TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Sam Harris on TED Talks: Science can answer moral questions.
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Even when it's quite obvious that your objective morality is better? The raped daughter = shame for father = murdered daughter scenario is a good example, even though it's quite extreme. I shall resort to utalitarianism here and say: exactly what good does it do to anyone involved in this unfortunate situation?

Do you still believe this to be an example of strictly "moral" behaviour though? I think that any man willing to kill his own children for any reason whatsoever is biologically predisposed to kill others and is sick - the guise of supposed morality and ethical code is merely a precaution by esoteric patriarchs of old to prevent undue consequence for the betterment of their views on ideal society. I know this is just what you are trying to demonize - but what if they're right?

Morality is only relevant insofar as direct consequence - be it civic or social - is wrought upon the individual or group transgressing a folkway or law. But indeed, if the goal of even bothering with this sticky process is the general betterment of society, then clearly, important people should be exempt from moral or legal consequence, right? I mean, If you imprison the local goat baron for killing his daughter because she was raped, well, you've really not prevented anything immoral from actually happening, you would only cripple an upstanding goat organizer, vital to the community, thereby causing others to suffer! Oh, the morality! Obviously this gets more complicated as your given society or populace increases, a single goat baron will not have a macro-utilitarian consequence to this apparent "goal of science" to better the world (when the hell did that become science's goal anyways?), but are we truly serving society better by the establishment of universal morals based on the utter dissolution of second-guessing? On the dismissal of circumstance or extraneous variables which may muck up an expedient conclusion? Sounds to me like the farthest departure from the philosophy of science to me. It sounds like an urge to stop asking important questions of true consequence, and as much as I agree with men like Harris on a great deal of points, I would not say that I have any faith that his way is the best way, or even the better way - after all, his hypothesis remains utterly untested, given the inexorable aspect of mystical inference in human beings; Surely a true scientist can see the fundamental flaws in his very own process?

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Read a bit about his later life. I'm pretty sure he was a delusional schizophrenic or something similar. Valis is semi-autobiographical.

It would be absolutely no surprise given that he lived in California in the times that he did. The man was a veritable chemical dump. Though I suppose some of the most interesting twists on reality come from this same place. I will be sure to get Valis and the ones prior to it.

quote:

If you like Dick , I suggest you read some Kurt Vonnegut too, particularly Slaughterhouse Five.

This was always compulsory reading for the lower-level English classes in American High Schools. Meanwhile, advanced courses were stuck reading shit like Black Boy or The House on Mango Street, novels that dealt with the intricacies of oh-so-compelling subjects such as domestic violence or racism in inner-cities. Fuuuuuucking America.

Not that I'm truly blaming school for my having not read any Vonnegut, it's just no wonder everyone thinks we're all fucking dumb when our own establishments consistently treat us as such.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On But if morality can come and go as political or social climate does, what good is establishing certain actions as universal or not?

yeah exactly my point.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On You basically said this yourself. Killing is an entirely moral act when you have the appropriate reasons. Would you agree?

yes. eating people too.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Edit: Adam, just read your last post but I'm too tired to type out a response right now. I'll hit the sack now, and type it out tomorrow.

awaiting your response

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec I was a self declared atheist for years and have always remained a critic of book religion. Universal morals don't make sense. Your hero himself said that things like human health change over time. This guy said that values are primarily based on preserving conscious experience. Since conscious experience changes based on advances in science in technology, that means values will likely change as well. So what is the point of universal morals if they need to constantly change to adapt to changing values? Obviously they won't change at the same time everywhere around the world, and obviously different cultures will react differently to them. Not to mention that the pure machinery/red-tape/bureaucracy needed to enforce these morals on a governmental scale would be highly impractical and probably autocratic. Do I think that theoretically there are universal morals? Maybe. However it's surely not pragmatic, and highly dangerous territory in the area of civil liberties and cultural diversity. Human civilization is an ecosystem of sorts. In any ecosystem, sustainability is guaranteed through diversity. Sort of a checks and balances situation. I believe human civilization requires the same sort of cultural diversity to prosper. (and also diversity in nature, but that's another topic...)

I think that your argument of "if science and technology dictate conscious experience, then values will also change (and keep changing, indefinitely) along with that" is flawed. While it is absolutely true that humanity's overall concept of morality has changed over time (we are now aware of the dangers and utter stupidity involved with murdering people over a difference of opinion, like it was accepted in the Bronze Age and taught as universal truth in scripture) who is to say that there is no point in which a universal truth is reached? Why is the pursue of such a universal truth not desirable? If that point is never reached we are ultimately doomed to fall into a vicious cycle in which such behavior will be tolerated again. Take the recent news that children in Congo are being physically and mentally abused, as well as banished from their homes because some pastor said they were witches and with no proof of that, whatsoever. Sound familiar?

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=7613395&page=1

Also, the way in which you talk about "cultural diversity" every time you bring it up in the discussion makes it seem as if you believed that the only factor that determines a culture and its differences is morals. Can we not have an enormous cultural diversity in this world through art, music, literature, fashion, while still adhering to the same universal moral code?

Having differences in those things adds to the enrichment of culture, humanity, and society as a whole. Having different views on murder, theft, and consensual sex on the other hand, does not.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews [H]owever, I don't understand how things like "killing people is bad" shouldn't be a universal moral.

Unfortunately, life is much more complicated than we wish.

Suppose you're a cop, and a hijacker of some kind is pointing a gun to the head of a hostage. If you immobilise him, the odds of him murdering the poor victim is high. Are you really prepared to say that it's immoral to kill the criminal before the worst happens?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN they'll feel right at home?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you dont have to be a fundamentalist to be forcing your superstitions into the public sphere, and onto other people. these are the only people i care about, and i say fuck em. like i said earlier, these so-called new atheists will never (can never) change the world, so why not infuriate some theists in what little time we have? the dear lord knows they shit us to tears. ideas dont deserve automatic respect, and i fail to see what placating the peddlers of filth is ever going to achieve. but you never know, a quick, amusing insult (such as dawkins and hitchens are famous for) could just wake up the non-committal. and if not, well i certainly enjoyed it

Because, by doing that, it's not hard to come to the following conclusions:

1. Atheists are cunts;
   
2. Religious people can be cunts too, but they're always talking about living in harmony, harmony, oh love!
   
3. Therefore, I'd rather be in a moderate religious community than with a bunch of self-righteous scientific pricks.
   

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN see lira, how dare you suggest that such tones are counter-productive! little is more valuable than mirth!

quote:

Originally posted by woscar I think that your argument of "if science and technology dictate conscious experience, then values will also change (and keep changing, indefinitely) along with that" is flawed.

Thanks for your opinion, but why is it flawed?

Also, that's not what I said, so don't put quotes around it.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar who is to say that there is no point in which a universal truth is reached?

Now THAT is a flawed argument. Why don't you just say 'who is to say there is no god'?

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Why is the pursue of such a universal truth not desirable? If that point is never reached we are ultimately doomed to fall into a vicious cycle in which such behavior will be tolerated again. Take the recent news that children in Congo are being physically and mentally abused, as well as banished from their homes because some pastor said they were witches and with no proof of that, whatsoever. Sound familiar?

Because it is a fallacious, unrealistic, seemingly well-meaning, yet insidious pursuit that necessitates eliminating economic differences, eliminating race, eliminating history, eliminating climactic differences, eliminating artistic freedom, and convincing every single person on earth that the ultimate truth that a group of scientists determine based on the time period, western culture, and observational tools that they deal with is the only ultimate truth and that it will make life better for each and every one of those people.

A Universal Hammurabi's Code will not work unless 1.) everyone has the same needs/experiences, or, 2.) it is extraordinarily general to the point where it becomes completely redundant with what is essentially the basis of morals since the beginning.

Furthermore, to purport that scientists reductively know what's best for every person in the world is just a dangerous line of thought that sounds a lot like autocracy (and religion) to me.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Also, the way in which you talk about "cultural diversity" every time you bring it up in the discussion makes it seem as if you believed that the only factor that determines a culture and its differences is morals. Can we not have an enormous cultural diversity in this world through art, music, literature, fashion, while still adhering to the same universal moral code?

What do people make artwork about, write about, sing about, how much skin do they show etc?




Bottom line is, some universal moral code developed by Sam Harris and his friends is not going to prevent a guy in africa from killing his raped daughter any more than an educated population and more humane local government, and if it prevents it with some kind of universal police force, then we are all fucked.


To me it sounds like Sam Harris and friends are just buttering the pan for some neo-ten commandments atheist bible they are planning to write and market to their sycophants, and they hopes to go down in history next to confucious and hammurabi.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Unfortunately, life is much more complicated than we wish. Suppose you're a cop, and a hijacker of some kind is pointing a gun to the head of a hostage. If you immobilise him, the odds of him murdering the poor victim is high. Are you really prepared to say that it's immoral to kill the criminal before the worst happens?

Just because there are exceptions to be made, it does not mean that a universal value of "killing is wrong" should not be enforced or desirable. Assuming that there is no objective truth to be reached in morality and concluding that it is therefore not desirable to seek it is something that I find quite ludicrous.

Call me a hopeless romantic, but to me it is like admitting defeat right from the start.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec

What I get from all that is that you do not think there is anything that is detrimental to humanity as a whole and that all aspects of human culture, diversity, religion, morals, etc should be protected.

However, I see traits in all of those things I mentioned that have the potential to fuck the world over once and for all.

Anyways, I just think that we'll have to agree to disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Call me a hopeless romantic

It's ok, there are others like you!

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec It's ok, there are others like you!

Didn't we already agree that personal attacks are pointless?

quote:

Originally posted by woscar What I get from all that is that you do not think there is anything that is detrimental to humanity as a whole and that all aspects of human culture, diversity, religion, morals, etc should be protected.

No.

I'm just saying, that there is no AUTHORITY to control these things.

In my view there is one goal, and that is ... universal love. What else really matters in life? Eg - Who cares if you live to be 500 if you have no one to spend it with?

Subjecting the whole world to some distant authority that they have to believe in because they lack the scientific training to comprehend it is not moving towards a goal of universal love, but rather one of universal fear.

You can't make people love you even if you think you flawless logic. Relationships 101.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Didn't we already agree that personal attacks are pointless?

sorry, that was meant as a bit of humor - did not mean to offend you.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec sorry, that was meant as a bit of humor - did not mean to offend you.

No worries mate, I can also see the humor, not offended by it at all. Just don't want to see the interesting (at least to me) discussion we are having go down shit's creek.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec No. I'm just saying, that there is no AUTHORITY to control these things.

I think this is the point were you and I divert. I'm not saying (and neither did Sam Harris, for that matter) that there should be a Universal Moral Police to enforce these beliefs. Rather than an open discussion on what the moral and cultural relativism we are currently practicing is leading/will lead. Also, that reaching moral objectivity is a desirable thing to accomplish in the context of human flourishing. If you stop to think about it, the fact that different people have different ideas of what his own flourishing is, is not an impediment for moral objectivity.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec In my view there is one goal, and that is ... universal love. What else really matters in life? Eg - Who cares if you live to be 500 if you have no one to spend it with?

*cough* hopeless romantic *cough*

I agree with you here (on universal love being a fantastic thing), but I don't see it as a goal but rather as one of the means to happiness. You can have all the love in the world and still be miserable. Also, that analogy he used of the 200 year old man was merely illustrative.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Subjecting the whole world to some distant authority that they have to believe in because they lack the scientific training to comprehend it is not moving towards a goal of universal love, but rather one of universal fear.

I think that it was the word "science" in Harris' lecture that set off alarms for you. Like I have said many times in this thread, what is meant by science in here is not science itself but its methods of observation and learning and therefore aim to reach objectivity instead of having values surrounded by subjectivity forever.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec You can't make people love you even if you think you flawless logic. Relationships 101.

Don't know where this is coming from but I will say that I agree.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Subjecting the whole world to some distant authority that they have to believe in because they lack the scientific training to comprehend it is not moving towards a goal of universal love, but rather one of universal fear.

"Subjecting the world to some distant authority that they have to believe in". That sounds an awful lot like religion to me, not science. Ins't God a "distant authority"? Science asks us only to question the nature of things, which leads me to my next point:

quote:

Originally posted by woscar I think that it was the word "science" in Harris' lecture that set off alarms for you. Like I have said many times in this thread, what is meant by science in here is not science itself but its methods of observation and learning and therefore aim to reach objectivity instead of having values surrounded by subjectivity forever.

What exactly is science? Whereas religion can easily be classified as a group of related beliefs, practices, rituals etc, the only defining characteristic of science is that of asking questions. There's really no other way to codify it. Whereas religion asks many things of followers, science asks people only to think critically and observe. In essence, it's asking people to examine the evidence and make up their own minds, which is surely the best path of action.

However, science cops criticism because people begin to follow scientific views without understanding them, in effect making their beliefs as flimsy as religious ones. Incorrect:

1. At least the findings or beliefs of science can be questioned, unlike 'faith' which is sacrosanct.

2. Even blindly following the word of someone like Richard Dawkins without ever having heard him speak or reading a single word of his would be better than following the church. Any given clergyman is likely to believe in something which he has no evidence for. Even the most idiot scientist, who makes false assertions, at least bases their assertions on experience and solid fact.

Plus, I think a scientist has less reason to lie. A clergyman is trying to enforce morals, whereas a scientist is only trying to enforce truth. A scientist would never tell you that hell exists so you'll stop shoplifting.

The funny thing about Sam Harris's distorted perceptions and beliefs is that his whole philosophy is based on lies and stories told through a box that generated enormous revenue for a small group of people (and im not talking about the media or cable company.) Primarily because radicalism and fundamentalism, Al Qaeda, Taliban etc...are fully controlled by NON Muslim funded organizations and corporations that profit off of extremism, the charades of "fundamentalists". Fundamentalism (the thing that has helped sell these multi trillion dollar wars) was created in a boardroom...on perhaps a sketch pad or laptop. Not a product of the Quran given credence to the savagery of man.

Really?

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 The funny thing about Sam Harris's distorted perceptions and beliefs is that his whole philosophy is based on lies and stories told through a box that generated enormous revenue for a small group of people (and im not talking about the media or cable company.) Primarily because radicalism and fundamentalism, Al Qaeda, Taliban etc...are fully controlled by NON Muslim funded organizations and corporations that profit off of extremism, the charades of "fundamentalists". Fundamentalism (the thing that has helped sell these multi trillion dollar wars) was created in a boardroom...on perhaps a sketch pad or laptop. Not a product of the Quran given credence to the savagery of man.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Truly.

Blows your mind dont it? That pretty much everything you have believed the past 10 years = well conceived lie.

Of course what I have just said is inconceivable if people limit themselves to what they hear from the crooks that keep selling them lies, and dont do any qualitative reasoning of their own.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

It has to do with a few of Harris's talking points about religion and morality, he is more of an ignorant racist than any sort of philosopher or thinker. And much of what he says is so damn canned and pre prescribed. And he totally failed to answer the moderator's questions properly. An intellectual imposter with some beliefs based on lies. Not much more...

wiki

quote:

Harris has recently talked publicly about experimenting with MDMA as a student and the powerful insights he felt it gave him into spirituality and psychology.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Just because there are exceptions to be made, it does not mean that a universal value of "killing is wrong" should not be enforced or desirable. Assuming that there is no objective truth to be reached in morality and concluding that it is therefore not desirable to seek it is something that I find quite ludicrous.

What I intended to show is that there are always counter-examples and, due to it's accumulation of data, science is always forced to re-analyse its theories and hypotheses.

For example, let me give you an example from the science I study:

Languages in which the verb usually comes at the end of a sentence (e.g. Japanese) tend to have postpositions (in Japanese, instead of saying ~I went to the house~, you say ~I (the) house to went~). Language in which the verb does not come at the end (e.g. English and Chinese) tend to have prepositions. This works like a charm in most cases, and there are hypotheses concerning a possible cognitive link between these two structures.

However, should a language not fit this criteria, rare though it is, we do not tell the speakers to change the grammar of their language so the data can fit our theory again. No, we go back to the sketching board and see what we can do to fit and formulate an ancillary hypothesis.

This comes to show that science will never ever reach an ultimate truth because there's no such thing as an ultimate experience. Unless we've experience all there is to be experience can we say we're somewhere close to the ultimate source of objective knowledge.

And, most importantly (I can't believe I forgot that), science describes, it does not say what the world should be like. In this case, science can say what most people think is right to do in certain scenarios, and why they think that way, but it doesn't entail from that the conclusion reached in these experiments is the right choice.

Qualitative reasoning > qualitative research. Every time.

I'm with you, brother - embrace the Solar Mother! Whose truths speak only the warm rays of the atom, vibrating to that illusion of time we so callously reduce to the mere resonance of a Cesium particle! Oh, lord magnet, whose direction points only north to our mother, when shall we be delivered from the things of man, whose conceit decays the great tree of knowledge, and whose deceits gnaw at our immortal essence like the lapping of an extinct meat! Repent! Aieeeee

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 It has to do with a few of Harris's talking points about religion and morality, he is more of an ignorant racist than any sort of philosopher or thinker. And much of what he says is so damn canned and pre prescribed. And he totally failed to answer the moderator's questions properly. An intellectual imposter with some beliefs based on lies. Not much more... wiki

Let me ask again: what does the monetary source of a fundamentalist religious group have to do with the issue of scientific morality vs religious morality?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Qualitative reasoning > qualitative research. Every time. I'm with you, brother - embrace the Solar Mother! Whose truths speak only the warm rays of the atom, vibrating to that illusion of time we so callously reduce to the mere resonance of a Cesium particle! Oh, lord magnet, whose direction points only north to our mother, when shall we be delivered from the things of man, whose conceit decays the great tree of knowledge, and whose deceits gnaw at our immortal essence like the lapping of an extinct meat! Repent! Aieeeee

i'm guessing you are mad...because you've been blatantly tricked for 10 years.

maybe over some more time it will gradually seep into societies conscience, that both groups (al qaeda and taliban) have been controlled remotely by their non muslim beneficiaries (multi trillion dollar.)

Start by looking up what Gladio is...if you value research. And then from there do some qualitative reasoning.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.