Sam Harris on attaing objective morality, or "How he pissed off Mathsex"

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Sam Harris on attaing objective morality, or "How he pissed off Mathsex"

Jason · Only in cartoons

In those videos, Sam Harris said little that Aristotle did not say over 2000 years ago. That was an uninteresting lecture for anyone with some small understanding of moral issues. Also, he made a large number of fallacious arguments.

It's like he doesn't even realize that what he's saying has been said by hundreds of philosophers for hundreds of years. It's like he doesn't even realize that what he's saying hasn't been argued by undergraduates in intro ethics classes.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

I don't think he doesn't realize. Harris seems somewhat knowledgeable of philosophy. I think it stands as a good criticism of the scientific, and more broadly and implied, the secular community for being very relativistic and subjective.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Also, Harris is good looking, especially compared to Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett.

He is the only one out of them that I haven't read. I've been very uninterested since i heard he does in fact keep an "open mind" to things like reincarnation and other mystical nonsense that isn't theistic, but just as and if not more stupid.

Jason · Only in cartoons

Any neuroscientist who keeps an "open mind" to reincarnation loses all respect from me.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Those aren't my words and I've never heard him say it myself. I've simply heard about him accepting a lot of eastern mysticism from a friend.

MATHSEX · MASTER BATOR

i agree that he is a grab bag of good ideas and bad ideas, but that's a normative statement, and as a scientist, i cannot claim that this view is true.

i reject the claim that neuroscience will be able to define good and bad, right and wrong. this claim relies too heavily on the implicit, anthropocentric view that the wiring of the human brain can yield insight into aggregate well-being. (i haven't put too much thought into the study of morals since i took philosophy many moons ago, but) it stands to reason that since the human brain is uniquely wired, humans' views of right and wrong are not congruent with any other species' common moral standards.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

So I just googled Sam Harris and mysticism. Apparently he believes in lots of meditation, and for more reasons than relaxation. He believes in some kind of transcendent reality non-sense, I suppose. I don't feel like reading too much now.

MATHSEX · MASTER BATOR

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

So I just googled Sam Harris and mysticism. Apparently he believes in lots of meditation, and for more reasons than relaxation. He believes in some kind of transcendent reality non-sense, I suppose. I don't feel like reading too much now.

so he's one of those "i can see more clearly than you can"-new age schmucks?

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

I don't want to pass judgment on him because I have been wrong before about these things, but he doesn't reject mysticism.

Jason · Only in cartoons

MATHSEX wrote:

i reject the claim that neuroscience will be able to define good and bad, right and wrong.

I second that. His claims only go through if an objective list theory of well-being is assumed, as well as an Aristotelean theory of ethics that holds flourishing as the ultimate good. These two assumptions are far from uncontroversial.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

I don't disagree. As I said, Harris is a lot of good and bad. Now that I'm listening to something else of his, I'm realizing it is more of the bad than good for several reasons.

MATHSEX · MASTER BATOR

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

I'm realizing it is more of the bad than good for several reasons.

neuroscience will prove you right

Jason · Only in cartoons

Speaking of objective ethics, I just finished a book by Richard Kraut, an Aristotle scholar at Harvard. It's called What is Good and Why. In it he develops a ... developmentalist theory of well-being (a la Aristotle) in a more modern context. Kraut would likely agree with Sam Harris that one can use science to determine what is good or bad for a human being, insofar as we define the good as that which promotes flourishing, which consists in the development of one's natural capacities. However, Kraut would insist (rightly so) that science cannot itself determine what goodness is. If scientists were to embark on a mission to discover what is good for human beings, then they would be doing so with a preformed philosophical framework.

I recommend the book; it's an interesting way of looking at ethics.

MATHSEX · MASTER BATOR

Jason wrote:
science cannot itself determine what goodness is

goodness is science

Jason · Only in cartoons

Defend that claim.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Jason wrote:

Speaking of objective ethics, I just finished a book by Richard Kraut, an Aristotle scholar at Harvard. It's called What is Good and Why. In it he develops a ... developmentalist theory of well-being (a la Aristotle) in a more modern context. Kraut would likely agree with Sam Harris that one can use science to determine what is good or bad for a human being, insofar as we define the good as that which promotes flourishing, which consists in the development of one's natural capacities. However, Kraut would insist (rightly so) that science cannot itself determine what goodness is. If scientists were to embark on a mission to discover what is good for human beings, then they would be doing so with a preformed philosophical framework.
I recommend the book; it's an interesting way of looking at ethics.

I agree with that. Science is the way to learn how to live a rational life; what is good and bad for us, but philosophy has to set up the standard of what IS good and why.

MATHSEX · MASTER BATOR

Jason wrote:
Defend that claim.

goodness is the state of being good

science is good

therefore, goodness is science

QED

MATHSEX · MASTER BATOR

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

philosophy has to set up the standard of what IS good and why.

put on a pot of coffee; that's going to take awhile

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

MATHSEX wrote:

Jason wrote:
Defend that claim.

goodness is the state of being good
science is good
therefore, goodness is science
QED

You haven't defended anything. What is good? Science IS good, but why is science good? Science isn't the standard of goodness and natural science cannot explain the standard of it.