logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2021-04-10 07:22:00 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Check out the IRC chat feature.

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Philosophy & Religion

  The Moral Equivalent of the Parallel Postulate and Sam Harris' Response
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: The Moral Equivalent of the Parallel Postulate and Sam Harris' Response  (Read 1387 times)
Salamantis
Neophyte
*****

Posts: 2845
Reputation: 0.00



I'm a llama!

View Profile E-Mail
The Moral Equivalent of the Parallel Postulate and Sam Harris' Response
« on: 2010-03-29 21:54:16 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2633
Reputation: 8.90
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:The Moral Equivalent of the Parallel Postulate and Sam Harris' Response
« Reply #1 on: 2010-03-31 10:45:24 »
Reply with quote

Report to moderator   Logged
the.bricoleur
Magister
***

Posts: 341
Reputation: 6.90
Rate the.bricoleur



making sense of change
  
View Profile E-Mail
Re:The Moral Equivalent of the Parallel Postulate and Sam Harris' Response
« Reply #2 on: 2010-03-31 12:27:01 »
Reply with quote

Thanks.

the.bricoleur
Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2633
Reputation: 8.90
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:The Moral Equivalent of the Parallel Postulate and Sam Harris' Response
« Reply #3 on: 2010-05-04 22:07:43 »
Reply with quote

source: Pharyngula

The discussion is interesting. Sam Harris recently and infamously proposed that, contra Hume, you can derive an 'ought' from an 'is', and that science can therefore provide reasonable guidance towards a moral life. Sean Carroll disagrees at length.

I'm afraid that so far I'm in the Carroll camp. I think Harris is following a provocative and potentially useful track, but I'm not convinced. I think he's right in some of the examples he gives: science can trivially tell you that psychopaths and violent criminals and the pathologies produced by failed states in political and economic collapse are not good models on which to base a successful human society (although I also think that the desire for a successful society is not a scientific premise…it's a kind of Darwinian criterion, because unsuccessful societies don't survive). However, I don't think Harris's criterion — that we can use science to justify maximizing the well-being of individuals — is valid. We can't. We can certainly use science to say how we can maximize well-being, once we define well-being…although even that might be a bit more slippery than he portrays it. Harris is smuggling in an unscientific prior in his category of well-being.

One good example Harris uses is the oppression of women and raging misogyny of the Taliban. Can we use science to determine whether that is a good strategy for human success? I think we can, but not in the way Harris is trying to do so: we could ask empirically, after the fact, whether the Taliban was successful in expanding, maintaining its population, and responding to its environment in a productive way. We cannot, though, say a priori that it is wrong because abusing and denigrating half the population is unconscionable and vile, because that is not a scientific foundation for the conclusion. It's an emotional one; it's also a rational one, given the premise that we should treat all people equitably…but that premise can't claim scientific justification. That's what Harris has to show!

That is different from saying is is an unjustified premise, though — I agree with Harris entirely that the oppression of women is an evil, a wrong, a violation of a social contract that all members of a society should share. I just don't see a scientific reason for that — I see reasons of biological predisposition (we are empathic, social animals), of culture (this is a conclusion of Enlightenment history), and personal values, but not science. Science is an amoral judge: science could find that a slave culture of ant-like servility was a species optimum, or that a strong behavioral sexual dimorphism, where men and women had radically different statuses in society, was an excellent working solution. We bring in emotional and personal beliefs when we say that we'd rather not live in those kinds of cultures, and want to work towards building a just society.

And that's OK. I think that deciding that my sisters and female friends and women all around the world ought to have just as good a chance to thrive as I do is justified given a desire to improve the well-being and happiness of all people. I am not endorsing moral relativism at all — we should work towards liberating everyone, and the Taliban are contemptible scum — I'm just not going to pretend that that goal is built on an entirely objective, scientific framework.

Carroll brings up another set of problems. Harris is building his arguments around a notion that we ought to maximize well-being; Caroll points out that "well-being" is an awfully fuzzy concept that means different things to different people, and that it isn't clear that "well-being" isn't necessarily a goal of morality. Harris does have an answer to those arguments, sort of.


Quote:

Those who assumed that any emphasis on human "wellbeing" would lead us to enslave half of humanity, or harvest the organs of the bottom ten percent, or nuke the developing world, or nurture our children a continuous drip of heroin are, it seems to me, not really thinking about these issues seriously. It seems rather obvious that fairness, justice, compassion, and a general awareness of terrestrial reality have rather a lot to do with our creating a thriving global civilization--and, therefore, with the greater wellbeing of humanity. And, as I emphasized in my talk, there may be many different ways for individuals and communities to thrive--many peaks on the moral landscape--so if there is real diversity in how people can be deeply fulfilled in life, this diversity can be accounted for and honored in the context of science. As I said in my talk, the concept of "wellbeing," like the concept of "health," is truly open for revision and discovery. Just how happy is it possible for us to be, personally and collectively? What are the conditions--ranging from changes in the genome to changes in economic systems--that will produce such happiness? We simply do not know.

The phrase beginning "It seems rather obvious…" is an unfortunate give-away. Don't tell me it's obvious, tell me how you can derive your conclusion from the simple facts of the world. He also slips in a new goal: "creating a thriving global civilization." I like that goal; I think that is an entirely reasonable objective for a member of a species to strive for, to see that their species achieves a stable, long-term strategy for survival. However, the idea that it should be achieved by promoting fairness, justice, compassion, etc., is not a scientific requirement. As Harris notes, there could be many different peaks in the moral landscape — what are the objective reasons for picking those properties as the best elements of a strategy? He doesn't say.

I'm fine with setting up a set of desirable social goals — fairness, justice, compassion, and equality are just a start — and declaring that these will be the hallmark of our ideal society, and then using reason and science to work towards those objectives. I just don't see a scientific reason for the premises, wonderful as they are and as strongly as they speak to me. I also don't feel a need to label a desire as "scientific".
Report to moderator   Logged
Fritz
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.84
Rate Fritz





View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:The Moral Equivalent of the Parallel Postulate and Sam Harris' Response
« Reply #4 on: 2010-05-05 17:56:54 »
Reply with quote

I think Rifkin (I don't totally agree with what is an over simplification, but it is a new way of framing a discussion that has to happen) manages to underscore what Harris is saying. Critical thinking to yet another step in our evolution. All our social constructs have been tools to help survive, and some have been better then others. We went from a useful mythology socially, with many gods forming the guidelines for structure for society, down a path I suspect was less helpful with monotheism, resulting in absolute power corrupting absolutely and as we raise the bar of understanding globally we need to move to new model. Science is a tool to help us socially, just like Mythology was !

Cheers

Fritz



Quote from: Fritz on 2010-04-16 15:31:09   

<snip>
Source: Huffington Post
Author: Jeremy Rifkin
Date: January 11, 2010

'The Empathic Civilization': Rethinking Human Nature in the Biosphere Era

Two spectacular failures, separated by only 18 months, marked the end of the modern era. In July 2008, the price of oil on world markets peaked at $147/ barrel, inflation soared, the price of everything from food to gasoline skyrocketed, and the global economic engine shut off. Growing demand in the developed nations, as well as in China, India, and other emerging economies, for diminishing fossil fuels precipitated the crisis. Purchasing power plummeted and the global economy collapsed. That was the earthquake that tore asunder the industrial age built on and propelled by fossil fuels. The failure of the financial markets two months later was merely the aftershock. The fossil fuel energies that make up the industrial way of life are sunsetting and the industrial infrastructure is now on life support.<snip>
Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
Salamantis
Neophyte
*****

Posts: 2845
Reputation: 0.00



I'm a llama!

View Profile E-Mail
Re:The Moral Equivalent of the Parallel Postulate and Sam Harris' Response
« Reply #5 on: 2010-05-15 13:43:07 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed