Sam Harris discusses the basis for objective morality

[The Wrath]

I don't agree with all of Sam Harris' ideas, but I don't remember there being anything in that video that I would say is wrong. It's been a while since I've watched it though...what specifically do you think is wrong?

[TheEgoist]

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.

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...

I believe other links in this thread were put up, so I don't need to shut up...Not that that needed to be said, because I hadn't said anything in over a month. However, here is a story by Harris of his experience during a week long meditation.

[bluey]

I don't agree with all of Sam Harris' ideas, but I don't remember there being anything in that video that I would say is wrong. It's been a while since I've watched it though...what specifically do you think is wrong?

Specifically I would say that this is wrong (from the bit that The Egoist posted above):

"The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion."

Anybody's posited recognition of a "fact" which he can't present evidence for has to be treated as arbitrary since it is not "susceptible to rational discussion", since only evidence can be rationally discussed. "Consciousness prior to thought" could only possibly mean consciousness unconscious even of itself, which is a contradiction, or consciousness conscious ONLY of itself (in which case the "prior to thought" part is misleading), but then only introspective "evidence" can be obtained and introspective evidence can't be communicated (you being really really really sure you saw a ghost is not ever a good reason for me to believe in ghosts). So is the mystic's recognition a fact that we should take into consideration when attempting to form rational conclusions about morality, as Harris believes? He is basically saying that since so many people say they are really really really sure that something changed about the world because they were sitting around thinking really deeply/meditating, we should admit that we have some possible evidence that mental processes can influence the physical world.

Instead all we have evidence of is that the mental processes of an individual affect the physical processes of the same individual. No "mystic" has ever managed to do anything more "supernatural" than I do when I see an object, decide to move toward it, and start walking. Mental, yes; supernatural, no. In any case even if the mystic is doing something that we can't observe, we can't just take his word for it and start acting on it.

So: Sam Harris is wrong when he says that altruism is the rational moral code. In fact rational selfishness is the correct ethical principal for the human life. But he is right when he says that moral principles can and should be rationally arrived at. He's proposing the right method but admitting the wrong evidence, namely by allowing for evidence that he admittedly hasn't observed himself, that other people claim they have but that they can't prove. Right method + wrong evidence = wrong answer. It's good that he's getting part of it right, though, and even better that using the right methods means that he's going around being right on TV once in a while.

[FeatherFall]

I believe other links in this thread were put up, so I don't need to shut up...Not that that needed to be said, because I hadn't said anything in over a month. However, here is a story by Harris of his experience during a week long meditation.

Thanks for the link. It gives me a little more insight on Harris and his premises. It does not however, lead me to believe he believes in what Objectivists call "mysticism". The retreat looked to be a way to explore a different state of mind, one where the focus is on percepts and not concepts. I might disagree with Harris about the broad worth of such a mental state state. In any event, the link you posted serves to support the notion that Harris is looking for a basis for objective morality and that he lacks a solid philosophic foundation.