|
Sam Harris on TED Talks: Science can answer moral questions. (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Yes, cultural diversity is a very important thing, and yes we shouldn't assume that we are better than other people and they need to follow what we believe to be objective universal morals... |
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?
Harris' point was the complete opposite of that excerpt of yours that I quoted. There are times when appealing to relativism is completely counter-productive and morality is a perfect example of this. Saying the opposite is choosing to ignore whatever moral knowledge and improvement humanity has acquired over its existence. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| No kidding. Philip K. Dick had a sort of sorcery with his writing - the synchronicities that man was able to elicit and relate to were just shuddering. I still haven't worked up the gall to read Valis just yet. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
No kidding. Philip K. Dick had a sort of sorcery with his writing - the synchronicities that man was able to elicit and relate to were just shuddering. I still haven't worked up the gall to read Valis just yet. |
Read a bit about his later life. I'm pretty sure he was a delusional schizophrenic or something similar. Valis is semi-autobiographical.
If you like Dick :gsmile:, I suggest you read some Kurt Vonnegut too, particularly Slaughterhouse Five. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| 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? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| 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 :gsmile:, 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 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 ing dumb when our own establishments consistently treat us as such. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| 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 ;) |
|
|
| woscar |
| 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. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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? :toothless
|
:p
| 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 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 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 :stongue: |
Because, by doing that, it's not hard to come to the following conclusions:
- Atheists are cunts;
- Religious people can be cunts too, but they're always talking about living in harmony, harmony, oh love!
- Therefore, I'd rather be in a moderate religious community than with a bunch of self-righteous scientific pricks.
Enlightening the world, are we?
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
:stongue:
see lira, how dare you suggest that such tones are counter-productive! little is more valuable than mirth! |
Humour is all right, arrogance isn't. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| 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 ed.
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. |
|
|
| woscar |
| 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. :p |
|
|
| woscar |
| 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 the world over once and for all.
Anyways, I just think that we'll have to agree to disagree. :p |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Call me a hopeless romantic |
It's ok, there are others like you!
 |
|
|
|
|
