Sam Harris discusses the basis for objective morality

[The Wrath]

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/ca...ight-and-wrong/

I've noted before that Harris is my favorite of the "new atheists," and this video is a good example of why. I don't agree with everything he

says, but the important point is that he believes morality is something that can be discovered rationally. Whatever disagreements I may have

with him, he is open to discussing morality as though it is something objective that can be discovered...this is a very unusual viewpoint for a

public intellectual, and it is to his credit that he is willing to publicly hold such talks.

One great quote comes about 8 and a half minutes into the first video, where he is discussing the forcible wearing of burkas in some Muslim

countries. He notes that most people today take an attitude of "who are we to impose Western ideas of gender equality on other cultures."

His response is "who are we not to?"

[~Sophia~]

he believes morality is something that can be discovered rationally.

Thanks for posting that. Those are exactly the kind of discussions we need (both in terms of content and approach). I liked it a lot. He spoke about universal objectivity of values and even though he did not actually use the word selfishness - he did present acting in one's self interest as morally right.

[TheEgoist]

Sam Harris is probably my least favorite of the "new Atheists". He believes in a lot of mystic non-sense.

EDIT: this is not to say I don't appreciate speech like this. He is right on many points and wrong on many points.

Edited December 1, 2008 by TheEgoist

[aequalsa]

Sam Harris is probably my least favorite of the "new Atheists". He believes in a lot of mystic non-sense.

EDIT: this is not to say I don't appreciate speech like this. He is right on many points and wrong on many points.

I read his 'end of faith' and don't recall that at all. Can you point me to where he advocates mysticism? At the end he wrote a bit about the benefits of eastern meditation and that sort of thing but he was pretty consciously opposed to the mystical aspects of it, as I remember.

[TheEgoist]

He advocates meditation and a kind of transcendental reality. I actually never read the book, but he speaks of it elsewhere. He has said that mysticism is acceptable, but religion is not.

[brian0918]

I've seen recent lectures/discussions between Harris and the other New Atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett), and he is the only one advocating meditation and transcendentalism as a means to gaining knowledge.

The rest just laugh him off and take the more objective stance of moral intuitionism.

Edited December 1, 2008 by brian0918

[Tenure]

He advocates meditation and a kind of transcendental reality. I actually never read the book, but he speaks of it elsewhere. He has said that mysticism is acceptable, but religion is not.

My views on “mystical” or “spiritual” experience are extensively described in The End of Faith (and in several articles available on this website) and do not entail the acceptance of anything on faith. There is simply no question that people have transformative experiences as a result of engaging contemplative disciplines like meditation, and there is no question that these experiences shed some light on the nature of the human mind (any experience does, for that matter). What is highly questionable are the metaphysical claims that people tend to make on the basis of such experiences. I do not make any such claims. Nor do I support the metaphysical claims of others.

Emphasis mine.

[TheEgoist]

"[m]ysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time.

He doesn't reject mysticism as such. I think there is a deep flaw in that kind of thought.

[Tenure]

It's rampant rationalism true, but it does not make him a mystic (at least, in the meaning you're concerned with here - religious mysticism).

If I go on and on about a headache that I've been experiencing, is there a flaw in considering what I say? What if a thousand people report the same symptom? What if you examine us all and find nothing physically wrong with us? What if it actually is proven we're suffering some kind of psychological disorder? Should we not consider as evidence that people do claim to be feeling something for which there is no, as yet, scientific explanation? Is it ridiculous for us to look for an explanation to such an experience?

[aequalsa]

He advocates meditation and a kind of transcendental reality. I actually never read the book, but he speaks of it elsewhere. He has said that mysticism is acceptable, but religion is not.

I see. His definition of mysticism is not quite as damning as the Objectivist one. He goes out of his way to explain how he doesn't believe nonsense. The title of his book was 'the end of faith' after all. I would give him a little more slack.

[The Wrath]

My understanding of Harris' support of meditation and eastern religious practices is that he views it as a form of incredibly deep introspection, which can cause us to learn a lot about ourselves as well as the nature of consciousness. I don't think anyone here is going to claim that there is anything wrong with introspection as a way of learning about yourself.

Whether you agree with him that there is something to be gained by meditation is another argument, but there's nothing mystical about the way that he views meditation. I don't know enough about eastern religion to know whether or not I agree with him, but it doesn't seem like he's proposing anything that is irrational on its face.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Having read The End Of Faith, all I can recall he had to say about morality was to *assert* that it consists of reducing suffering--in other words a form of utilitarianism. Mind you it's not even human suffering; animal suffering gets counted too.

I cannot give the page number offhand but he also stated (as if conceding a point) that we were in big trouble morally as long as one person in the third world was starving while we live at our current standard of living

[TheEgoist]

My understanding of Harris' support of meditation and eastern religious practices is that he views it as a form of incredibly deep introspection, which can cause us to learn a lot about ourselves as well as the nature of consciousness. I don't think anyone here is going to claim that there is anything wrong with introspection as a way of learning about yourself.

Whether you agree with him that there is something to be gained by meditation is another argument, but there's nothing mystical about the way that he views meditation. I don't know enough about eastern religion to know whether or not I agree with him, but it doesn't seem like he's proposing anything that is irrational on its face.

He has also said that a man living in a cave alone, meditating for years is not only possible to have the most fulifilling life, but likely.

[The Wrath]

And I suppose you're going to claim that it is impossible?

While it is not appealing to you and me (nor apparently to Sam Harris), it's rather presumptuous of you to presume that some people can't find fulfillment in that way. I find a solitary life to be rather fulfilling, and it is why I spend most of my time alone. I prefer to have my creature comforts and 47" TV, so I would never pursue life in a cave. But I don't deny that there are people for whom a secluded life spent in deep introspection can be fulfilling.

Oh, and you're also going to have to provide me a quote where he said this, because I've never heard him say that this is "probably" the best way to have the "most fulfilling" life possible.

[Jake_Ellison]

While it is not appealing to you and me (nor apparently to Sam Harris), it's rather presumptuous of you to presume that some people can't find fulfillment in that way.

Presumptuous, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, means "overstepping due bounds (as of propriety or courtesy)".

What bounds did he overstep? Do you believe that we should never hold opinions of others, even if they decide to live in a cave alone?

To me, assuming that someone isn't going to achieve happiness living in a cave alone is a pretty reasonable assumption, for several reasons.

For one, humans are social by nature.

Then there's the fact that this person is living in cave: the only reason one should choose a cave as his home, when a house is available, is as a sign of rejection of human achievement and values.

Then there's the fact that there are no benefits whatsoever to choosing to live in a cave. At least not by any rational standards.

[FeatherFall]

If Harris thinks that happiness is likely found by spending years in a cave, that means he hasn't discovered the moral principles that lead to happiness. But, as the link shows, Harris has made the first steps to discovering those principles by realizing that morality is objective. Despite his other failings this excites me, and I'd think it would excite anybody interested in objective morality. He's already broadcast that he is willing to discuss the facts; the next step is to engage him and others like him about proper moral principles, not nit-pick Harris's anecdotes.

[The Wrath]

Presumptuous, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, means "overstepping due bounds (as of propriety or courtesy)".

What bounds did he overstep? Do you believe that we should never hold opinions of others, even if they decide to live in a cave alone?

To me, assuming that someone isn't going to achieve happiness living in a cave alone is a pretty reasonable assumption, for several reasons.

For one, humans are social by nature.

Then there's the fact that this person is living in cave: the only reason one should choose a cave as his home, when a house is available, is as a sign of rejection of human achievement and values.

Then there's the fact that there are no benefits whatsoever to choosing to live in a cave. At least not by any rational standards.

The only reason I can imagine that you are dredging up this old post is that you want to draw me into another pissing contest. It won't work. I do not respect your opinion and I do not care what you think of me.

[Maximus]

Ah, but you didn't have to reply...

[The Wrath]

When I recuse myself from a debate--as I generally do once participants start talking in circles and it is clear no one will change his mind--I still like to leave myself the option of explaining why I am not partaking anymore. I provided the explanation when I left the Israel/Palestine thread and, if someone were to call me a coward, I would again explain why I left.

Same thing here...I'm letting him know why I don't feel the need to respond to his positions.

Edited January 3, 2009 by The Wrath

[Jake_Ellison]

The only problem with The Wrath's reasoning is that ad hominem arguments do not make his opinions less ridiculous, or my challenge less valid. The fact that he attacked someone for calling the idea of living alone in a cave unlikely to lead to fulfillment, as "presumptuous", remains. It could be my french bulldog running around on the keyboard, posting all this, and my point would still make perfect sense.

[FeatherFall]

Jake, I don't think he's interested. Honestly, it seems silly to argue about a statement Harris made (and our evaluations of it) without the proper context. You might want to call off the attack until a quote is provided.

[Harris] advocates meditation and a kind of transcendental reality. I actually never read the book, but he speaks of it elsewhere. He has said that mysticism is acceptable, but religion is not.

Ryan, please show us where Harris makes the claims you condemn so we can judge them. We might conclude that he erred during an anecdote or caveat, but that you are being casually dismissive of a broader correct point. To be crude, put up or shut up.

Because you all have watched the link in the video, you'll remember this point of Harris's; Hume's notion that you "can't derive an ought from an is" amounts to "a firewall between facts and values". I'm sure there's an ominous parallel to be drawn somewhere...

Edited January 4, 2009 by FeatherFall

[The Wrath]

The only problem with The Wrath's reasoning is that ad hominem arguments do not make his opinions less ridiculous, or my challenge less valid. The fact that he attacked someone for calling the idea of living alone in a cave unlikely to lead to fulfillment, as "presumptuous", remains. It could be my french bulldog running around on the keyboard, posting all this, and my point would still make perfect sense.

I wasn't attempting to refute your point, because I've learned the lesson that arguing with you is pointless. If someone that I respect asks me a similar question, I will answer. Also, since you are so fond of using the dictionary, you should learn the definition of ad hominem. Saying "you're an idiot because your argument makes no sense" is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be "you're wrong because you're ugly." As it happens, I'm not making either of these arguments. I just don't care to respond because, as I said, I don't respect your opinion and do not want to get drawn into another 6 page-long pissing contest.

[Jake_Ellison]

Saying "you're an idiot because your argument makes no sense" is not an ad hominem attack.

Except you aren't saying that. You're saying that you are refusing to address my argument. If you're refusing to address my argument, how can you judge it, find it to not make sense, and call me an idiot based on that?

Not to mention that my argument makes perfect sense: living alone in a cave won't lead to a fulfilling life. You called that statement presumptuous, and I chose to disagree. As a member on this forum, I am entitled to that opinion. If you are challenging it, I suggest you attack the argument, not the man. If not, stop posting insults, otherwise I 'll start flagging your posts. This is not the comment section of a youtube video on the merits of American Idol performers, and if the difference is unclear, read the rules.

[The Wrath]

I have sent Jake a PM, and will now ask a moderator to clean up this thread.

[bluey]

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/ca...ight-and-wrong/

I've noted before that Harris is my favorite of the "new atheists," and this video is a good example of why. I don't agree with everything he

says, but the important point is that he believes morality is something that can be discovered rationally.

That is good. Even if his conclusions are wrong (and they are) it still means that he'd be able and probably willing to amend his opinions if he could figure out (and understand) which premises he's wrong about. Unless there's evidence that he should know he's wrong and is just lying, I'd say it's a good sign.

He's advertizing reason by being famous for being reasonable sometimes. If a few people start examining his process instead of just parroting his ideas and end up figuring out how to think, the world gets a little better to live in at no cost at all to me