TheEgoist Posted October 7, 2010 Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 There has been a lot of discussion on this forum of the New Atheists and in particular Sam Harris, who has been talking about developing a theory to explain morality in scientific terms and make it objective, not just a thought experiment for philosophers or a tool for religious folk. I think there are inherent problems with Harris' program. It doesn't make much sense to discard philosophy. And he has to realize when he speaks of "science" explaining morality, he can only mean this after a standard of value has been created. I think his standard has been positive conscious experience of humanity. It seems not much more interesting than anything Mill said so far. I'm going to read the book before I make a final judgement though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted October 7, 2010 Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 Is he the one who talked at TED on this subject? As I recall, his standard of value was suffering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted October 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 Is he the one who talked at TED on this subject? As I recall, his standard of value was suffering. He is. Care to elaborate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted October 7, 2010 Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 It's been a while since I watched the video, but as I recall, he based his moral standard for good on what causes the least suffering. I may have posted on the subject, in fact. Let me look... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted October 7, 2010 Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 Yes, I did post on it: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=19107&st=0&p=249241 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted October 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 Well, least suffering/greatest happiness or state of consciousness as he has put it in this book. I probably won't be able to read the book til the end of the semester though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted October 7, 2010 Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 Furthermore and most irritatingly, he simply asserts that standard without any attempt to justify it, in both of his books that I have read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted October 7, 2010 Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 As I said in the other thread - at least the questions are being asked. That's the right start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 I attended his talk on this subject at GWU last night and have started reading the book. Allow me to answer the objections in this thread by saying that he does attempt to establish the standard of value, philosophically (chapter 1). From there, his goal is to figure out what science has to say about how to best achieve the proper values. He sets out to show why the experience of conscious creatures is the proper standard of value for morality, and thinks that science can then help us maximize the well-being of conscious creatures. I find his ideas to be a breath of fresh air, despite the fact that I am not in complete agreement. I agree with his general approach, and it is a relief to see a well-known, public intellectual who is willing to engage in this kind of discourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.