Sam Harris: Talk to Me About Morality, Not Your Superiority

[rug]

Posted: 09/12/2013 12:08 pm
Andrew Schwartz

Sam Harris is offering $20,000 to anyone who can refute, disprove the central thesis of his book The Moral Landscape. The task, he writes on his website is this:

Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds -- and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, fully constrained by the laws of the universe (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science (in principle, if not in practice). Consequently, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life.

He writes that the essay contest is meant to push the conversation around theism-atheism forward, and to get more young people thinking critically about what morality is and, most importantly, where morality originates. In reality, though, Mr. Harris' challenge is a pissing contest disguised as a thoughtful and academic endeavor, and serves as yet another of his attempts to show how his camp is better and smarter than the religious camp. How ridiculous.

The argument Harris makes about religion and morality is not a new one, although the twist he puts on it is. His version of morality relies on scientism, a thought system that asserts science and technology can and will eventually explain all that there is to be explained. The furthering of science and technology, Harris and his peers suggest, will provide the solutions for the myriad problems of the world. This argument for a scientific justification/origination of morality is meant to take away the stickiness and relativity of morality. The hope is to create a moral measuring stick that all humans can point to and abide by. The thought here is that a scientifically proven morality will undercut the need for religion and disprove the existence of God. With God and religion gone, there will be no more religious wars and no using God to justify the worst of human endeavors.

There is no denying that religion, and especially Christianity, is well practiced at being on the wrong side of history. Too often, religion has stifled human progress and too often religion is the excuse given for prejudice, bigotry and hatred. But to assume that religion is the reason people hate, or that religion is the reason equality cannot be reached, is both shortsighted and simplistic. For instance, if we want to blame religion for war, then we should first talk about the colonial and imperialistic policies of the West that upset otherwise stable -- and deeply religious -- regions in the Middle East. We should also first talk about the deep economic, social, and territorial factors that incite the fear and hate behind war. Once those conversations are done, then we can talk about how religion and religious fervor are used to justify war. It's true: religion almost always plays a role in war but it is often an ancillary role, a righteous façade used to justify the grab for money, power, and territory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-schwartz-m-div/sam-harris-talk-to-me-abo_b_3902718.html

[Deep13]

1. I think morality is basically instinctive, not rational...

...although rationality can parse out the specifics. That is to say, being protective of children, for example, is instinctive, but what constitutes protecting children is rational.

[msongs]

2. "I'm right and you're wrong". Please send me the $20K lol nt

[cbayer]

3. The article is scathing, but I agree with the author that common ground, not elitist divisions,

are much more productive and beneficial.

[longship]

4. Well, he loses me at "scientism"

which is a word almost guaranteed to piss off anybody who espouses the benefits of science.

My reply is that science is an organized methodology for accumulating facts and finding models which provide solutions to how the universe works. It is based on the assumption that the universe operates using rational principles. Science has not found any exceptions to these assumptions as of yet.

But that is not to say that science thinks it will explain all that can be explained. That particular nugget is one we often see put up alongside the claim of scientism. It is nothing but a straw man. However, it is the epistemological gold in the scientism claim, so it cannot be cast aside.

And as far as I know Sam Harris does not make that claim anyway. Like all people who use science, or advocate its use, Harris understands science's limits. If he ever made that claim, I would like to see evidence of it.

Thanks for the post, rug. Interesting.

[skepticscott]

5. The article is brimming over with straw men and misrepresentations

His version of morality relies on scientism, a thought system that asserts science and technology can and will eventually explain all that there is to be explained.

Uh, no...he's asserting that this one thing, morality (not "all there is&quot is amenable to a non-supernatural explanation. On the other hand, the author is asserting that there are certain things that must remain the exclusive province of religion, and that cannot be subjected to rational, scientific inquiry.


The furthering of science and technology, Harris and his peers suggest, will provide the solutions for the myriad problems of the world.

Well, yes...some of them..as it has proven well able to do. What about that claim would the author have a problem with? Who among "Harris and his peers" has claimed that the furthering of science and technology will solve all of the world's problems? On the other hand, how many of the world's myriad problems has religion or "god" solved?


The thought here is that a scientifically proven morality will undercut the need for religion and disprove the existence of God.

Where has Harris ever claimed that this will "disprove the existence of god"?

[dimbear]

6. If we want to blame religion for war, we might look to India, where the withdrawal of the hated

colonial power led immediately to a terrible sectarian conflict with somewhere twixt half and a whole million casualties. A sectarian conflict which rages still today, 2/3 of a century later. That hated colonial power had (mostly) kept the sects from slaughtering each other for centuries and incidentally eradicated some of the worst religious practices that ever flourished on this green earth.
We remember India's great leader Gandhi for his clever remarks about Christians and his practice of nonviolence. Not a lot of that going around on the subcontinent now.

[Leontius]

14. Much too simplistic too blame religion for the hatred and violence the region.

It played its part but to make it THE CAUSE is just wrong.

[dimbear]

17. I try to follow the news over there. I notice the violence almost always breaks down to

Hindu vs Muslim, Hindu vs Sikh, Sikh vs Muslim, or the like.

Don't you notice that?

[rug]

22. Have you noticed the geographic lines tend to follow those of the British Raj?

Don't you notice that?

[dimbear]

25. Sorry, that remark is wrapped in mystery for me. Do you mean latitude lines or Ley lines? n/t

[rug]

26. I mean much of this fighting is the result of the 1947 Partition of India and Pakistan.

As well as the nationalism that flowed from it.

[dimbear]

28. Surely that is so. And the reason for the partition was to separate the Muslims from the Hindus.

With of course many exceptions, which exceptions were a continuing source of problems, and then the finagle by the Indians on Punjab and, well, it starts to get complicated. The roots go all the way back at least to the Moghuls.

Nothing is simple, but at the root of all the trouble is religion. IMHO.

[struggle4progress]

7. The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Moral Values by Sam Harris – review

It isn't Sam Harris's atheism that bothers Giles Fraser, but his breathtaking hubris
Giles Fraser
The Guardian, Friday 8 April 2011

... First, the atheism. On that useful quadrant – interesting and right, interesting and wrong, uninteresting and right, uninteresting and wrong – Harris is mostly in the uninteresting and right category. Uninteresting because he is concerned only with the narrowest definition of religious belief, and right because the moral and intellectual crimes he pins on this form of belief – its ignorance and prejudice – are so obvious to the western secular imagination that they do not require argument, and certainly not a PhD in neuroscience. Given his definition of religion, his attack on it is the philosophical equivalent of taking sweets from a baby. These things are wrong: "female genital excision, blood feuds, infanticide, the torture of animals, scarification, foot binding, cannibalism, ceremonial rape, human sacrifice". The list goes on. With regard to the god Harris describes, I am a much more convinced atheist than he – even though I am a priest. For Harris asks constantly for evidence, with the implication that if he discovered some, he would change his mind. My own line would be that even if the god he described was proved to exist, I would see it as my moral duty to be an atheist ...

What is presented as Harris's big new idea is really just reheated utilitarianism with wellbeing in place of pleasure. Where this idea breaks down is where utilitarianism breaks down. Let me start with Harris's defence of torture. If the sum of general wellbeing (whatever that means) is increased by the torture of a terrorist suspect, then torture is not even a necessary evil – it becomes a moral duty. Worse still: discussing Robert Nozick's ingenious idea of a "utility monster", Harris asks "if it would be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of some superbeings". His answer is astonishing: "Provided we take time to really imagine the details (which is not easy), I think the answer is clearly 'yes'" ... Once again I am more atheist than he ...

... I am scared of him. And not his atheism, which is standard scientific materialism with the volume turned up. But scared of his complete lack of ambiguity, his absolute clarity of vision, his refusal of humour or self-criticism, his unrelenting seriousness. Harris sees the great moral battle of our day as one between belief and unbelief. I see it as between those who insist that the world be captured by a single philosophy and those who don't. Which is why I fear Harris in just the same way I fear evangelical Christians, to whom he looks so similar. Like them, he is in no doubt about his faith. Like them, he has his devoted followers. Like them, he wants to convert the world. Well, I'm sorry. I am not a believer.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/apr/09/moral-landscape-sam-harris-review

[skepticscott]

10. The reviewer isn't much of a thinker

My own line would be that even if the god he described was proved to exist, I would see it as my moral duty to be an atheist ...

Apparently he doesn't even understand clearly what an atheist is. If an arbitrary, carpicious, horrible, evil, cruel, genocidal god like the Judeo-Christian one was proved to exist, it would be his moral duty not to worship it even if he believed in its existence. Saying that it would be his moral duty not to believe in it even after it had proved to exist just makes him sound silly and thoughtless.

The rest is just tone-trolling with attempts at erudition thrown in.

[struggle4progress]

27. Let us consider carefully exactly what you are committing yourself to. Harris adopts the view

that well-being of conscious entities should somehow be maximized, and he claims that this (metaphysical) stance -- whatever it actually means -- is a principle of Science that leads to an ethics based on Science

To illustrate the use of his principle, Harris gives an example: if Science leads him to the conclusion that "it would be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of some superbeings." Of course, I suspect that Harris is merely attention-whoring with the aim of increasing his book sales, but -- since he claims to be making a serious and logical application of his ethical notions -- let us grit our teeth and take him seriously

Well, what should be our most appropriate reaction if someone made an effort to annihilate human populations, based on some alleged happiness of some superbeings? Should we give the person a careful open-minded hearing, with the idea that it is only fair to allow the person to persuade us of the rightness of annihilation? And if we then found that person's arguments convincing, should we then say -- as Harris wants us to -- that Science has spoken and we have no proper course of action, except to consent?

There are obvious variations of this, and some have historic precedent: if someone proves to us, using what Harris calls Science, that we ourselves are super-beings, and that our happiness will be increased by the extermination of some other human subpopulation, should we consent to that?

Unfortunately, where Harris stands on such issues, in pragmatic terms, is indicated rather clearly, not only by his hypothetical willingness to exterminate humanity, but by his belief that torture can be acceptable. What Harris actually offers is nothing but a demand that we must bow down to his personal Moloch, which rather resembles sociopathic rationalization: he wants to disguise its foul face, by calling it Science -- but it has, in fact, very little connection to actual science

[skepticscott]

29. I've said nothing about Harris or his position

I've noted that the author of the review said some pretty silly things, which make it hard to take him seriously. That has nothing to do with whether Harris deserves to be take seriously.

[struggle4progress]

8. What Unitarians Know (and Sam Harris Doesn't)

October 2, 2010
By MARILYNNE ROBINSON

... Mr. Harris's aspirations also contain much that is not laudable. He lingers wistfully over a vision of society in which sophisticated lie detectors are concealed in places where honesty is at a premium, for example law courts and political events. A lie would set off an alarm. He grants that the devices could never be wholly reliable but notes that we occasionally execute the innocent as the price we pay for the practice of executing the guilty. Apparently we are to find comfort in this thought. It would be pointless to bring up the First and Fifth Amendments here, guaranteeing free speech and due process, universal as some of us would like them to be. Mr. Harris says "the prohibition against compelled testimony itself appears to be a relic of a more superstitious age"—and for no reason associates the prohibition with the practice of taking oaths on the Bible. But the Sixth Amendment, with its guarantee of rights to the accused including "to be confronted with the witnesses against him," does raise an interesting issue. Who would the invisible accuser be? It is probably fair to imagine earnest men, perhaps neuroscientists at prestigious universities with philosophy degrees, designing and programming their assumptions into these imagined devices. People rather like our author, you might say. I doubt he would object ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520062380030080.html

[struggle4progress]

9. Sam Harris is wrong about science and morality

Published November 17, 2011
By Brian D. Earp

... Harris’ book is not a work of philosophical genius. I can summarize his argument in a few lines:

1. Morality is “all about” improving the well-being of conscious creatures.

2. Facts about the well-being of conscious creatures are accessible to science.

3. Therefore science can tell us what’s objectively “moral” — that is, it can tell us whether something increases, or decreases, the well-being of conscious creatures.

Here’s the problem. Premise (1) is a philosophical premise. It’s not a fact of science, it’s not a fact of nature, it’s not derivable from science, it’s not derivable from nature: it’s a value judgment. You might think this is a good premise; you might not – and even if you think it’s basically on track, there’s a lot of philosophical work to be done to spell it out ...

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/11/sam-harris-is-wrong-about-science-and-morality/

[okasha]

11. Sam Harris lost any credibility for pontificating on morality

when he said that he'd choose to eliminate religion rather than rape, if given a magic wand and a choice between the two.

[cbayer]

12. Wow, I hadn't heard that before.

I would agree that his moral authority is pretty much extinguished right there.

[okasha]

13. Patriarchy is alive and well,

right along with Islamophobia.

[dimbear]

15. Rape caused the Trojan War, a quasi-historical quasi-mythical conflict, religion so many no

mind can count them. Real historical wars.

[okasha]

20. Try to count them anyway.

Give us a list.

[skepticscott]

30. Well, not the best example you could have chosen

Even assuming the historicity of the Trojan War, the "quasi-mythical" accounts are far from clear on the cause.

[skepticscott]

16. That puts him in the lofty company of the Catholic Church, then

Though why anyone would accept the pronouncements of any single person on morality in the first place is a mystery.

[Goblinmonger]

18. Nice

So can we also say the Pope has no credibility given his stance on homosexuality?

Shall we go through all religious leaders and find that which we dislike about them so that no religious leader is left that can pontificate on morality?

Oh, and Harris isn't a religious leader so who really gives a shit. He speaks for himself. He isn't the head of atheism or any sect of atheism if such beast existed. He says some really good stuff and some really shitty stuff. Atheists (and everyone) are free to accept and reject what they wish. No so much for the pope and other religious leaders if they want to be part of said religion.

[okasha]

21. Calm down.

I never said Harris' comment reflected on anyone but himself, or on anyone's morality but his own.

[rug]

23. Odd how some people take criticism of a public figure so personally.

[okasha]

24. All the while claiming

they don't give a shit.

[rrneck]

19. I'm about a quarter of the way through the book

and so far it's tedious and defensive. I hope it will improve.

[Jim__]

31. "Therefore, questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within ...

... the purview of science ..."

Therefore? Harris describes this as the central argument of his book:

1. You have said that these essays must attack the “central argument” of your book. What do you consider that to be?

Here it is: Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, fully constrained by the laws of the universe (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science (in principle, if not in practice). Consequently, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life.

I do not see how his conclusion: therefore, questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science follows from the previous premises. For instance, if I think red has a greater aesthetic value than blue, and my neighbor holds the opposite opinion on the aesthetic value of these colors, based on Harris' premises, one of us must be right and the other wrong?

[rug]

32. It appears to be black and white thinking.

[skepticscott]

34. Harris falls down

In his assumption that "well-being" and "suffering" are, even in principle, if not practice, measurable and quantifiable in any remotely objective or "scientific" way, like two objects being weighed to determine which is heavier.

[Igel]

33. Sure, I can agree.

Ultimately what is good is determined by a certain neuronal state--having the right neurons in the brain fire in the right order with the right synchronicity. You can phrase this in electrical or in chemical terms, makes no difference to me.

That makes good versus evil (which we can conventionally take to mean the lack of good, in whole or in part) as equivalent to mental states.

We'd need to show that "good" for all people constitutes the same mental state. This doesn't make good v evil not an aspect of science, it just means that there are different groups of people, neurochemically speaking, which must be separated (unless it can be shown that the neuronal states are plastic and the result of conditioning, in which case some can be converted or reconditioned).

Now it gets sticky, because this is likely to be the case, that for different people the same neuronal state (or equivalent states) result from different stimuli based upon different conditions. If we want to make it into something like a universal science instead of just a nifty categorization and classificational scheme, we must decree one of those "goods" to be the Good.

And we're back to "I'm better than you, so I'm going to kill you and assimilate your kids." Meh.

Of course, it's possible that there is just one set of conditions that would make every member of the set (man, woman, boy, girl) x (Hindu, Confucist, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Scientologist, animist, atheist, Buddhist) x (gourmand, ascetic, satyr) x (intellectual, jock, socialite) x (Chinese, African-American, Southern American, Montanus semper libertarian, Argentine, Zulu, Yu'pik, Chagosian, Aborigine, Hmong, Russian, Syrian) x (entrepreneur, indigent) have that particular neuronal state.

I leave it to the student, Hawkins, to show that this is true. After all, his claim rests upon that being true so he must have an answer and be ready to show it. (On the other hand, all that needs to be shown by a naysayer is that this is not true--subject to the counterclaim that any counterexample is evidence of mental illness, so that it's not really a counterexample for a normal person. Again, we'd be back to not so much "I'm better than you" but "I'm normal and you're aberrant.&quot

It's a case of delicate, fragile goofiness carefully protected against any sort of shipping damage by a thick layer of wooly-thinking and cottony-soft twaddle.

[skepticscott]

35. It is also not only likely to be the case

That identical stimuli will produce totally opposite neuronal states in different people, it actually IS the case. Examples are trivially easy to produce.