lives saved. 

Others would say that it doesn't matter if some person on their own malevolent initiative has decided to threaten to kill two children, that doesn't mean you have moral justification to kill another child to simply bring about a desired outcome.

How would Harris answer such a question? Does the situation change if you are told that the two children held hostage will become criminals later in life, and the other child will become a life saving doctor?


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

NeuromorPhish said:


> I think the issue with this kind of reasoning is that it assumes human life to be objectively good, which, although it might seem self-evident to most people, is not a _fact_.


We judge the morality of a particular action based on how it affects the condition or well-being of another being. Its not just assuming human life is objectively good. In order to even ask the questing "is X a moral action", you have to consider how the being's condition was affected.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> It's not objectively immoral if it means the person being stabbed in the heart then doesn't stab you and your children in the heart.
> 
> There's no such things as objective morality. Every action has to be considered subjectively moral in context.
> 
> What's moral for one person can be immoral for another. Not everything is best for everyone.


I'm not saying that context doesn't matter. I'm saying that given a situation, there are right answers and wrong answers concerning the morality of the situation. You agree with that, right?


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

Gavroche said:


> One of my questions with Harris' thinking is that in the end how is his moral view any different from utilitarianism? It seems that although he holds science up in such an instance, he is still relying on non-scientific value judgements to make moral judgements.
> 
> For example, if Harris would say that killing a child is immoral as I assume he would, consider this morbid situation:
> 
> ...


Here is a quote from the wiki of The Moral Landscape "Harris says a science of morality may resemble Utilitarianism, but that the science is, importantly, more open-ended because it involves an evolving definition of well-being. Rather than committing to Reductive materialism, then, Harris recognizes the arguments of revisionists that psychological definitions themselves are contingent on research and discoveries. Harris adds that any science of morality must consider everything from emotions and thoughts to the actual actions and their consequences."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape

It is Wikipedia so who knows. I think the answer of the question depends on all available information.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

TerminalBlue said:


> I'm not saying that context doesn't matter. I'm saying that given a situation, there are right answers and wrong answers concerning the morality of the situation. You agree with that, right?


Subjective right and wrongs yes, but not objective ones.


----------



## Arthur Pendragon (Mar 17, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Subjective right and wrongs yes, but not objective ones.


"He(Sam Harris) argues that 'Social morality exists to sustain cooperative social relationships, and morality can be objectively evaluated by that standard.' Harris sees some philosophers' talk of strictly _private_ morality as akin to unproductive discussion of some private, personal physics."
Whether this is a private decision or not, speaking from an efficiency standpoint, an "objective" standpoint would be synonymous with the standpoint of everyone combined. Morality was originally established to protect everyone's values, and thus is a shifting concept.

While I do not agree with Sam Harris, it is true that if you take everyone's point of view, tally their values and their self-assigned weights to them, and quantify the results, you may yet find yourself with a scientifically produced "moral bible" of sorts which would result in the maximum protection of values, not necessarily your own. In addition, you can move this one step further to create morality 'niches' where societies may separate to allow people with different values to conglomerate, although this gets tricky. Alternatively, you can move in a different direction and "reeducate" everyone to what seems to be the most commonly agreed moral standard (the adaptation of the people to moral values). Eventually, I believe that this boils down to social ergonomics and the realization that we have come up with today: Escapism and avoidance is the current best way to promote moral tolerance/ignorance.



TerminalBlue said:


> We know that humans require a functioning heart in order to live. We know that stabbing a human in the heart will result in a less than fully functioning heart. Stabbing a human in the heart is objectively immoral. That is unless you can demonstrate a human is better off with a stab wound in the heart.


See cardiac surgery.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Arthur Pendragon said:


> "He(Sam Harris) argues that 'Social morality exists to sustain cooperative social relationships, and morality can be objectively evaluated by that standard.' Harris sees some philosophers' talk of strictly _private_ morality as akin to unproductive discussion of some private, personal physics."
> Whether this is a private decision or not, speaking from an efficiency standpoint, an "objective" standpoint would be synonymous with the standpoint of everyone combined. Morality was originally established to protect everyone's values, and thus is a shifting concept.


The standpoint of everyone combined on any given moral issue is just the complete set of demographics of judgements made in what way. There is no moral standpoint every single person agrees on. Even then, as you say, it can be a shifting concept, so therefore can never be objective.

Good and evil don't objectively exist. They are always subjective moral judgements.

Morality emerged via the process of natural evolution to protect everyone in the group, but that morality between different groups has always been and probably always will be slightly different. It will continue to become less diverse as we increasingly become one global group, but still, morality is a transient concept and it's judgements/laws are in no way objective. They are always subjective.

Yes they can be objectively _evaluated_, but so can the analysis of any set of subjective beliefs/experiences of a group of people.



> While I do not agree with Sam Harris, it is true that if you take everyone's point of view, tally their values and their self-assigned weights to them, and quantify the results, you may yet find yourself with a scientifically produced "moral bible" of sorts which would result in the maximum protection of values, not necessarily your own.


Who decides the weights and authors the guide/"moral bible"?



> In addition, you can move this one step further to create morality 'niches' where societies may separate to allow people with different values to conglomerate, although this gets tricky.


This has already happens dynamically and naturally. People of a like mind tend to forum societies.



> Alternatively, you can move in a different direction and "reeducate" everyone to what seems to be the most commonly agreed moral standard (the adaptation of the people to moral values).


Wow, "re-educating" everyone with what are deemed the most popular moral values is the stuff of a dystopian nightmare. It simply can't be as black and white as that. There has to be choice and freedom.



> Eventually, I believe that this boils down to social ergonomics and the realization that we have come up with today: Escapism and avoidance is the current best way to promote moral tolerance/ignorance.


Avoidance will always be the best way to promote ignorance of anything. Thankfully our societies don't ignore morality and never will, as it's essential to our continued survival and prosperity.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

Arthur Pendragon said:


> See cardiac surgery.


Alright, fine. Its a simple example. If person A is stabbing person B and person B really really hates being stabbed in the heart and its not for health reasons and the purpose is to kill the person ....

I don't understand someone who says "who are we to say its wrong or immoral to stab another (to kill them against their will)".


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

There are so many interesting insults being thrown around in this thread. Gotta write some of them down to use later.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

diamondheart89 said:


> There are so many interesting insults being thrown around in this thread. Gotta write some of them down to use later.


Interesting indeed. Can you document them here for reference? I'm genuinely interested, (but no need to personalise).


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> Interesting indeed. Can you document them here for reference? I'm genuinely interested, (but no need to personalise).


I'm kind of uncomfortable with this newfound civility in discourse between us. :um I feel cheated of the experience of interrupting your serious-business atheist threads with references to atheist circle-jerking and fish-related jokes. Why ruin a good thing?

Also if I point them all out, I can't use them against you in the next thread you create.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

diamondheart89 said:


> I'm kind of uncomfortable with this newfound civility in discourse between us. :um I feel cheated of the experience of interrupting your serious-business atheist threads with references to atheist circle-jerking and fish-related jokes. Why ruin a good thing?
> 
> Also if I point them all out, I can't use them against you in the next thread you create.


:lol

I enjoy being civil unless the debate forces me to be less civil. 

Your "jokes" were mindless, which is a shame as I know you can do much better.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

diamondheart89 said:


> I'm kind of uncomfortable with this newfound civility in discourse between us. :um I feel cheated of the experience of interrupting your serious-business atheist threads with references to atheist circle-jerking and fish-related jokes. Why ruin a good thing?
> 
> Also if I point them all out, I can't use them against you in the next thread you create.


I love a nice atheist circle-jerk. Shoes mandatory. Flip flops at your own risk of course.


----------



## Arthur Pendragon (Mar 17, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> :lol
> 
> I enjoy being civil unless the debate forces me to be less civil.
> 
> Your "jokes" were mindless, which is a shame as I know you can do much better.


ugh1979 I encourage you to partake more thought into reading the actual material that you are responding to. While I am understanding of your need to establish yourself there is no need to automatically assume that every response directed towards you is a threat or even disagreeing. Otherwise, you run the risk of making a fool of yourself. For example, if you had actually internalized my previous post in this thread you would find your responses to it meaningless and redundant. Also, with your first response to diamondheart89, you managed to take a completely neutral if not positive comment and antagonized the author.

Also,


ugh1979 said:


> Who decides the weights and authors the guide/"moral bible"?


"self-assigned weights" as mentioned in the sentence you were quoting :roll


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Arthur Pendragon said:


> ugh1979 I encourage you to partake more thought into reading the actual material that you are responding to.


I gave you a pretty comprehensive reply to it, what was so off about it?



> While I am understanding of your need to establish yourself there is no need to automatically assume that every response directed towards you is a threat or even disagreeing. Otherwise, you run the risk of making a fool of yourself. For example, if you had actually internalized my previous post in this thread you would find your responses to it meaningless and redundant.


I don't always, i'm just engaging with the discussion.



> Also, with your first response to diamondheart89, you managed to take a completely neutral if not positive comment and antagonized the author.


Yeah that's a certain thing I do sometimes.



> Also,
> 
> "self-assigned weights" as mentioned in the sentence you were quoting :roll


You missed the point, who's making the judgement on the group results.

Also, you should note that i'm frequently in full agreement with some of our commenters, or that they may not be speaking subjectively at all


----------

