Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes that's a good post. I think it needs to be emphasized that the morality thing is essentially our take on it. How that applies to animals is also very much our take on it.
It's also far from clear - cut. It is easy to say that upsetting people is always wrong but it's not hard to find examples of the need to do things which others might not want done to them because it's in their own interests, let alone everyone else's. Even the golden rule has to be applied with caution. Like occam's razor, it is not a universal law but a human convention for avoiding real problems - logical and moral.
A first step is and must be to make people aware. This sort of stuff is not taught and it should be. There's too much of the idea of 'we know best - trust us' rather than letting people understand what is involved and what the solutions might be - not least because they would be better empowered to make and vote for their solutions rather than having them imposed by a bunch of inner - circle elites who lead them around by the nose.
If I may hand out a tract before I run for it. We should not talking about teaching creationism in the science class - we should be talking about teaching evolution in the religion class.
Ok, so I have roughly transcribed a few sentences from Sam Harris's talk (the TED video). Here are some of the basic ideas I would like to hear you folks critique:
It is often thought there is no description of the way the world is that can tell us how the world ought to be. But I think this is clearly untrue. Values are certain kinds of facts. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.
This was a long post - perhaps too long for most people to want to read, so let's look at just the first concept: Does anyone here want to argue against the claim that "values are a certain kind of fact"?
A fact is a statement that is true (which implies that the statement COULD be false).
The claims is that values are facts about human well-being. Is this true?
Let's start witht this: Are there facts about human well-being? Is it a fact that a person suffering from a terminal disease is not as well off as a happy, healthy person who is excited because they just won $100 on a scratch-off ticket?
If yes, then can we translate this into value? I think we can only do this if we take as "brute fact" that human beings should value good health over poor health, and accept the measures of medical science for measuring health.
Also, could "actions taken to preserve or promote good health" be compared to "actions taken to protect your queen in chess" - thus objectively "good" even though there might be cases in which you would be willing to sacrifice good health for some higher purpose?
We may be getting into the area of philosophy in which I freely admit I am not expert, but it seems to me that we have a few blunderbus terms floating around and of such are equivocation fallacies constructed.
'Fact' must be true or false. This is a chunk of rock. True. It is not an orange. therefore to say it is an orange is false.
But where we get onto human evaluations, it is a lot more difficult because yes, one may say that to protect one's queen in a chess game is good, but not while the power plant is going critical. Human society and values become very complex. I don't say that is a reason to give up, but we have true and false and good and bad to a given value of it and indeed, can be relative. Back in the renaissance they knew that circumstances alter cases and what may work in some circs may not work in another. The basis of morality may be discovered by science but the application of it looks unlikely to be scientifically applicable.
We may be getting into the area of philosophy in which I freely admit I am not expert, but it seems to me that we have a few blunderbus terms floating around and of such are equivocation fallacies constructed.
'Fact' must be true or false. This is a chunk of rock. True. It is not an orange. therefore to say it is an orange is false.
But where we get onto human evaluations, it is a lot more difficult because yes, one may say that to protect one's queen in a chess game is good, but not while the power plant is going critical. Human society and values become very complex. I don't say that is a reason to give up, but we have true and false and good and bad to a given value of it and indeed, can be relative. Back in the renaissance they knew that circumstances alter cases and what may work in some circs may not work in another. The basis of morality may be discovered by science but the application of it looks unlikely to be scientifically applicable.
I would agree that science will probably never give clear answers to a great many moral questions (just as it does not give clear answers to many question in archeology, paleontology, medicine, etc.) Given the complexities of the context for any given action, we might never get specific answers to specific instances of moral deliberation. But science might be able to give us guiding principles (equivalent to "try not to lose your queen when playing chess.") Perhaps some combination of neuroscience and sociobiology (etc) will give us scientific reason so say that (let's say) the Golden Rule is a scientifically valid moral principle. We might still have trouble agreeing on exactly how to apply the Golden Rule in a given situation, but knowing the general principle might still be beneficial, and might help narrow the terms of certain moral debates. (Basically agreeing with the point that you made.)
Also, we might get competing theories starting from different fundamental assumptions. This might be roughly like the different geometries that can be constructed from different inital postulates. Then, if you want to argue that a particular act is morally good, you would have to show how it is consistent with one of these theories. Then, if the theory that you favor does not imply an action that you favor, you would (if you wanted to be logical) either have to accept a different theory, or accept that the action is not moral.
That would certainly be the approach I'd favour. Just so it isn't done by knee jerk instinctive or indoctrinated 'moral compass' stuff or reference to scripture.
Just because the designs and templates hard coded into our DNA arise in ways we cannot educe scientifically in our ignorance (and assign euphemisms like randomness and "natural" selection to cover our ignorance with a scientific imprimatur) . . . does NOT remove the reality that they are hard coded to specific DNA and RNA interactions. There is nothing accidental about the existence of those codes nor the "laws" that govern the processes that evoke them.
But that still doesn't mean that we aren't an accident. We can synthesize DNA but it might do things that we don't want it to, it can change in unexpected ways. Or in the case of a lot of pathogens (or molds, bacteria, germs etc) out there and our overexposure to things like bleach and antibiotics can make that pathogen into something almost irrecognizably different after time. That pathogen will still have all these governing laws, but it still doesn't mean that the final product it is purposeful.
Here is an interesting debate that is directly relevant to this topic:
The Great Debate: Can Science Tell us Right From Wrong? (Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Peter Singer, Patricia S. Churchland, etc.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUxxZ...eature=related
The link should talk you to Part 1 of the multi-part series. There is an introduction in Part 1 that you can skip if you push the time-bar to 3:30, at which point Sam Harris begins his talk. In other parts of the series, the other philosophers and scientists respond with their own views.
Good to see this Sam Harris explaining in a very clear easy way....here are some of my observations on the fly......will follow other series later with extra time on hand
1) Where the issue of values is concerned , Harris from the onset makes NO distinction in his analogy in the allocation of individual well being and...collective well being. This I find creates a wide avenue for possible ill-intended ideas , reference, and mostly is not "complete" in any attachment of value vrs man. To be more concise, in summation Harris finishs by suggesting that value that leads to misery "fails" compassion. So...collectively...or individually....?
a) we all know "misery" will evolve out of value....how so..?
how about a bunch of guys pulling people out of a fire...? or a guy pushing someone he doesn't know and will never know out of danger...relative to the family this guys got value , or morals.
misery and value are inseperable as long as we are biological beings.
Bereft of coverage in this regard, the most imp aspect in understanding value is wreckless.
b) Harris suggests without too much coy, that scientific facts including evolution are barely accepted among people....as premise in suggesting that findings in his study are subject to same mantality and hence should have a good deal of merit. I find this to be a "cheap" unproffesional approach to anything that may have been discovered in his studies. We have a little brainwashing before the next series begins. If U cannot see this , I have no idea why.
2) Harris ...in keeping with above insecurity with his introduction...suggests that it would be dangerous to man if in the future he found himself with value...only fixed to demagods believed by those who maintaine the world is only 6000 thousand years old.. Oh come on Harris, theres no such thing as an intelligent well informed religeous who believes that. Its a strickly hill-billy approach to spirituality...massing a "band-wagon on emotion here arn't we...? Is this science or .....who knows
3) Over-all , will check out series, but have lost confidence in sincerity to pure findings. There is a
grudge comming through with regards to human contemplation. There "SOULD NOT" be an excuse to this study...and intro does nothing but justify and "set-up" wayward non-thinkers to what end .....
we shall see .
.suggests that it would be dangerous to man if in the future he found himself with value...only fixed to demagods believed by those who maintaine the world is only 6000 thousand years old.. Oh come on Harris, theres no such thing as an intelligent well informed religeous who believes that. Its a strickly hill-billy approach to spirituality...massing a "band-wagon on emotion here arn't we...? Is this science or .....who knows
The future Sam fears is the reality today. So even though there are religious people who are more enlightened then the modal Christian, that doesn't make his concern any less real.
The future Sam fears is the reality today. So even though there are religious people who are more enlightened then the modal Christian, that doesn't make his concern any less real.
Nice try...I listened carefully to this guy as well noticed his slide show...
He without question referred to future man , and remarked that he was fearful.
He is also without question, in confusion with Christianity. The thing is not available to my comp at present however I have a good memory. When the discussion touched on this subject , the slide show flashed a depiction of BVM, the BVM, in reference slide, is a Catholic, 1917 "Fatima" depiction.
The Catholic Church has a open viewpoint in Evolution, never mind the referred non-sense in the 6000yr history of the world.
Therefore if he is going to challenge RC, he should do his homework first.
Even reference to these matters , is off topic to the effort.If theres something to the findings..."lets have it " .
I have zero tolerance for manipulation. This guy would never do well as an attorney. Its incredible how many contemporary religions and now philosophy introduce Catholicism. The philosophy of Catholicism is not
a quick study. It really is the Philosophy of Christianity. And most , in this effort just make puddy out of themselves because they are ignorant of what they are talking about.
How can anyone , with this intro to philosophy not, brace themselves for whats next in prusumption...presumption thats eluded to be as credible as evolution itself...I only watched once, and when this Harris entered into all this mumble the ...Princton Prof...the older gentleman was showing a definite, rejection. Subtle but it was there.
Im going to watch part 2 tom , but not to enthused , unfortunately.
Tad bit suspicious of ....self gain & personal conflict
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
