Ted Talks: Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.
Mar 22, 2010 10:20 AM
Re: Ted Talks: Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
I agree with him about what essentially constitutes morality. If we accept the definition, then how do we determine whether this brand of morality should matter to us? Sentimentality? Let's be honest, his approach doesn't have the slightest chance of resolving some of the basic problems. The main issue I have with this talk is that he offers very few innovative or controversial ideas/solutions. Listening to these prospects for the role of science in addressing the moral issue, I'm mostly reminded of the value of cultural relativism. Believing in the moral superiority of aspects of ones own culture isn't inconsistent with cultural relativism as I understand it. Cultural relativism matters enormously today, if only because it's an expression of our understanding of the dizzying complexity of the human experience. Some (opportunists) would have us deny that the world view of the other is relevant because of some narrow, culturally determined value. Some intellectuals would have us revert to the previous state so that we can once again reign with the (relative) certainty of our own objective goodness. "Science" in all its incarnations has always, and will always inform the individual faced with moral choices. At first glance, his science fiction offers nothing new, but Ian McEwan, Lawrence Krauss, etc. have apparently read the book and said nice things about it.
By: wadadde
Re: Ted Talks: Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
The point of his talk was not to offer specific knowledge about what is moral. It was to encourage us to acknowledge that there is such a thing as empirical morality.
He doesn't need to say cultural norm X is measurably more moral than Y. He just needs to point out that it's possible to begin to figure out how to measure such things.
I agree with his implication that the academic taboo against judging the practices of other cultures has been limiting our potential. Some practices predictably lead to better outcomes than others. It should never be taboo to say so, whether we're talking about physical health or emotional well-being.
He doesn't need to say cultural norm X is measurably more moral than Y. He just needs to point out that it's possible to begin to figure out how to measure such things.
I agree with his implication that the academic taboo against judging the practices of other cultures has been limiting our potential. Some practices predictably lead to better outcomes than others. It should never be taboo to say so, whether we're talking about physical health or emotional well-being.
Re: Ted Talks: Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
You know, I really hope that this commenting mechanic will one day be changed... I would like to be able to see the entire thread, instead of just the comment I'm replying to. This switching between tabs isn't working for me.
"I agree with his implication that the academic taboo against judging the practices of other cultures has been limiting our potential"
Be more precise. Do you want scientists to pretend to know scientifically! what is beneficial to the collective well-being?? Are you convinced that they are capable of making such calls? Or do you think that the valid restraint exercised by academics has poisoned popular culture.. that we're somehow corrupted by ideas that should never have leaked out of academia?
Also, what potential are you referring to? It's confusing.
I would just like to say that, yes, it's the believers in magic who need to be humble, not us. On the other hand, I think that there's absolutely nothing wrong in acknowledging the extremely large limitations of current scientific understanding. The social sciences are still tragically retarded infants. I don't accept that the attitudes of academics today should change because of the possible spectacular accomplishments of science in the 30th century. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. What would be the point? I'm not aware of any taboos that can only be smashed by delusions of grandeur. I appreciate that people are apparently still thinking about that whole universal morality thing. And of course science is a partner of morality. I'm no genius, but even I know that MY/our morality revolves around truth (->facts, science), empathy and critical thought. I have more things I'd like to mention, but it would just be more incoherent statements, so I'll stop here.
"I agree with his implication that the academic taboo against judging the practices of other cultures has been limiting our potential"
Be more precise. Do you want scientists to pretend to know scientifically! what is beneficial to the collective well-being?? Are you convinced that they are capable of making such calls? Or do you think that the valid restraint exercised by academics has poisoned popular culture.. that we're somehow corrupted by ideas that should never have leaked out of academia?
Also, what potential are you referring to? It's confusing.
I would just like to say that, yes, it's the believers in magic who need to be humble, not us. On the other hand, I think that there's absolutely nothing wrong in acknowledging the extremely large limitations of current scientific understanding. The social sciences are still tragically retarded infants. I don't accept that the attitudes of academics today should change because of the possible spectacular accomplishments of science in the 30th century. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. What would be the point? I'm not aware of any taboos that can only be smashed by delusions of grandeur. I appreciate that people are apparently still thinking about that whole universal morality thing. And of course science is a partner of morality. I'm no genius, but even I know that MY/our morality revolves around truth (->facts, science), empathy and critical thought. I have more things I'd like to mention, but it would just be more incoherent statements, so I'll stop here.
By: wadadde
Re: Ted Talks: Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
I would never want scientists to pretend to know anything. There's a strong bias in science toward skepticism. I think that makes science strong. New ideas should have to stand up to any criticism that comes their way.
I was speaking more about attitudes than knowledge. Perhaps we have to wait till the 30th century to have much success in quantifying morality. Or perhaps not. I say we shouldn't be afraid to pursue such questions now. That the science is limited is more -- not less -- of a reason to pursue it.
I certainly prefer the cultural norm of pretending to see nothing wrong with the cruelty of foreign cultures, to the previous norm of asserting our ways are all superior and must be forced on the world. But we can move forward. It's time to stop pretending it's impossible to make definitive claims about the consequences of cultural norms.
I was speaking more about attitudes than knowledge. Perhaps we have to wait till the 30th century to have much success in quantifying morality. Or perhaps not. I say we shouldn't be afraid to pursue such questions now. That the science is limited is more -- not less -- of a reason to pursue it.
I certainly prefer the cultural norm of pretending to see nothing wrong with the cruelty of foreign cultures, to the previous norm of asserting our ways are all superior and must be forced on the world. But we can move forward. It's time to stop pretending it's impossible to make definitive claims about the consequences of cultural norms.
Re: Ted Talks: Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
One disagreement between us has to do with the fact that I don't know of scientists/non-scientists who pretend that it's impossible to persue the questions of physical/mental health. Scientists should just invent a new word for universal morality a.k.a. Harris' morality, before embarking on the final stretch of this epic journey of "morally" dissecting/weighing gigantic systems. It seems true that it isn't useful to try to hijack a word that - among other things - means 'obedience to god' for so many people. The reason why so many serious people hate debating the morality of (aspects of) entire systems is at least to a significant extent due to the fact that the word doesn't mean anything if we take all the versions seriously. Harris can argue that he's been able to distill the essence, but that won't convince the billions of nutballs... This hard-headed confrontationalist attitude of Harris, how can it yield much more than a fortification of the trenches? There are more ways of winning the war than just laying claim to no man's land.
I do think that it's problematic that there will always be philosophical disagreements. He rightly acknowledges this. It means that the proposition "science can answer moral questions" is utterly false. Science can *help* answer moral questions. Literally anyone who thinks about the latter proposition will conclude that it's true. If talks like this help people consider the latter proposition, then I'm all for it!
I do think that it's problematic that there will always be philosophical disagreements. He rightly acknowledges this. It means that the proposition "science can answer moral questions" is utterly false. Science can *help* answer moral questions. Literally anyone who thinks about the latter proposition will conclude that it's true. If talks like this help people consider the latter proposition, then I'm all for it!
By: wadadde
Re: Ted Talks: Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
World wide morality is as insane an idea as any one world wide religion. It's the same concept of a group of individuals pressing their views on to the rest of the world. He says everyone should chose what they believe but he tends to not believe people are choosing correctly. Basically he is saying my morals are correct and yours aren't.
Scanning people's brains to see if they really love their daughters?? Really? I've heard talks with him where he sounds fine and others where he sounds nutty as hell.
Scanning people's brains to see if they really love their daughters?? Really? I've heard talks with him where he sounds fine and others where he sounds nutty as hell.
By: Boglin
