Sam Harris: Science can Answer Moral Questions

[Solaris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww&feature=sub

Very interesting video, haven't finished it yet but once again Harris has something very interesting to offer. Great to see a fresh alternative to religious morality with a scientific basis.

Please keep discussion in this thread sensible.

 

[PvtRyan]

Interesting video, but it's still built on the foundation/assumption that wellbeing is the thing to strive for. And whose wellbeing, when can you place yours above that of others? While I think science can answer moral questions on a macro level (is it wrong to force veils/commit genocide/etc) I don't think it's very useful for individual moral choices.

 

[Tyguy]

Interesting video, but it's still built on the foundation/assumption that wellbeing is the thing to strive for.

Why wouldn't well being be the thing to strive for? What can you replace well being with that would parallel it's effect on improving society?

 

[Mogi67]

Harris claims that human well-being is the morally high ground, but there's no objective truth to this. This is not science.

 

[mortiz-Redux]

Harris claims that human well-being is the morally high ground, but there's no objective truth to this. This is not science.

Why? Surely it's safe to say it's far better to live in a society where everyone is happy than one in which everyone is miserable? Therefore why can't science guide us in moral decisions that will lead to the former rather than the latter?

 

[Maestro]

Why? Surely it's safe to say it's far better to live in a society where everyone is happy than one in which everyone is miserable? Therefore why can't science guide us in moral decisions that will lead to the former rather than the latter?

Hahahaha.

Depends on whether you're the happy few or the miserable many. I'd bet most of the Third Reich, Stalin's personal cabinet, Mao Zedong's high command, or Fidel Castro would disagree on that point.

This isn't a scientific argument. You can't experiment with morality. There are some things which are wrong, and some things which are not. If science is needed to figure that out then there is something wrong.

 

[Eejit]

Godwin'd by 5 replies? Is that a HL2.net record? Bravo Maestro, bravo.

 

[Solaris]

Hahahaha.

Depends on whether you're the happy few or the miserable many. I'd bet most of the Third Reich, Stalin's personal cabinet, Mao Zedong's high command, or Fidel Castro would disagree on that point.

This isn't a scientific argument. You can't experiment with morality. There are some things which are wrong, and some things which are not. If science is needed to figure that out then there is something wrong.

Come on now, be respectful.

Why can't Science help us here? The point Harris is making is that we should aim to maximise Human Wellbeing and Science can be a very useful tool in this regard.

For instance, is it moral for our society to continue to emit as much carbon into the atmosphere as possible?

1: Yes, it allows a higher standard of living for our country
2: No, becuase Science tells us global warming will bring famine and deprivation to millions more

Here Science helps us make that choice. And I don't understand the Hitler point you were making, at all.

 

[The Monkey]

Morality and ethics should be the subject of philosophy, not science.

 

[Solaris]

Morality and ethics should be the subject of philosophy, not science.

How can philosophy alone help us make a moral choice say on global warming?

 

[Neutrino]

I think that was a very excellent talk. It touches on one of the most fundamental problems of our society at a time of increased globalization, where cultures are colliding and different schools of moral thought can no longer hide from one another. We're reaching a point where we are going to need some basic ground rules on individual, cultural, and global morality. As the population rise pushes us together and technology increases at a faster and faster rate, we can't afford to have as many moral grey zones as we've been able to tolerate in the past.

The reason we have differences in localized moral systems is that in the past individuals, groups, and tribes typically only affected their close neighbors with their day to day decisions. A local morality is functional when a personal or group decision only affects members of the same moral culture. But with political, social, economic, and technological globalization that is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Political decisions in one country can ruin the economy of another country. Religious doctrine in one area can kill thousands somewhere across the world. And perhaps most importantly, the technological revolution opens the doors for massive consequences from individual action. Every major invention has the potential to change the lives of millions if not billions of people. An obvious example includes the atom bomb. A more subtle situation might be a scientist in a lab who develops a genetically modified wheat plant that sweeps over the planet and alters the world's food supply in either a negative or positive way. No longer do only our next door neighbors have a say in what we do as individuals or societies. We all have some say when the actions of one person or group can affect the lives of every person on Earth.

So whether we want it or not, we are in need of a more globally refined and concrete moral system.

Morality and ethics should be the subject of philosophy, not science.

I understand where you are coming from and I think a lot, if not most people, have this response to these ideas. Your position even has a lot of historical circumstances to back it up. It can indeed be dangerous to give any one group or organization moral control over the populace. Although in reality we all live under tight moral control all the time. Every group of people from tribes to giant nationalities have elaborate and strict moral controls of their populace. It's just that in the context of this talk we only tend to latch on to the bad examples in history.

Also, saying we should just leave it to philosophy is, in my mind, basically just giving up. (No offense intended). But really, what does that statement mean when you break it down? It brings up all sorts of questions when you are talking on a global scale. What is philosophy? Who's philosophy? How is this philosophy going to answer moral questions that we need answered? By saying morality is purely a philosophical question you are saying that it is purely a non-factual based system that cannot be examined or analyzed on a factual or empirical basis. But is that really true? Of course it's an incredibly complex idea with many grey areas. But does that mean morality and fact based science, or values and facts, are completely incompatible? Is there not a single fact to be found between a child laughing in the park blowing bubbles with her family and a child starving in the mud huddled with the body of her dead mother? Yes, there are grey areas, but I think we're deluding ourselves if we think there aren't a few clear cut facts to pull out of that.

Now of course there are going to be some initial assumptions involved. Questions such as "Why even have a moral system at all?" tend to lend themselves to rational argument rather than a measurable system of facts. But I don't think that's really a problem. I think most of us can agree that being alive is better than being dead. That having a healthy green earth on which to live out our lives is better than having a broken smoking cinder on which human life has been wiped out. I think most of the world can agree on some basic assumptions. No doubt there are some people who think that pain and suffering are better than happiness and contentment, but in this case I think a majority rules approach is probably the way to go.

But that brings us to the what this TED talk was about. The problem with a factual morality in the past was that we couldn't define human emotions or human experience in a rational or factual way. Who was to say if someone was happy or sad? When I say "I am feeling happy" that is indeed a fact. But, how can anyone verify that fact? You may be tempted to argue that that isn't even a fact; that it's just a feeling. But is it? No, it is indeed a fact. That is clear and direct statement, "I am feeling happy" that is either true or false. The problem of course has been that for a fact to be a fact it must be measured. To analyze things scientifically we must be able to verify facts through measurement. And that is the point of this entire idea. We are possibly on the verge of a revolution in neurological science. Already we have some rudimentary ability to actually measure that above statement. In the near future we may very well develop the ability to conclusively define and measure human emotional states. And that changes the entire playing field of morality.

The problem has always been measurement. Morality, in terms of human experience and emotion, has always been full of facts. We see and feel them all the time. We express them with factual statements. They range from the verifiable to the fuzzy. That person is alive. This person is dead. That person is smiling. This person is frowning. That person is happy. This person is sad. That person is content. This person is unsatisfied. Now we can handle the scenario where one person is alive and another dead. We can measure that. It is not only a fact we can state, but one that we can verify through direct measurement. The other statements are where we run into difficulties. But let's not forget that they are also facts. These people are feeling real and specific emotions. They are having real and specific internal experiences. We just can't measure them, which is why morality has been the domain of religion and philosophy. But what if we soon can measure them? What if we can empirically define and verify those emotions? Perhaps, many would argue, that is impossible. But what if it's not? Science has accomplished thousands of things people once thought was impossible. But the reality is that as our understanding of the world increases through scientific understanding we are finding ourselves in an ever more deterministic world. We no longer have the luxury or convenience of falling back on old ideas that "oh, we just can't know that" or "we must accept everyone's interpretation because we can't measure that."

We can measure the effects of gravity. We can clearly and empirically define how it will affect an object and measure and verify that definition. That is science. Sure, someone can come along and argue until they are blue in the face that a rock will fall up instead of down. But through measurement and repeatable experiments we can know that they are wrong. We can verify the facts of the situation and no longer have to rely on opinion. This is the nature of facts.

Human experience is no different from a rock falling. We can say either "the rock will fall down" or "the rock will fall up" and we can say "I am happy" or "I am sad" (Yes, it's a little more complex. We could actually claim the rock would go in any three dimensional direction just as we could say my specific magnitude of happiness is such and such. But for the sake of argument, we can simplify it a bit for now) Either the rock will fall down or up and either a person is happy or they are sad. The former we can measure and verify, but the latter we cannot. But what if that's not always the case. What if we will be able to define and measure human emotion and experience in the same way as a rock falling? Already we're making giant advances in brain imaging and measurement technology and we've only just scratched the surface.

Our ability to measure the human mind is like our ability to digitally compute a problem in the 1950's. Look what has happened in the last 60 years. So what if the same thing happens with the science of the mind? Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but if it does we will be flooded the ability to provide factual data about the human experience. Yes, it will be scary and uncomfortable just as understanding and rational explanation in the face of superstition and belief usually is. And yes, we must be careful and cautious. But if such data is available to us, I for one think we have the responsibility to face reality and its consequences.

 

[Viperidae]

Basic problems with above thinking:

'Happiness' is not a good judge of whether someone is subject to good morality. That's why we don't have people hooked up to heroine drips 24/7.

Considering that most humans (read: westerners) can't understand what true contentment/peace with oneself is, or why it's even a good thing, I highly doubt science can reduce it to a point on a graph.

Human emotion is incredibly complicated and I am very skeptical of scientific reductionism trying to come up with some explanation for it (yes, it means I'm skeptical about most of neuroscience's 'progress' too).

Bring on the scientific defenders.

 

[Neutrino]

Basic problems with above thinking:

'Happiness' is not a good judge of whether someone is subject to good morality. That's why we don't have people hooked up to heroine drips 24/7.

Considering that most humans (read: westerners) can't understand what true contentment/peace with oneself is, or why it's even a good thing, I highly doubt science can reduce it to a point on a graph.

Human emotion is incredibly complicated and I am very skeptical of scientific reductionism trying to come up with some explanation for it (yes, it means I'm skeptical about most of neuroscience's 'progress' too).

Bring on the scientific defenders.

I understand your point, and you could be right. It's an open question as we don't really know what is possible or even whether a purely deterministic and empirical viewpoint can be used to understand the function of the human mind. However, I just want to point out that using the idea of "happiness" was just my way of labeling internal emotions and experience in a simplistic way for the sake of making an argument. Of course a person's overall well being or happiness or contentment is far, far more complex and cannot be measured by one emotion or circumstance. You can replace "happiness" in my writing with "overall emotional and mental well being" if you like.

That being said, I suppose the gist of my point is that while it is very important to value differing opinions and viewpoints, I think we are deluding ourselves if we don't attempt to make meaningful measurements with respect to morality. Yes, moral absolutism is dangerous, but at a certain point there are things we can already measure such as the tangible consequences of certain regional and global moral choices. To not take those consequences into account is, in my opinion, a dangerous disregard of cause and effect. Just because morality is a fuzzy issue doesn't mean moral actions don't already have concrete and measurable effects that can be taken into consideration.

And if we are able to eventually provide data on internal human experience as well as external we should take that data into account as well.

 

[theotherguy]

Science fundamentally cannot answer moral questions. Science is descriptive. Morality is prescriptive. Science is based on what is, morality is a question of what ought to be.

Only philosophy can be used to answer moral questions.

Now, if a scientist assumes a philosophical position on morality, he may figure out the best way to do the most moral thing. However, a scientist alone cannot answer these questions without first assuming something from philosophy.

Scientists very often make this mistake. I've found that most scientists hold an implied utilitarian viewpoint of ethics that they have never even questioned. They simply assume this must be the right thing, and then claim they are doing something moral with their work.

Utilitarianism is not at all apparent, and it is in fact a very poor ethical system. There are other ethical systems out there.

 

[theotherguy]

Watching the video:

Sam Harris outlines the problem, that science is descriptive of facts, and that philosophy is prescriptive of values.

He then goes on to assume that the "well being of conscious creatures" is a moral value science should strive for. Here, he is using a philosophical, value-based claim. It is NOT a fact. It is in no way FACTUAL.

Sorry Sam, you fail.

 

[theotherguy]

Continuing on:

He assumes utilitarianism without justifying it. He defines a "moral landscape" as a mountainous region corresponding to well-being. This is a classic utilitarian description.

 

[theotherguy]

How can philosophy alone help us make a moral choice say on global warming?

Philosophy works with the facts of science to help us make moral choices on global warming. A scientist cannot make any claim about the moral choices involved with global warming unless he is also doing philosophy, or assuming a philosophical claim.

EDIT:

Oh, and philosophy could answer the question even without any scientific data. It's called a "thought experiment." If we gave Socrates the premise "Suppose the entire world were heating up due to human activity at such and such a rate because of such and such technologies," he would be able to derive moral truths without ever considering that these scientific facts may be true or false.

 

[Maestro]

Godwin'd by 5 replies? Is that a HL2.net record? Bravo Maestro, bravo.

Oh come off it, it was one of three examples given. Godwin's law doesn't invalidate my argument in the least.

 

[NeptuneUK]

The needs of the many...

 

[Viperidae]

The needs of the many...

To quote sfdebris, that's logic, not morality.

 

[The Monkey]

*snip*

It's true that one might measure the brain activity in order to see something that corresponds to the emotional state of happiness, but such a measurement is intrinsically flawed. It is for example unable to detect the long-lasting happiness; happiness that derives not from an immediate event but from a well-established foundation of life. I think an imperative aspect of this is security and the knowledge that your entire livelihood does not depend on something tangible, such as a job. I'm afraid that I might drift away from the subject here, so I'll just say that what triggers happiness, and the quality and longevity of it, has many complex and diverse explanations, which a simple brain scan can never discover.

How can philosophy alone help us make a moral choice say on global warming?

In the case of global warming, science can give the facts from which philosophers work, but it cannot answer the problems in itself. How does, for example, the knowledge that the globe is warming in itself trigger an idea of an appropriate reaction without a philosophical code of ethics?

 

[Solaris]

I don't really see why we need a code of ethics. If we set our goal at maximising well-being that's really all the philosophy we need to do.

 

[99.vikram]

I don't really see why we need a code of ethics. If we set our goal at maximising well-being that's really all the philosophy we need to do.

Simplistic much! Here's some things to think about: In the world of the rich, well being is cheaply available. Just work hard, and it comes to you free of any other cost. But in broken social systems (like, say, much of the world) one person's well being almost always comes at a cost to someone else, because the system works by wealth redistribution.

No sane man can argue redistribution, unless he lives in a utopian laissez-faire state in his head (and this is coming from an Ayn Rand fan!) Redistribution by it's nature implies limited supply. And thus we are forced to argue ethics in order to best direct limited resources.

Another reason to argue morality and ethics is to define basic human rights. The role of the government is not written in stone, we have the dirty task of identifying it ourselves (unless you subscribe to religion.) Do people have the right to die voluntarily? Do they have the freedom to die involuntarily (i.e. is basic healthcare the government's responsibility?) These questions don't answer themselves.

In conclusion, unless you want an anarchistic society, you want government. If you want government, you want to argue ethics and morality.

EDIT: In response to the Sam Harris video, no. Science cannot answer moral questions. I can't prove this using cold hard geometry or something (I'm no Spinoza) but here's an illustrative example:

Why is global warming an issue at all? Why do we assume humans ought to be preserved? Isn't it almost a certainty that the greenhouse effect will not kill life but rather alter it's nature? What makes us deserving of continued existence, and deny those countless interesting creatures to come in a post-greenhouse world a chance to evolve? What if a human-less universe has more diverse and widespread life than a humanful universe? Is our survival more important than the spread of life? These questions do not have One True Answer.

If it's not clear yet, I think philosophy holds the key to these questions, science can only provide physical laws and data.

 

[Solaris]

Simplistic much! Here's some things to think about: In the world of the rich, well being is cheaply available. Just work hard, and it comes to you free of any other cost. But in broken social systems (like, say, much of the world) one person's well being almost always comes at a cost to someone else, because the system works by wealth redistribution.

No sane man can argue redistribution, unless he lives in a utopian laissez-faire state in his head (and this is coming from an Ayn Rand fan!) Redistribution by it's nature implies limited supply. And thus we are forced to argue ethics in order to best direct limited resources.

Another reason to argue morality and ethics is to define basic human rights. The role of the government is not written in stone, we have the dirty task of identifying it ourselves (unless you subscribe to religion.) Do people have the right to die voluntarily? Do they have the freedom to die involuntarily (i.e. is basic healthcare the government's responsibility?) These questions don't answer themselves.

In conclusion, unless you want an anarchistic society, you want government. If you want government, you want to argue ethics and morality.

Yes, of course I accept ethics is a valuable field of enquiry.

However I don't see why we need to introduce it in this regard. Your post implies there is a limited amount of stuff, and the only way we can improve the well-being of our fellow man is to take from others. Redistribute if you will.

However, I do not accept this. If my government built a new government department called 'the department of grain production'. This department could use taxes to purchase underused farmland and hire the unemployed to produce grain. This grain would then all be sent to poor people in Africa or whatever, for free.

What's more, had the government just used the taxes to purchase the grain on the free market and gave it to the poor, it would have been able to buy much less grain. But by making the welfare of human beings the priority of an industry, rather than profit, it has vastly increased the wellbeing of the starving.

This shows how we can improve the world without relying on redistribution.

 

[99.vikram]

What's more, had the government just used the taxes to purchase the grain on the free market and gave it to the poor, it would have been able to buy much less grain. But by making the welfare of human beings the priority of an industry, rather than profit, it has vastly increased the wellbeing of the starving.

This shows how we can improve the world without relying on redistribution.

Anytime the government 'hires unemployed people' to [verb], it is redistribution, just indirect. The government is doing something no private person thought was worth doing.

 

[theotherguy]

I don't really see why we need a code of ethics. If we set our goal at maximising well-being that's really all the philosophy we need to do.

"Setting your goal at maximising well-being" IS a code of ethics, and a very poor one at that!

Here's why:

The first problem is, you must define "well-being." What exactly is this elusive "well-being?" Is it happiness? Pleasure? Freedom? Some combination of these? Well-being for whom? Well-being for all? The sum of well-being? The product of well-being? The average of well-being?

The second problem is, you must come up with a way to MEASURE "well-being." How exactly does one do this?

The third problem is, you must come up with a way to determine WHICH ACTIONS will maximize "well-being." This is the hardest of all, because you cannot predict the future impact of your actions. It is impossible to determine what will maximize well being in any given situation. Even if you could do it mathematically, it would likely be a huge, nonlinear system of differential equations filled with extremely uncertain terms. So, a utilitarian such as yourself would have to resort to simple, yet arbitrary rules and heuristics which are supposed to maximize well-being, yet may not.

Finally, the biggest, and most important problem with this utilitarian approach is that "well-being" is arbitrary. Why should we want to maximize well-being? Furthermore, even if we want to maximize well-being, why is it the ends of all our moral efforts? What if well-being is a secondary quality which maximizes something else that we should be striving for?

There are many alternatives to utilitarianism which more adequately answer these questions. Utilitarianism is a long-dead, broken system of ethics that ought to be abandoned.