Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Morality - a Scientific question

Rate this topic


Greebo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just completed the first viewing and I am still digesting. However, I found myself wondering repeatedly, is he an objectivist?

I want to watch it again and take notes before I comment any further, but I found the discussion extremely interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam Harris is one of the "New Atheists" and from having read some of his works there is NO WAY he could be called an Objectivist. His morality as I have been able to piece it together from readings consists of the unsupported assertion that morality consists of reducing suffering--he once said we are ethically indefensible as long as someone else in the world somewhere is suffering while we aren't. (And his emphasis on suffering at the start (we don't feel obligated towards rocks because rocks cannot suffer) tells me, only 2 minutes in as I write this, that he hasn't changed much.

I *do* like the fact that he does say you can rationally study morality and values though. I just wish he himself would do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam Harris is one of the "New Atheists" and from having read some of his works there is NO WAY he could be called an Objectivist. His morality as I have been able to piece it together from readings consists of the unsupported assertion that morality consists of reducing suffering--he once said we are ethically indefensible as long as someone else in the world somewhere is suffering while we aren't. (And his emphasis on suffering at the start (we don't feel obligated towards rocks because rocks cannot suffer) tells me, only 2 minutes in as I write this, that he hasn't changed much.

I *do* like the fact that he does say you can rationally study morality and values though. I just wish he himself would do so.

I passed off the Dhali/Bundy comparison because as a contrast, it worked, even if both are wrong. The stone reference, however, I didn't pick up on in the first go, except to think that it was... *similar* to our basis that the Good can not apply to the non living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He arbitrarily chooses a morality, and then looks for evidence in reality to support it. Unfortunately for him, his evidence does not consist of anything fundamental - he just gives examples of people who already assert his arbitrarily chosen morality.

I will agree that he at least asks the right questions, but then he presumes answers. "Why don't we have ethical obligations toward rocks?" Well, who says we have ethical obligations toward anyone?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He arbitrarily chooses a morality, and then looks for evidence in reality to support it. Unfortunately for him, his evidence does not consist of anything fundamental - he just gives examples of people who already assert his arbitrarily chosen morality.

I will agree that he at least asks the right questions, but then he presumes answers. "Why don't we have ethical obligations toward rocks?" Well, who says we have ethical obligations toward anyone?

Nevertheless, the questions are being asked. Remember that early questions about the behavior of the planets in our solar system revolved around "what is the arrangement of perfect circles followed by the heavily bodies to keep the sun moving around the earth in the pattern in which it does?" - or something long those lines anyway. Eventually they got to "IS the model circular?" and "Is the sun going around the earth?".

So if the scientific community begins asking, then sooner or later, someone WILL ask, "DO we have ethical obligations towards others?" The scientific process demands it.

And of course you already know this, but yes, we do have ethical obligations towards others. Or - at least - we have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I passed off the Dhali/Bundy comparison because as a contrast, it worked, even if both are wrong. The stone reference, however, I didn't pick up on in the first go, except to think that it was... *similar* to our basis that the Good can not apply to the non living.

"Similar", it indeed is. As I tried to convey earlier, I am glad he is questioning the premise that science can say nothing about ethics--that alone may be the most useful accomplishment of the "New Atheists". Most people who are not creationists tend to think in terms of non-overlapping magisteria; science takes care of factual matters, and the theologians take care of ethics. [DANGEROUS!]. (Creationists don't think of it as two separate spheres of thought; they think the Bible teaches science as well as ethics.)

Richard Dawkins (another of the new atheists) seems to be operating under the premise that he can justify altruism (not quite strictly altruism as we use the term here, but rather altruism towards people of similar genetic makeup, i.e., close relatives) on evolutionary grounds. Well, wrong conclusion but at least he is *trying* to do metaethics. Sam Harris just assumes his conclusion about the alleviation of suffering being the yardstick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does seem to be asking the right questions, and his concern with objective well-being and human flourishing is quite encouraging. However, it sounds like once we go beyond the bounds of this talk to what he thinks flourishing consists of, we get to altruism pretty quickly.

It seems to me that the key fact that his answers to moral questions is missing is that each individual can only truly attain human flourishing for one person: himself (or herself). He seems to be missing the fact that each person's first obligation is to their own well-being. This we learn from the very nature of life as a process, maintained by actions which benefit oneself. Each person is placed in charge of their own life first and foremost by the very nature of existence.

Not only is our primary moral obligation to ourselves, but we couldn't significantly promote the objective flourishing of another human being even if we tried. Ultimately, each person must be able to maintain their own life; their mental health and happiness depends on them controlling their own lives and being capable of sustaining themselves. The self-esteem component of human flourishing demands of an individual that they feel competent to maintain their own lives. We can refrain from harming others, but we cannot truly help them to flourish; each must do for him or herself.

This, in short, is what his perspective on human flourishing is missing; that human flourishing is inherently self-oriented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the scientific community begins asking, then sooner or later, someone WILL ask, "DO we have ethical obligations towards others?" The scientific process demands it.

There's no Ethics in nature, for scientists to figure out. And yet, that's exactly what they're looking for, a confirmation of their arbitrary morals in a place where they cannot possibly exist.

And of course you already know this, but yes, we do have ethical obligations towards others. Or - at least - we have one.

I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiple counts of argument from intuition, at vital points in his piece (ie, points where he's actually supposed to provide arguments):

Those who assumed that any emphasis on human “wellbeing” would lead us to enslave half of humanity, or harvest the organs of the bottom ten percent, or nuke the developing world, or nurture our children a continuous drip of heroin are, it seems to me, not really thinking about these issues seriously. It seems rather obvious that fairness, justice, compassion, and a general awareness of terrestrial reality have rather a lot to do with our creating a thriving global civilization—and, therefore, with the greater wellbeing of humanity.

But we should also remember that there are trained “scientists” who are Biblical Creationists, and their scientific thinking is purposed not toward a dispassionate study of the universe, but toward interpreting the data of science to fit the Biblical account of creation. Such people claim to be doing “science,” of course—but real scientists are free, and indeed obligated, to point out that they are misusing the term. Similarly, there are people who claim to be highly concerned about “morality” and “human values,” but when we see that they are more concerned about condom use than they are about child rape (e.g. the Catholic Church), we should feel free to say that they are misusing the term “morality,” or that their values are distorted.

There are women and girls getting their faces burned off with acid at this moment for daring to learn to read, or for not consenting to marry men they have never met, or even for the crime of getting raped. Look into their eyes, and tell me that what has been done to them is the product of an alternative moral code every bit as authentic and philosophically justifiable as your own.
Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it looks like a few Objectivists have already responded. I also posted my own comment. I encourage others to as well - simply to direct interested readers to better content than he has to offer.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, for Harris morality is sine qua none of altruism, that is-for him ethical problems are always in relation to others. Second, he's reductionist who wants to reduce morality to neurophysiology. In my opinion both approaches are very wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the term for people who attempt to reduce philosophical concepts to disconnected granular facts? Is there a term? ...oh yea! Scientists!

Sam treats morality like a scientific theory, and exposes it to a range of facts in an attempt to fine tune it / falsify / strengthen it. He feels that the broader the range of facts his theory becomes exposed to the stronger it becomes. The various "peaks and valleys" he discussed in the video were all "facts" that he's exposed to his theory in an attempt to revise / falsify / strengthen it. He isn't seeking a principle or an irreducible primary, he's just looking for something to "work."

"Why don't we feel X toward Rocks?" This is where he attempts to establish the fundamental basis upon which he builds the rest of his thesis, emotion. This is his starting point, and from there he doesn't work backwards in search of anything more fundamental, doesn't attempt to revise the question or offer any analysis on the validity of this being the correct question (in any of the material I've watched or read from him). He moves forward from that point offering a perspective on a broader range of topics about societies, and always groups of people or in consideration of others. If someone else weren't suffering then you couldn't feel sympathy for them could you? So for him morality is entirely about your relationship to others.

Steve was right, and this kind of approach is pretty popular among "New Atheists."

That being said, I think The End of Faith was a really good book, and I admire the clarity with which he both speaks and writes. His position is unique I think, in that he's heavily influenced by the practices of eastern religions (such as meditation for the purpose of shedding "the self") but insists that he detaches any mysticism from the practice. He is also a humanist, so really its as though he walked into a shopping center of ideas and just whimsically tossed whatever he felt was good in a cart and checked out.

Edited by Alone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harris does believes that there are objective moral truths which can be known, but his primary value seems to be utilitarian in nature. Moral objectivism is quite common in academic philosophy. A survey of philosophers by PhilPapers found that a majority (56%) describe themselves as "moral realists". The figure is even higher (62%) among specialists in normative ethics. It is not the case that Randians are the only moral objectivists; indeed, it can be safely assumed that they make up only a very small percentage of the academic philosophers who hold the position.

Edited by G.L. Coddington
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not the case that Randians are the only moral objectivists; indeed, it can be safely assumed that they make up only a very small percentage of the academic philosophers who hold the position.

What you seem to not recognize is the difference between "moral objectivist" and "moral Objectivist". You are in a forum that reads Objectivismonline not objectivismonline. Remembering this will save us many strawmen to come from your lack of incorporating this into the context you draw upon in your future responses.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That something is moral realist does not make it prima facie good or better than moral anti-realism. I fail to see your point.

I think Rand’s value realism, and specifically her moral-value realism, is true. That is a basic superiority to all stripes of moral anti-realism, since I take them to be false. The true is better than the false.

Studies such as the dissertation of Dr. Strandberg can introduce one to the current varieties of anti-realism and the arguments for and against them. It would be an expansion of my understanding of Rand’s system to situate it and its arguments alongside the arguments of Strandberg. At the same time one could learn where Rand’s value realism is situated with respect to other contemporary value realists. I have scarcely surveyed the contemporary landscape of ethical and meta-ethical theories. Much good study and reflection are waiting for me to do. I have followed the contacts made so far in this sort of comparative study within the writings of Profs. Tara Smith and Irfan Khawaja (his paper for the 2007 session of the Ayn Rand Society).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I enjoyed the talk and benefited from hearing it. I did not know Sam Harris's work but I am glad now that I do.

For other people, Objectivism is a religion.

How many moral peaks can you perceive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...