What does correct functioning even mean in a nihilistic world view? What a joke!!His view of morality is based on the simplistic and unsubstantiated assumption that the mind is the functioning of the brain. Free will is not even mentioned! Clearly science can answer moral questions if the “well-being” to which he refers is ultimately the correct functioning of a biological machine! Harris even stated that the more we discover about the brain the more we shall know about the mind - ignoring the fact that the mind can and often does control the brain…
Haha! Absolutely!What does correct functioning even mean in a nihilistic world view? What a joke!!
Science can answer moral questions only if we are biological machines which have no power of self-control. In science the self does not exist!.While I see some weak points in his argument, I do not see anyone presenting a case against his argument.
Can you summarize his argument for me. (If he ever makes a real argument.) I hear a bunch of silly assertions and arguments. I listened to a few minutes and heard:While I see some weak points in his argument, I do not see anyone presenting a case against his argument.
Ha ha’s do not count in Philosophy.
I think you hit it. Funny, since my prior post, I was doing some research and I stumbled upon subsequent writings by Sam Harris. Kinda funny that he found many of the critics to be over-educated, atheistic moral nihilists. He pretty much admits that his original idea was half-baked. Seems to like to talk much and much about himself, which often fits in with the type that wants to be a new-priest.A good example of propaganda. The science fiction concept that a group of self-proclaimed experts should become the new priesthood will only lead to groups of people becoming the “followers” of Expert A, others will follow Expert B, and so on. Then, in the world of constant change which some people occupy, a new set of experts will appear with new ideas.
It’s true, every now and then people rearrange the furniture. They buy something new. They may depart from their routine and even go somehere new. But stability is required. Babies will still be babies, kids will still be kids and young adults will still be young adults. And, it will remain that no matter how much scientific support these new morals might have, human beings are not likely to lose the potential to lie, to manipulate and to harm each other.
A replacement for religion by science in some form has been proposed before.
God bless,
Ed
I need your help in explaining how a being can have no power of self control.Science can answer moral questions only if we are biological machines which have no power of self-control. In science the self does not exist!.
Sound bites are just that. Snippets of anyone’s words used in or out of context can be problematic.Can you summarize his argument for me. (If he ever makes a real argument.) I hear a bunch of silly assertions and arguments. I listened to a few minutes and heard:
I can’t listen any further. Who could sit in his audience and not be offended by his condescending pronouncements?
- “values are a certain kind of fact, they are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.” [nonsense]
- Then we learn there are good and bad societies, that is a fact. Duh, has science taught us that? Haven’t we known that for thousands of years? [stating the obvious]
- Science tells us not to add cholera to water – that is a value, thus science addresses values — huh? [irrelevant]
- “Just admitting that there are right or wrong answers to the way humans flourish will change the way we talk about morality.” [strawman]
- I just heard where he argues that science can tell us whether corporeal punishment in schools is effective and that corporeal punishment is used because of religion. [red herring]
I guess we could start by observing a rock. A rock is a being. We could say that a rock has self-control, but it wouldn’t mean that much.I need your help in explaining how a being can have no power of self control.
Terminology matters when we attempt to express ourselves to others.
I am not certain that you have really given the reader a full and correct digestion of his personal views on the topic, yet I will keep your views on his statements and interpretations of them in mind.I guess we could start by observing a rock. A rock is a being. We could say that a rock has self-control, but it wouldn’t mean that much.
The rock moves down the hill by the force of gravity. Everything that happens to the rock comes from blind, unintelligent physical processes. The rock does not choose. If a physical force does not move it, the rock stays in place. If a forces do affect it, the rock will roll, or split, or crumble, or over millions of years get bigger, etc.
Rocks are a collection of physical materials and their properties.
Human beings (in the Sam Harris view) are same as rocks – a combination of physical materials and their properties. Physical forces move human beings to do things.
Morality requires freedom of choice. That’s how we derive one’s responsibility for actions.
Being open to correction is a sign of humility, not pride or self centeredness.I think you hit it. Funny, since my prior post, I was doing some research and I stumbled upon subsequent writings by Sam Harris. Kinda funny that he found many of the critics to be over-educated, atheistic moral nihilists. He pretty much admits that his original idea was half-baked. Seems to like to talk much and much about himself, which often fits in with the type that wants to be a new-priest.
Anyway, I’m not sure his direction make sense, and even if it did, there is much low-hanging fruit to be picked in scientific world (and political world) that could decrease human suffering.
I need your help in explaining how a being can have no power of self control.
Terminology matters when we attempt to express ourselves to others.
It follows that science **by itself **cannot answer moral questions because morality presupposes the power of self-control. As Kant remarked, ought implies can. What is the point of considering what we should do or should not do if we have no choice in the matter?
- Science attributes **all **mental activity to brain functions, i.e to physical causes.
- Science is restricted to that which can be observed by the senses.
- There is no physical control-centre in the brain that can be observed by the senses.
- Science cannot observe an intangible self.
- Therefore self-control is an illusion from the scientific point of view.
Those are thoughtful words, thanks. I think it’s important to get some common-ground in order to have a good discussion. From what I’ve read, I think I understand his position, but I certainly could be wrong.I am not certain that you have really given the reader a full and correct digestion of his personal views on the topic, yet I will keep your views on his statements and interpretations of them in mind.
It would not be right if I did not do that, from my worldview.
Maybe what we are wondering about is the term Freedom of Choice.
I have my own ideas about what that really means, as do you.
We may not see eye to eye on it, but can at the very least understand that it is not a matter that is black and white.
To all of you who read that and are disgusted, assuming I hold a position of moral relativisim, I suggest you not judge a book by it’s cover.
I am very sad to inform you that goals are things we all have. You are alluding to a goal with some benefit package that will come at a time after you die. We all have goals that can be achieved here. And many of us do achieve them. Without a need to have the mantra drilled into us that those things will never compare to the things you will have to die first in order to understand.Those are thoughtful words, thanks. I think it’s important to get some common-ground in order to have a good discussion. From what I’ve read, I think I understand his position, but I certainly could be wrong.
Regarding moral relativism - you’re right to consider that many of us are disgusted by that idea (as I am). But I also think that the reduction of morality to physical processes (to be understood by science) results in relativism.
Nature does not command or forbid any moral action. For nature, something just “is”. It just happens. There’s no “should” since there is no goal.
Again, we could say that a rock has various goals. But that’s not saying much. When we talk about nature having a goal, that is not the same has “things having some goals”.I am very sad to inform you that goals are things we all have. You are alluding to a goal with some benefit package that will come at a time after you die. We all have goals that can be achieved here. And many of us do achieve them. Without a need to have the mantra drilled into us that those things will never compare to the things you will have to die first in order to understand.