Sam Harris on Morality

[LLPENS@aol.com]

Two excellent links:     "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" Sam Harris   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.   http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

 

Sam Harris "Moral confusion in the name of 'science'"

[Excerpt] Everyone has an intuitive “physics,” but much of our intuitive physics is wrong (with respect to the goal of describing the behavior of matter), and only physicists have a deep understanding of the laws that govern the behavior of matter in our universe. Everyone also has an intuitive “morality,” but much intuitive morality is wrong (with respect to the goal of maximizing personal and collective wellbeing) and only genuine moral experts would have a deep understanding of the causes and conditions of human and animal wellbeing. Yes, we must have a goal to define what counts as “right” or “wrong” in a given domain, but this criterion is equally true in both domains.

So what about people who think that morality has nothing to do with anyone’s wellbeing? I am saying that we need not worry about them—just as we don’t worry about the people who think that their “physics” is synonymous with astrology, or sympathetic magic, or Vedanta. We are free to define “physics” any way we want. Some definitions will be useless, or worse. We are free to define “morality” any way we want. Some definitions will be useless, or worse—and many are so bad that we can know, far in advance of any breakthrough in the sciences of mind, that they have no place in a serious conversation about human values.

Sam Harris
http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3

[Brock]

On Apr 5, 6:37 pm, LLP...@aol.com wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps consider the assessment premature. As Gordon Clark noted so
well:

"Science, the history of science, and the philosophy of science
are ... so inextricably fused or confused that it is impossible to
draw definite boundaries between them. Yet some people believe that
the boundaries are most distinct and obvious. ... Scientists
frequently think that their results spring directly and solely from
experimentation quite apart from philosophic speculation and
metaphysics."

http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?products_id=127

Regards,

Brock

[Rupert]

Is Sam Harris a rule consequentialist? Someone who believes that the
right act is the one prescribed by that set of rules which would
produce the best outcome if universally followed?

On Apr 6, 8:37 am, LLP...@aol.com wrote:
> Two excellent  links:
>
> "The Moral  Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values"
> Sam  Harris
>
> 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.
>

> _http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html_
> (http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html)

>
> Sam Harris "Moral confusion in the name of  'science'"
> [Excerpt] Everyone has an intuitive “physics,” but much of our intuitive  
> physics is wrong (with respect to the goal of describing the behavior of  
> matter), and only physicists have a deep understanding of the laws that govern
>  the behavior of matter in our universe. Everyone also has an intuitive  “
> morality,” but much intuitive morality is wrong (with respect to the goal of  
> maximizing personal and collective wellbeing) and only genuine moral
> experts  would have a deep understanding of the causes and conditions of human and
> animal  wellbeing. Yes, we must have a goal to define what counts as “right”
>  or “wrong”  in a given domain, but this criterion is equally true in both
> domains.
> So what about people who think that morality has nothing to do with anyone’
> s  wellbeing? I am saying that we need not worry about them—just as we don’
> t worry  about the people who think that their “physics” is synonymous with
> astrology, or  sympathetic magic, or Vedanta. We are free to define “physics
> ” any way we want.  Some definitions will be useless, or worse. We are free
> to define “morality” any  way we want. Some definitions will be useless,
> or worse—and many are so bad that  we can know, far in advance of any
> breakthrough in the sciences of mind, that  they have no place in a serious
> conversation about human values.
> Sam Harris

> _http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_na...
> science3_
> (http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_na...)