It took me a while to finish a good book - fascinating, stimulating, often frustrating - but good book anyway. I'm takling about Sam Harris' (2010) The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. The book claims that it is possible to determine values through science, hence quality of life and ultimately morality. I'll start the discussion with a summary and preliminary observation below and hope we can have a good discussion on it.
Consider this:
Person A: An illiterate and homeless African woman whose husband has disappeared. You have just seen your seven-year-old daughter raped and murdered at the hands of drug-crazed soldiers, and now you’re fearing for your life. Unfortunately, this is not an unusual predicament for you. From the moment you were born, your life has been marred by cruelty and violence.
Person B: A respected professional in a wealthy country, married to a loving, intelligent and charismatic mate. Your employment is intellectually stimulating and pays you very well. For decades your wealth and social connections have allowed you immense personal satisfaction from meaningful work which makes a real difference in the world. You and your closest family will live long, prosperous lives, virtually untouched by crime, sudden bereavements, and other major misfortunes.
Who is living the better life? Everyone will surely choose Person B. Harris builds on this to conclude that there is an objective way to determine what is morally good and bad. In fact, he goes further to claim that scientific inquiry is a tool in identifying what we should and should not value, as the subtitle of the book indicates. For Harris, "value" is nothing more that that which leads to human flourishing - living a satisfying life. With this formulation, Harris approach to morality is clear and direct. Fulfilment, and thereby value and morality, are not religious or philosophical issues, but are rather a matter of scientific inquiry. That we can objectively determine what leads to happiness and what leads to misery. Facilitating good lives is what morality is about, says Harris, and that’s why science can tell us what we should value and what we should not. Harris,
“human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Consequently, there must be scientific truths to be known about it.” (2010: 2)
“Once we see that a concern for well-being (defined as deeply and as inclusively as possible) is the only intelligible basis for morality and values, we will see that there must be a science of morality… As we come to understand how human beings can best collaborate and thrive in this world, science can help us find a path leading away from the lowest depths of misery and toward the heights of happiness for the greatest number of people.” (2010: 28)
Harris talks of ‘moral landscape’ as the conceptual space of all possible experience. The peaks represent the heights of well-being, and the valleys the worst suffering. Different cultures and ethical practices are different ways of moving across this landscape – they can lead either up or down, and their effects are empirically knowable. Harris notes that there is no single best way for people to live: there are many peaks in the moral landscape, not just one. Morality is here like food. There is no one best food to eat, but there is still an objective difference between poison and tasty, nutritious cuisine. Similarly, there is no one best way to live; but there is an objective, specifiable difference between circumstances, actions and policies that lead to lives like Person A, and those that lead to lives such as Person B. If we want a life like B, and if we want that life for others too, then we should pay attention to what scientific inquiry tells us about how to get there, and take action accordingly. This more or less summarizes Harris' thesis on morality and science.
It is a brave and plausible vision. There is a serious meta-ethical issue here which Harris does not adequately address. Throughout the history of philosophy there have been two competing domains of discourse regarding ethics, which have been called the Right and the Good. "Right" pertains to duty and obligation – the obligation to obey moral rules which are taken to be applicable universally and independent of one’s own preferences. "Good" pertains to benefits and harms – that is, to the consequences of actions, which may be good or bad for the moral agent or others. Harris does an admirable job of spelling out the implications of the "Good" position, particularly the value of a careful, disciplined, objective examination of reality, in short, of science, for determining what is good and bad, beneficial and detrimental, for humans and other conscious creatures. But he only asserts that Goodness trumps Rightness – that it makes more sense or is more cogent to speak of morality in terms of benefits and harms than to speak of it in terms of duty and obligation.
Elsewhere in the book, Harris writes that “physicians have a moral obligation to handle medical statistics in ways that minimize unconscious bias” (2010: 143). How does he get from the observable fact that minimizing bias has good effects, to saying the we have a moral obligation to do so? Unless we radically redefine what we mean by ‘obligation’, we are not morally obliged to minimize harm on Harris’s view. Instead, we are merely better advised to do so. Harris wants to redefine the concept of ‘moral obligation’ in terms of probable benefits and harms, but he does not make the argument for doing so clearly enough.
As I said in the preface, the book is at once elucidating and frustrating. Despite the many inadequacies (his rant of religion, his ideas on belief and the brain), Harris is actually opening a valid point. Scientific evaluation is a tool to determine or at least reproblematize value and morality.
Would I be wrong in saying Harris' philosophy is essentially concerning "the good" in the utilitarian concept and the best way to live life is to maximize human pleasure and enjoyment and minimize or eliminate suffering? I don't think his ideas are all that new or original, since they are pretty well reiterations of the old school utilitarians like Bentham, Mill, etc. I've always thought of science as the same thing as the empiricism in philosophy, so I don't see the meshing of science and moral philosphy as something radical or controversial.
Last edit: 2012-07-20 11:43:24
Clarity_nl Netherlands. July 20 2012 11:40. Posts 3283
I don't buy it, mortality can not be obtained through science as science is just what we observe with our brain, science & the universe could care less about your well being or morality. That's just the hard cold truth. I also disagree with Harris's views on happiness and misery, both things are based on ones objectiveness towards them and are not necessarily bad things, calling something miserable is just putting a label on things that actually don't exist but are built upon by the mind.
One can live an extremely satisfying life even being extremely poor in prison and with barely any food. It's about making peace with each moment and not war, even in pain one can obtain true happiness. Also, one you start mixing science with morality you end up with a thing called philosophy. So in actuality what Harris is talking about is philosophy as philosophy is in fact a science that's based around theory's just like science is.
On July 20 2012 11:40 Roe wrote: Would I be wrong in saying Harris' philosophy is essentially concerning "the good" in the utilitarian concept and the best way to live life is to maximize human pleasure and enjoyment and minimize or eliminate suffering? I don't think his ideas are all that new or original, since they are pretty well reiterations of the old school utilitarians like Bentham, Mill, etc. I've always thought of science as the same thing as the empiricism in philosophy, so I don't see the meshing of science and moral philosphy as something radical or controversial.
I think so too. But the difference I see in Harris formulation is that he actually believes that there are measurable metrics in the identification of what is beneficial or useful to man, thereby giving his life value and defining what is moral. Furthermore, he believes this metrics should be standardized.
Sepheren United States. July 20 2012 11:59. Posts 66
On July 20 2012 11:41 Sovern wrote: I don't buy it, mortality can not be obtained through science as science is just what we observe with our brain, science & the universe could care less about your well being or morality. That's just the hard cold truth. I also disagree with Harris's views on happiness and misery, both things are based on ones objectiveness towards them and are not necessarily bad things, calling something miserable is just putting a label on things that actually don't exist but are built upon by the mind.
Well since the universe is a system of science, and we are contained within that system, and we make up morality, then morality would be obtained through science, huh? So, it kinda happened that way, and "that's just the hard cold truth".
As for whether the universe "cares" about morality... it kinda does, because most of the successful societies are moral, and I don't think non-human organisms can not be moral. I think Ants are the most successful organisms, or maybe beetles if you're counting number of species rather than individuals, and I don't think an Ant has ever fuckep over another one of its' colony members, but i could be wrong.
Jockmcplop United Kingdom. July 20 2012 12:02. Posts 1078
You can definitely see the Buddhist basis (ironically) of Harris' work. His view of morality is based almost entirely on a definition of human suffering, and the idea that less suffering is 'better' than more suffering. Interestingly, Harris idenitified himself very clearly with some buddhist beliefs (for lack of a better word) during his 'ask me anything' he did for reddit..
Unfortunately, the science of his views is a bit vague. He suffers the same problem as Freud and Jung's work does. When a scientific body of work is based on human experience it automically loses some of its pure scientific value, and usually gets consigned to other areas, such as psuedo-science or philosphy (philosophy of science, i suppose). In fact, when you read his work, it is fantastically written, and very detailed and thorough, but it often drifts between scientific fact and philosophical discourse. In this way it lacks the 'crispness' of a real scientific text.
would you mind taking that elephant out of my fridge?
Splynn United States. July 20 2012 12:23. Posts 134
I may come off as whining here, but I really disagree with the example given. If it is his example, then it threatens the rest of his work and ideas. If its yours, trying to give an idea for what he's talking about, then I suppose it does its job adequately. But it's a false dichotomy; between absolutely awful and pretty great, everyone is going to choose pretty great. But those aren't the only choices.
What happens when the two people are living happy, but different, lives? Which is the better life between Person B and Person C, who lives a life of relative poverty and stress but takes absolute joy in spending time with his or her family, and would not trade them away for all the money in the world? If we choose Person C, should we all then seek a life that mirrors Person C's life? I'd argue that we cannot control the people in our families, and ultimately this will stagnate much of society. Person B isn't an attainable goal for everyone, either; the world does need people to fulfill less desirable jobs.
Also, just because there is an objective, empirical "correct" answer does not make it science. From the synopsis you gave it sounds like he's just doing philosophy but calling it science, which means he either doesn't understand philosophy well enough to do this to begin with, or he's trying to cause a stir purposefully and therefore his ideas aren't interesting enough to support themselves. Granted, he could be trying to do some shock value on meaningful ideas, but it doesn't sound like it from the synopsis.
Unless he's merely arguing that the existence of an objective truth in ethics means that science could be used, he just hasn't applied the science yet. If that's the case, then I'm again not very interested. Saying he could use science to discover the absolute moral truth is all good and fun, but it's all conjecture until it's actually done. There's no reason given here why his methods are better than the ones pursued in the philosophical traditions. But I can think of quite a few reasons why the philosophical traditions are better than his methods. Namely, that they discovered most of what he's talking about here a few hundred to a few thousand years ago.
On July 20 2012 12:02 Jockmcplop wrote: You can definitely see the Buddhist basis (ironically) of Harris' work. His view of morality is based almost entirely on a definition of human suffering, and the idea that less suffering is 'better' than more suffering. Interestingly, Harris idenitified himself very clearly with some buddhist beliefs (for lack of a better word) during his 'ask me anything' he did for reddit..
Unfortunately, the science of his views is a bit vague. He suffers the same problem as Freud and Jung's work does. When a scientific body of work is based on human experience it automically loses some of its pure scientific value, and usually gets consigned to other areas, such as psuedo-science or philosphy (philosophy of science, i suppose). In fact, when you read his work, it is fantastically written, and very detailed and thorough, but it often drifts between scientific fact and philosophical discourse. In this way it lacks the 'crispness' of a real scientific text.
That's not the problem with Freud and Jung. Parts of theories were unfalsifiable and non-empirical, so while having a lot of truth in them they were unscientific.
I share the idea that morality should be based around a system of pain and the likes that Harris describes in his book, and to quote the book as well (well more paraphrase):
"Just as I feel that there is no longer Christian Astronomy and Muslim Algebra, I see no reason that in the future we will not see Morality branch out as its own form of science free from the necessity and constrains of religion"
It's definitely a great book. Harris is one of those people I find myself agreeing with far too much in about everything. To the critique earlier that it lacks the crispness of a real scientific text, you must understand the situation Harris is really in. Although he has a doctorate in neuroscience, the way he talks about the books and the way he talks in speeches in general is not meant to be scientific or for an intelligent audience even. Look at his last few books, Letter to a Christian Nation for instance. I think he's more concerned with, dare I say, 'planting a seed' than making a strong case for any particular notion scientifically that you would find in a paper.
Perhaps him writing for the lower denominators makes him have to use some philosophical discourse, but I generally agree with his moral philosophy presented in this book. I personally think it's a very rational approach one whom is not religious could make to an objective morality. As that is a very prominent issue when you are not religious, morality. I don't want to turn this into a debate but I think most can agree stringent Relative Morality is pretty fucking silly. However, that doesn't necessarily mean there is ONE morality, Sam argues, but rather that there is just objectively better states of being to be in and objectively better ways for people to be raised. As he said, people are objectively better off when they are not punished with battery acid in the eyes for the 'crime' of learning to read. I think he puts it in a way that there are varying plateaus of "objectively good" morality, and even though many are vastly different they're all more or less good for humanity and society as a whole. And this interaction of pain and societal well being and the like, can be interpreted scientifically.
If you don't want to read a book, at least watch a video. He gives a 45 minute crash course essentially of his book:
But things are not often so clear-cut. Think Mother Teresa vs Lady Gaga. Ask people "who is living the better life?" and "whose life would you want to live?" The answers may not be quite so clear.
http://billyfoong.blogspot.com/ my other opinions are here
Zahir United States. July 20 2012 13:11. Posts 908
Science is objective. "everyone would surely choose this" is the exact opposite of objective. Let's say someone chooses life A because they like a good challenge. Can you somehow disprove their opinion? You can't, because Opinions can't be disproved, and neither can morals.
Yet another bad attempt to apply science to everything and automagically solve the worlds problems.
What is best? To crush the Zerg, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the Protoss.
Science is objective. "everyone would surely choose this" is the exact opposite of objective. Let's say someone chooses life A because they like a good challenge. Can you somehow disprove their opinion? You can't, because Opinions can't be disproved, and neither can morals.
Yet another bad attempt to apply science to everything and automagically solve the worlds problems.
Yet another bad attempt to disprove an argument without actually knowing what the argument is stating.
Please watch the video. You dont even need to watch the entire speech, just the first like 18 minutes. If you're going to say an argument is bad you should have the common courtesy to actually understand his premise.
Last edit: 2012-07-20 13:13:09
jdseemoreglass United States. July 20 2012 13:12. Posts 3773
Shared subjective values is NOT the same thing as objective morality, and it never will be. But we've been trying to fit morality into such a box since the time of Moses. People really will believe anything if it's something that makes them feel good. It smells of desperation when I see youtube links like the one above. Just because an idea is nice or useful doesn't mean it's true, in fact that's usually an argument against the thing being true.
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
On July 20 2012 13:12 jdseemoreglass wrote: Shared subjective values is NOT the same thing as objective morality, and it never will be. But we've been trying to fit morality into such a box since the time of Moses. People really will believe anything if it's something that makes them feel good. It smells of desperation when I see youtube links like the one above. Just because an idea is nice or useful doesn't mean it's true, in fact that's usually an argument against the thing being true.
It's a very nice thing that in the first 3 minutes he says that because an idea is nice or useful doesn't mean it's true, in fact that's usually an argument against the thing being true.
:|
Your signature quote is painfully ironic.
Last edit: 2012-07-20 13:15:09
DarkPlasmaBall United States. July 20 2012 13:16. Posts 19998
On July 20 2012 13:06 targ wrote: But things are not often so clear-cut. Think Mother Teresa vs Lady Gaga. Ask people "who is living the better life?" and "whose life would you want to live?" The answers may not be quite so clear.
Totally a false analogy to what's written in the OP, because your comparison has two people who are clearly offering different good things (pure, charitable, pious work vs. luxury, fame, wealth), whereas the two lifestyles in the OP are not both made to be positive in different ways, but instead one is to be made incredibly negative in every aspect and the other incredibly positive in every aspect. Think of it that way.
Anyways, big supporter of Sam Harris and recognizing that science doesn't need to remain completely silent on the subject of more things in our world... considering it's done so much for our intellectual growth and human discovery.
EDIT: Everyone should watch Candadar's video of Sam Harris's lecture. I've watched it in the past and I'm consistently impressed with Harris's eloquence and the points he makes. If it wasn't so late for me, I'd watch the whole thing again right now ^^
Last edit: 2012-07-20 13:19:48
"Those who can, teach. Those who can't, whine about teachers." ~Me
On July 20 2012 13:12 jdseemoreglass wrote: Shared subjective values is NOT the same thing as objective morality, and it never will be. But we've been trying to fit morality into such a box since the time of Moses. People really will believe anything if it's something that makes them feel good. It smells of desperation when I see youtube links like the one above. Just because an idea is nice or useful doesn't mean it's true, in fact that's usually an argument against the thing being true.
It's a very nice thing that in the first 3 minutes he says that because an idea is nice or useful doesn't mean it's true, in fact that's usually an argument against the thing being true.
:|
Your signature quote is painfully ironic.
Just to narrow it down to the meat:
10:10 is where it really gets started.
zulu_nation8 China. July 20 2012 13:17. Posts 18693
I've always taken morals to be something above religion or science or anything else really. It's a set of universal truths by which to follow that are objectively correct. I always get some sort of emotional or even physical reaction when I cross the line over them, but they're largely incredibly easy to follow.
Store
Sovern United States. July 20 2012 11:41. Posts 312
