| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/11/2010 09:21:53 PM · #1701 |
Don't worry guys. It's not worth arguing over this evening. I was mainly making a few points and nothing more:
1) There is likely a reasonable limit to freedom of speech (hate crimes being among them).
2) Religion is as worthy of defending as anything else.
3) The NSS are a bunch of nincompoops.
Carry on. |
|
|
|
03/11/2010 09:55:25 PM · #1702 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't worry guys. It's not worth arguing over this evening. I was mainly making a few points and nothing more:
1) There is likely a reasonable limit to freedom of speech (hate crimes being among them). |
I for one have a great deal of problems with any form of legislation dealing with so called "Hate Crimes". When one considers the unbelievable amount of legislation currently available to prosecutors, there truly does not exist any requirements of any laws directed at hate.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) Religion is as worthy of defending as anything else. |
I truly do not believe that anyone has issues with anyone defending religion. The problems in instances such as these is that the state is persecuting those whose views differ from those who believe in religion.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) The NSS are a bunch of nincompoops. |
... and I would counter that idiots occupy similar positions on both sides of the fence.
Have a great day Doc :O)
Ray
|
|
|
|
03/11/2010 11:14:01 PM · #1703 |
| Thanks Ray. I agree with pretty well everything you said. Believe me, there are plenty of nincompoops on what might be termed "my side" of the fence. |
|
|
|
03/11/2010 11:15:50 PM · #1704 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Thanks Ray. I agree with pretty well everything you said. Believe me, there are plenty of nincompoops on what might be termed "my side" of the fence. |
Actually.....the whole wrold's freakin' nuts 'cept you and me, and I'm not entirely sure about you.....8>)
|
|
|
|
03/22/2010 05:56:10 PM · #1705 |
Sam Harris on how science can answer moral questions. We've often discussed this issue here, and Harris, a neuroscientist and philosopher, answers the objection that science can never address moral issues quite succinctly.
As a bonus, also includes some incidental bashing of string theory deniers. |
|
|
|
03/22/2010 07:39:37 PM · #1706 |
Here is an interesting example of the way in which religion is both absurd and objectionable (in being used to defend a perceived retained right even if it against social etiquette or the law).
Jedi wins apology for having been asked to remove his hood
I particularly like: "The main reason is I want to wear my hood up and I have got a religion which allows me to do that."
If only other religionists would be so honest!
|
|
|
|
03/22/2010 07:49:48 PM · #1707 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Here is an interesting example of the way in which religion is both absurd and objectionable (in being used to defend a perceived retained right even if it against social etiquette or the law).
Jedi wins apology for having been asked to remove his hood
I particularly like: "The main reason is I want to wear my hood up and I have got a religion which allows me to do that."
If only other religionists would be so honest! |
I don't think he can legally claim to be a "Jedi Knight" without a "baptismal" certificate personally signed by George Lucas ... |
|
|
|
03/22/2010 08:09:35 PM · #1708 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Here is an interesting example of the way in which religion is both absurd and objectionable (in being used to defend a perceived retained right even if it against social etiquette or the law).
Jedi wins apology for having been asked to remove his hood
I particularly like: "The main reason is I want to wear my hood up and I have got a religion which allows me to do that."
If only other religionists would be so honest! |
And he withheld using the force too! What a swell guy! |
|
|
|
03/22/2010 08:19:44 PM · #1709 |
Very well presented. Thanks for posting. |
|
|
|
03/22/2010 08:29:34 PM · #1710 |
Originally posted by yanko:
And he withheld using the force too! What a swell guy! |
Do lightsabers show up on airport screening devices? |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 10:06:40 PM · #1711 |
Sam is a decent speaker (and thanks for the link), but I think his talk lacked very much substance at all. A few thoughts off the top of my head (only minutes after watching, so allow me to perhaps be less than perfectly organized in my writing):
Harris probably correctly states that Science can be helpful in finding the proper answer to a moral question, but only after the foundational moral framework has been arbitrarily set. For example, he does not offer any method for judging whether one should choose human suffering as the ultimate evil to be avoided. He stated it as an axiomatic truth. He likewise doesn't offer any method for science to answer the next level of questions. If we assume that the avoidance of human suffering is the benchmark by which moral questions should be answered, do we, for example, hold suffering of the individual to be highest or suffering of a society? In other words, how does Science answer whether an individual ought to accept suffering upon themselves if it lowers the suffering of those around them? The answer makes society look quite different (eg. the US versus Singapore).
He constantly waffled back and forth between his desire to declare a universal ethic while allowing for "richness" (as the host put it) of opinion. In his example of the food pyramid he said he would never declare only one food to be the "right" food, but then not two minutes later declared that we ought to be judgemental about things like burka's. He also makes the common mistake (or perhaps did it on purpose) of confusing absolute morality with universal morality (I can't blame him as earlier in conversations I used the two terms interchangably (which is incorrect).) Absolute morality declares, like he said, that if lying is wrong, it is always wrong. Universal morality declares that in a given situation, the correct action exists outside the individual's worldview. In other words, the correct action will not be reliant on your inner belief about the situation. If the situation requires lying as the best moral option, that course of action is the correct one no matter who you are (man, woman, muslim, atheist, gay, straight, etc). Intellectual theists (since he was talking about intellectuals) would very likely declare the second to be truth and not the first.
Harris declares that we should allow for "moral experts", but offers no plan on how Science would determine who is to be considered a moral expert.
His final answer to the host's question about moral progress vs. richness sums up the lack of foundation. His answer was that some day we will understand the processes of the mind for all our "positive and negative qualities". This may well be true, but how do we determine which quality is "positive" and which is "negative"? He said nothing about this which was the entire question he set out to answer.
In the end Harris basically stated that Science will make progress in understanding the mind, a statement I wholeheartedly agree to be true. However, he completely failed to answer his own question at the fundamental level. He offered no methods for Science to determine the normative moral benchmark for what is "right" and what is "wrong". |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 10:25:16 PM · #1712 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the end Harris basically stated that Science will make progress in understanding the mind, a statement I wholeheartedly agree to be true. However, he completely failed to answer his own question at the fundamental level. He offered no methods for Science to determine the normative moral benchmark for what is "right" and what is "wrong". |
Ok, I'll bite.
Given that this thread deals with Science and Theology, how exactly does Theology address this issue, particularly when we consider that the benchmark constantly changes. Normative moral benchmarks, not unlike laws, are probably premised on the mores of a society, are normally adopted after a period of time, and on occasion lag behind the general level of acceptance of the environment within which they exist.
It could be argued that Theology is truly not much better than Science in this regard as it focuses primarily on interpretation of past behaviours and is not necessarily reflective of existing standards, witness the resistance to accept and/or tolerate the gay life style.
As always, I eagerly await your response... I may very well be enlightened. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 10:28:20 PM · #1713 |
Hey Ray,
I was worried this would be the very first response. I don't want to ignore you, but rather than suddenly shifting to me defending my own views, I'd rather talk about the validity of Harris'. I'm happy to come back to it, after we've discussed whether Harris' talk fulfilled what he set out to do. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 10:38:14 PM · #1714 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey Ray,
I was worried this would be the very first response. I don't want to ignore you, but rather than suddenly shifting to me defending my own views, I'd rather talk about the validity of Harris'. I'm happy to come back to it, after we've discussed whether Harris' talk fulfilled what he set out to do. |
...Not a problem Doc, I was just curious.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 11:13:02 PM · #1715 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sam is a decent speaker (and thanks for the link), but I think his talk lacked very much substance at all. A few thoughts off the top of my head (only minutes after watching, so allow me to perhaps be less than perfectly organized in my writing):
Harris probably correctly states that Science can be helpful in finding the proper answer to a moral question, but only after the foundational moral framework has been arbitrarily set. For example, he does not offer any method for judging whether one should choose human suffering as the ultimate evil to be avoided. He stated it as an axiomatic truth. He likewise doesn't offer any method for science to answer the next level of questions. If we assume that the avoidance of human suffering is the benchmark by which moral questions should be answered, do we, for example, hold suffering of the individual to be highest or suffering of a society? In other words, how does Science answer whether an individual ought to accept suffering upon themselves if it lowers the suffering of those around them? The answer makes society look quite different (eg. the US versus Singapore). |
Why must you choose? Can't both be the highest? I think what you're getting at is when you can't do both which do you choose? If so can you give me examples? |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 11:51:03 PM · #1716 |
In the end, what strikes me about Harris's position is that it's sort of an intellectual imperialism. What strikes me is not his allusions to morality being based on facts, so science can judge it, but rather his conclusion, or at least strong speculation, that in the end "we" intellectuals and scientists, the ones most capable of rational thought, need to be the ones making the moral decisions because "they" don't know any better, and WE know THEY don't know any better because they don't agree with us.
R. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 11:56:48 PM · #1717 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In the end, what strikes me about Harris's position is that it's sort of an intellectual imperialism. What strikes me is not his allusions to morality being based on facts, so science can judge it, but rather his conclusion, or at least strong speculation, that in the end "we" intellectuals and scientists, the ones most capable of rational thought, need to be the ones making the moral decisions because "they" don't know any better, and WE know THEY don't know any better because they don't agree with us.
R. |
It's always difficult to know that I'm right, and everyone else is wrong :D |
|
|
|
03/28/2010 12:00:47 AM · #1718 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It's always difficult to know that I'm right, and everyone else is wrong :D |
You too eh?
How well I remember my mom, watching the parade, beaming with pride, and telling everyone within earshot that her son was the only one in step...gotta love it. :O)
Ray
|
|
|
|
03/28/2010 12:58:07 AM · #1719 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sam is a decent speaker (and thanks for the link), but I think his talk lacked very much substance at all. A few thoughts off the top of my head (only minutes after watching, so allow me to perhaps be less than perfectly organized in my writing):
Harris probably correctly states that Science can be helpful in finding the proper answer to a moral question, but only after the foundational moral framework has been arbitrarily set. For example, he does not offer any method for judging whether one should choose human suffering as the ultimate evil to be avoided. He stated it as an axiomatic truth. He likewise doesn't offer any method for science to answer the next level of questions. If we assume that the avoidance of human suffering is the benchmark by which moral questions should be answered, do we, for example, hold suffering of the individual to be highest or suffering of a society? In other words, how does Science answer whether an individual ought to accept suffering upon themselves if it lowers the suffering of those around them? The answer makes society look quite different (eg. the US versus Singapore). |
Why must you choose? Can't both be the highest? I think what you're getting at is when you can't do both which do you choose? If so can you give me examples? |
I think the example of approach taken by the US versus Singapore is revealing. Singapore's society is willing to severely curtail individual rights in the name of societal harmony while the US is, in large, the opposite. Societal discord is tolerated in order to protect individual freedoms. Harris did not speak to Science's ability to discriminate between such models as "better" and "worse". So, first, he did not reveal a system for deciding on the normative standards to begin with, but then doesn't offer a method for choosing between ways to achieve such a standard.
Really, if I want to get a bit pejorative, his entire answer to how Science can answer moral questions boiled down to "we will be able to scan people's brains". Full stop. |
|
|
|
03/28/2010 01:08:10 AM · #1720 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For example, he does not offer any method for judging whether one should choose human suffering as the ultimate evil to be avoided. |
First of all, he admits of no evil, but speaks only of the well-being of conscious creatures. That well-being is described by certain kinds of facts that have come to be known as values. The antithesis of well-being is certainly suffering.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we assume that the avoidance of human suffering is the benchmark by which moral questions should be answered, do we, for example, hold suffering of the individual to be highest or suffering of a society? |
That's a red herring exposed by your following sentence. Suffering can only be experienced individually. An individual "ought" to do nothing to increase his own suffering. The well-being of a conscious creature is the only thing that values in this context are concerned with; if that well-being is violated, than something "immoral" has occurred. If GI-Joe decides to throw himself on the grenade to save B Company, Joe has made that decision for himself without suffering being imposed on him. Any society imposing suffering on another has lost its perception of the well-being of its constituent members.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In his example of the food pyramid he said he would never declare only one food to be the "right" food, but then not two minutes later declared that we ought to be judgemental about things like burka's. |
Mind your apostrophes. The two situations are not comparable. The whole argument was an exhortation to acknowledge that we should admit that there are right and wrong answers to important questions, that, as he said, "we simply must converge on the most important questions we have in life." The food analogy simply acknowledged that there is more than one way to assure the well-being of conscious creatures, or attain one of the "peaks" in his moral landscape analogy; the burka and spanking were obvious examples of what constituted a "valley".
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Harris declares that we should allow for "moral experts", but offers no plan on how Science would determine who is to be considered a moral expert. |
In a twenty-minute talk? Come on. I don't remember him asking for moral experts, but anyway.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
His final answer to the host's question about moral progress vs. richness sums up the lack of foundation. His answer was that some day we will understand the processes of the mind for all our "positive and negative qualities". This may well be true, but how do we determine which quality is "positive" and which is "negative"? He said nothing about this which was the entire question he set out to answer. |
His entire talk was about this very thing, and he said it repeatedly: we will converge in our assessment of what is positive and what is negative by our study of the brain; well-being is what values are concerned with, and suffering is the antithesis of well-being; and discussions of well-being means
discussion of the brain, since our experience of well-being happens in the brain. As he said, we will, for example, one day be able to "interrogate" the brain and discover the discrete reasons for empathetic behaviour.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He offered no methods for Science to determine the normative moral benchmark for what is "right" and what is "wrong". |
Yes, he did. Values are concerned with the well-being of conscious creatures. What is "right" is what is concerned with the well-being of conscious creatures; what is "wrong" is suffering, its antithesis. One day, we will converge on the very processes that constitute well-being, but until then: flourishing of human communities through happy individuals, good; everything that stifles that flourishing and causes suffering in individuals, bad.
PS: Harris both a neurologist and a philosopher; his talk highlights both schools. He is, I would imagine, well versed in the technical terms for various schools of moral frameworks without having to bandy about their discrete meanings in an informal talk like TED. |
|
|
|
03/28/2010 01:11:48 AM · #1721 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In the end, what strikes me about Harris's position is that it's sort of an intellectual imperialism. What strikes me is not his allusions to morality being based on facts, so science can judge it, but rather his conclusion, or at least strong speculation, that in the end "we" intellectuals and scientists, the ones most capable of rational thought, need to be the ones making the moral decisions because "they" don't know any better, and WE know THEY don't know any better because they don't agree with us. |
Sorry you got that out of his talk, but that was not even obliquely said, and it certainly wasn't inferred. He did say "we must converge" on ideas of what constitutes a good or bad answer to important questions, but the inference I got was not one of elitism of scientific snobbery, but "we" as a global community of human beings concerned with the well-being of other human beings. He specifically also mentioned that "we" would understand the process by which we embrace the good and eschew the bad via our brains, and by that he certainly means that neuro-science (and neuroscientists) will help, but obviously, like every other scientific discovery of import, it will be a bequeathal to the human community. |
|
|
|
03/28/2010 02:16:56 AM · #1722 |
Louis, I find it revealing that on one hand Sam speaks to the nascent field of neuropsychology as the tool to determining what is right and wrong ("So the contributions of culture, if culture changes us, as indeed it does, it changes us by changing our brains. And so whatever cultural variation there is in how human beings flourish can, at least in principle, be understood in the context of a maturing science of the mind, neuroscience, psychology, etc." and "at a certain point we are going to be able to scan the brains of everyone involved and actually interrgate them." (underlines denote that we have not arrived there yet)), but already he has no difficulty determining that spanking is obviously wrong along with wearing burkas and other (always) religiously derived ideas.
In essence he is saying, "in the future we will possess the tools to prove what I already know to be true (but other people don't)". This is either quite self-serving or merely logical fallacy. How does he already possess the knowledge that Science will reveal to us in the future?
I'm underwhelmed.
Message edited by author 2010-03-28 02:17:46. |
|
|
|
03/28/2010 10:50:33 AM · #1723 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... he has no difficulty determining that spanking is obviously wrong along with wearing burkas and other (always) religiously derived ideas. |
Nor does anyone have such difficulty, if you heard what he said about these things.
Burkas: compulsory wearing as a kind of "cloth bag" in temperatures exceeding 40C in a culture where personal choice is meaningless when battery acid and murder are ways to deal with wanton daughters, wrong, since it leads directly to suffering.
Spanking (only mentioned in relation to spanking in public schools by teachers): "Is it a good idea to subject children to pain and violence and public humiliation as a way of encouraging healthy emotional development and good behaviour? Is there any doubt that there is an answer to this question, and that it matters?"
Not to be coy, but note that he does not supply the answer to that question. Of course his personal answer is implied, but his talk is an appeal to discourse about the fact that there are, indeed, right and wrong answers to such questions, and that even admitting this will further the cause of human well-being.
Yes, he is suggesting that there are obvious answers to some moral questions. Many of the obvious answers have been disrupted by the filter of religion, which has caused a serious (and in my opinion immoral) disconnect between morality and human suffering. So, many religious people are vexed by "issues" such as gay marriage and unmoved by problems such as world hunger or nuclear proliferation. |
|
|
|
03/28/2010 12:10:01 PM · #1724 |
Don't get me wrong. I agree with many of the conclusions Harris does. I also think forcing a woman to wear a burka is Wrong. But show me where Harris has shown that Science offers the platform for having discourse between the pro- and anti-burka camp? He doesn't. And that was the whole supposed point of his talk. Point me to the quote or time in the talk where he directly discusses Science and burkas (or Science and any moral decision). It is not there.
Basically Harris wants to muscle a seat at the table of moral discussion. I don't blame him. But he wants the best of all worlds. He'd like to be able to tell his religious opponents they are Wrong (with a capital W), yet he wants to be able to protect his own views (or the views of other non-religious intellectuals) by pointing to the many peaks and valleys of human happiness. This way if one of his intellectual buddies doesn't agree with him about something he can say he just lives on a different peak of happiness. |
|
|
|
03/28/2010 12:41:20 PM · #1725 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But show me where Harris has shown that Science offers the platform for having discourse between the pro- and anti-burka camp? He doesn't. And that was the whole supposed point of his talk. |
No, I don't think that was the point of his talk. The point of his talk was to suggest that to talk of values is to talk of facts about conscious experience, and that there are answers to moral questions, and that some of those answers are obvious. You seem to have fallen on the side of the apologists he actually subtly excoriates (the "who are we to say" crowd, where his answer is, "who are we not to say"). He very clearly is not suggesting any discourse need be brooked where the answers are obvious.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Point me to the quote or time in the talk where he directly discusses Science and burkas (or Science and any moral decision). It is not there. |
It's all over the place. To discuss values is to discuss factual claims about conscious experience. That experience occurs in the brain. It is the purview of science to fall on one side or other of these factual claims. Neuroscience and psychology and other sciences of the brain are ways one can "take a stand" to plead it emotionally, or have a fact-based position on these claims.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Basically Harris wants to muscle a seat at the table of moral discussion etc |
All of what you've said is to be willfully misled by the talk's intent, in my view. The discussion centred around there being answers, that some answers are obvious, that viewing moral questions through the lens of religion causes a disconnect between morals and suffering, and that brain sciences will ultimately tell us things about the mechanics of morality that we don't yet know, in a way religion never has been able. If you see elitism in this, then, in my opinion, your own filters are at work. It's no secret that Sam Harris views religion as the tar gumming up the works of morality, so anything he posits is going to have to be considered with that in mind. That itself is part of the argument.
Again, there's a simple formula: suffering = bad, non-suffering = good. |
|
