|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
 Posted - 10/07/2010 : 11:45:30
|
Well not a review....I just got it.
Just wondering if anyone else was reading it.
If I could go see anyone speak right now it would have to be Sam Harris at the top of my list..... followed by Hitchens & Dawkins.
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2010 : 12:15:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Jerry Coyne mentions that Kwame Anthony Appiah reviewed the book.
Judging by what's at those links, Harri's "morality can be based on science" still doesn't look very well supported.
|
Not sure how you came to that conclusion based upon one review? |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2010 : 15:01:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Not sure how you came to that conclusion based upon one review? |
It's not based on one review. It's based on parts of that review on top of the already alarming reactions Harris offered to critics of the TED talk that started this whole thing.
Harris seems to think that some poorly-defined state of "well being" should be humanity's over-arching moral goal. He can't offer evidence for that, and not just because the concept is fuzzy, but because it's not something that science can investigate. Sure, we could, in principle, measure how much "well being" we all have (once the term is properly defined) and even whether certain public-policy steps have resulted in more or less "well being," but no scientific test can tell us whether or not increasing "well being" is the correct thing to do.
Since Appiah isn't textually jumping for joy because Harris has solved all of the problems associated with utilitarianism or because Harris offered a scientific inference showing that "well being" is, indeed, the goal we should all share, I am comfortable with concluding that Harris still has not come up with the support that everyone has been asking him for since his TED talk. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 02:30:29 [Permalink]
|
I think there are basically two problems with the argument Harris makes and I have seen neither of those addressed by him yet. And from the reviews I've read, he doesn't address them in the book either.
1) There is the fuzzy definition of well-being, which I have not seen him solve. The problem here is that it inherently encompasses a number of choices that cannot be scientifically justified. If we want to research well-being we have to operationalize it and that requires a number of moral choices that are inherently subjective.
2) You may end up with inherently contradictory outcomes. For example, what if we find that a lower education actually makes you less happy? There are multiple studies that show depression to be strongly correlated to high education levels. It is not unthinkable that having a higher education may lead to a higher level of self-criticism and this might lead to lower well-being levels. Should we then consider it moral to keep people dumb? To keep with this line of thought, one of the main criticismsmany atheists give on the argument that religion might be good even if it is wrong, is that it is more important to have an accurate understanding of reality than a feel good religion. There are a lot more of these arguments.
3) Which ends us up where Dave W. ends up. To give the argument that we can have a scientific concept of morality based on well-being, ignores the fact that with choosing well-being, we already made a choice not based on science. And that is where Harris' argument falls down. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 09:27:54 [Permalink]
|
I guess what really erked me was this statement by Kwame Anthony Appiah. "If the mental states of conscious beings are what matter, what’s wrong with killing someone in his sleep?"
That's just being a disingenuous ass.....IMHO. I'll let you know what I think about the rest when I've finished the book. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 10:01:09 [Permalink]
|
| Link to the TED talk |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 10/11/2010 10:02:33 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 10:19:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
I think there are basically two problems with the argument Harris makes and I have seen neither of those addressed by him yet. And from the reviews I've read, he doesn't address them in the book either.
1) There is the fuzzy definition of well-being, which I have not seen him solve. The problem here is that it inherently encompasses a number of choices that cannot be scientifically justified. If we want to research well-being we have to operationalize it and that requires a number of moral choices that are inherently subjective.
2) You may end up with inherently contradictory outcomes. For example, what if we find that a lower education actually makes you less happy? There are multiple studies that show depression to be strongly correlated to high education levels. It is not unthinkable that having a higher education may lead to a higher level of self-criticism and this might lead to lower well-being levels. Should we then consider it moral to keep people dumb? To keep with this line of thought, one of the main criticismsmany atheists give on the argument that religion might be good even if it is wrong, is that it is more important to have an accurate understanding of reality than a feel good religion. There are a lot more of these arguments.
3) Which ends us up where Dave W. ends up. To give the argument that we can have a scientific concept of morality based on well-being, ignores the fact that with choosing well-being, we already made a choice not based on science. And that is where Harris' argument falls down.
|
1)He readily admits that it encompasses a number choices.....many of which may have equal merit. Like his example of what foods to eat. Why do you say they can't be scientifically justified? Maybe some day they will be. Maybe they only appear inherently subjective due to our current lack of understanding on how conscious minds operate.
2) You mean more happy? Regardless; I don't think his definition of "well-being" always correlates to being perfectly "happy". You're never going to have a world where EVERYONE is happy and I don't think "Happy" is the ultimate end all be all. Seems obvious to me that a world full of happy dumb people would not be a desirable outcome in regards to "well-being" Dumb people whether happy or not tend to make bad choices.
3)But if there are in fact moral truths then maybe someday there will be a way to scientifically define them. Certainly looks like a better method than what we have now. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 13:37:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
1)He readily admits that it encompasses a number choices.....many of which may have equal merit. |
Merit measured how? If any of the metrics involve moral-subjective attributes, then we'd be back where we started.| Like his example of what foods to eat. Why do you say they can't be scientifically justified? |
I don't see any way for science to inform our food choices without first assuming some food-related goal that science cannot deliver. Hell, science can't even tell us "drinking drain cleaner is morally wrong" without first assuming that suicide is morally wrong.| Maybe some day they will be. Maybe they only appear inherently subjective due to our current lack of understanding on how conscious minds operate. |
No, they don't. The goals a person picks (which he/she then sets about striving towards through moral rules) simply can't be investigated via scientific means. How could knowledge of brain functions tell us that maximal "well being" in the population is something a person should aim for, as opposed to working towards being a rich tyrannical despot?| 3)But if there are in fact moral truths then maybe someday there will be a way to scientifically define them. Certainly looks like a better method than what we have now. |
If and maybe. Don't fall for scientism, no matter how much more rosy it appears. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 04:48:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
1)He readily admits that it encompasses a number choices.....many of which may have equal merit. Like his example of what foods to eat. Why do you say they can't be scientifically justified? Maybe some day they will be. Maybe they only appear inherently subjective due to our current lack of understanding on how conscious minds operate. |
But as with what foods to eat, there is a problem here. You can say that carrots are healthy and hamburgers are not. But I like hamburgers a lot more than carrots. Is it wrong to choose for having something yummy to eat, instead of something healthy? The choices are not equivalent. You cannot scientifically decide that one is better than the other.
| 2) You mean more happy? Regardless; I don't think his definition of "well-being" always correlates to being perfectly "happy". You're never going to have a world where EVERYONE is happy and I don't think "Happy" is the ultimate end all be all. Seems obvious to me that a world full of happy dumb people would not be a desirable outcome in regards to "well-being" Dumb people whether happy or not tend to make bad choices. |
I dealt a bit with well-being when I was working for the government, and you are right that well-being as a concept doesn't equate to being "happy" all the time. But as far as I can tell, happiness is a very important indicator in the concept of well-being. Note that you are already making several choices here that cannot be scientifically justified.
Choice 1: How important is happiness in the concept of well-being. If a better educated population is also less happy, should we go for education or happiness? The two concepts are not equivalent. Science can tell you whether education has gone up or happiness has gone up, it cannot tell you which of the two to choose.
Choice 2: Should everybody become happy, or educated? Perhaps we think it is more important if everyone in the population is educated or happy, even if this may mean that average education or happiness is going down (ie, you'd shear off the tops and bottoms of the metrics), or perhaps we think it is important that the population as a whole become more educated or more happy and some people drop off the boat. Science can tell you which of the two is happening (or one of the alternatives of course, averages might increase due to decrease in the number of drop-outs, or might decrease because everyone suffers more), but if presented with a choice between the two scenarios I sketched, science cannot tell you which you should choose.
3)But if there are in fact moral truths then maybe someday there will be a way to scientifically define them. Certainly looks like a better method than what we have now.
|
I have a big problem with the phrase "moral truth", because in the end morality is a human construct. It does not exist outside us. At best we can decide what kind of influence a certain moral choice will have on certain metrics.
The problem is this, science cannot decide for us which metric is more important, that will always be a choice that cannot be decided any other way. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 05:01:06 [Permalink]
|
| Review from sciencebasedmedicine |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Bob Lloyd
Skeptic Friend
Spain
59 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2011 : 05:55:56 [Permalink]
|
Interesting discussion which I've only just found. I saw the talk and it worries me on several counts. The first is the notion that there is some hidden and determinable essence of what is moral and that Harris sees science in the future as being able to identify. But the second thing is this recourse to a dualist idea of morality, namely that "is" and "ought" are permanently separate, that you can't determine an "ought" from an "is".
This notion of eternal truth is simply ahistorical and denies the historical record in which acts become immoral as a result of changed social and historical circumstances. It seems to me that Harris is making exactly the same error as the religious fundamentalists. Whereas they say these truths are written down, he's saying we just need science to find them. Not so. Morals and ethical values are historically and socially determined, negotiated by social groups. Often it is the theologians who negotiate a new interpretion of religious and/scientific works to justify the values they see as important. Harris seems to see a similar role for future neuroscientists.
But the dualist mistaken is more profound. Because morality is a negotiated agreement about the significance of particular values, it is always the case that "is" and "ought" are mutually determined. Separating them out into distinct spheres creates an apparent permanence of moral values, exactly the illusion that religions offer. We define "ought" as being the ethical consequence of an "is" as seen through the lens of our moral values. The "ought" only exists in that context - without the "is" it just wouldn't have any meaning.
In the same way, some people separate "ends" and "means", arguing that ends don't/can't justify the means. But again, they are dialectically related, mutually determining each other. Ends precisely determine the means in just the same way that the means bring about the ends. We can look at means and ends as two aspects of the same situation and analyse them but we should never fall into the trap of thinking of them as separate. Harris seems to do that.
By looking for an apparent objectivity in analysing morality, he is looking for the same surety as religious people, some way of insulating us from the responsibility of accepting a moral relativism, of justifying our actions in terms of our everyday practice, of rooting our ethics in our daily lives. Science won't find an objective source of justified morality because it is rooted in our society and changes throughout time. Having to accept that the ends typically do justify the means puts the onus on us to be explicit about our interests. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2011 : 16:30:16 [Permalink]
|
Bob Lloyd, beautifully put. I couldn't agree more. You wrote: | I saw the talk and it worries me on several counts. The first is the notion that there is some hidden and determinable essence of what is moral and that Harris sees science in the future as being able to identify. |
and | By looking for an apparent objectivity in analysing morality, he is looking for the same surety as religious people, some way of insulating us from the responsibility of accepting a moral relativism, of justifying our actions in terms of our everyday practice, of rooting our ethics in our daily lives. |
I am reminded of Ayn Rand's similar attempt with her Objectivist philosophy. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Philo
Skeptic Friend
66 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2011 : 09:02:37 [Permalink]
|
| I think Sean Carroll is right on this. You can't derive an ought from an is, and it is not clear that well-being is the goal (or only goal) of morality. |
|
|
|
wowlijetgold
Spammer
USA
3 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2012 : 00:41:55 [Permalink]
|
There are no secrets to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, and learning from failure.
[Spam links deleted - Dave W.] |
|
|
|
 |
|
The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris
