Yes, objective morality exists

More Than Mortal · January 01, 2015, 11:50:11 AM

YouTube

#rekt by harris

Dustin · January 01, 2015, 02:34:09 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

g💚jira · January 01, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

This is that same video that has been refuted by every relativist on every corner of the planet, summarizing the book that has been refuted by every relativist on every corner of the planet, made by the person that has often been refuted by every relativist on every corner of the planet. Unfortunately I'm not exactly a relativist myself, but I've spent enough time around them to remember their baseline argument [or at least kinda extrapolate and think in the "mode" of a relativist XD]:

IIRC the two second rebuttal is that his entire argument boils down to making comparative sentences into boolean expressions, which clearly have definite answers:

(Action_Wellness_Quant > Action'_Wellness_Quant) => (Action_Wellness_Quant == Good)

This assumes that

A) Utilitarianism is the proper way of handling an ethical situation, which is another debate entirely and therefore not exactly a fully factual premise. Luckily for him I agree, so his argument works so far.

B) Quantifying the "wellness" of an action is possible. The problems with this should be kind of completely obvious.

So yeah. I'm not saying he's wrong [I personally haven't really paid much attention to him- the first few sentences of his book where he acts like he's too good for philosophy turned me off anyways] but this TED talk gives me that impression.

TB · January 01, 2015, 02:44:05 PM

I'll have to watch this later.

More Than Mortal · January 01, 2015, 02:50:23 PM

Quote from: GodspeedSnowjira! on January 01, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

It seems like you've actually been looking at the mischaracterisations of his work, and too closely associating it with a Benthamite conception of utilitarianism.

The basis of his consequentialist utilitarianism (loosely defined) is that there is no other position to operate from when considering morality, first and foremost because nobody would sanely advocate a system of morality which resulted in abject destitution.

The problems with quantifying the extent to which an action is, of course, difficult but it doesn't make the idea vacuous. There are quite obviously peaks and troughs on this "moral landscape" at which one can operate, and as soon as one accepts this then it is quite obvious that we can rule out the Taliban as having anything meaningful to say about morality, in the same sense they have nothing meaningful to say about physics.

Just think about economics; simply because it's a very nebulous area of study, it doesn't negate the idea of varying degrees of rightness and wrongness.

Spoiler

I have no idea what you mean by him "acting too good for philosophy", either.

More Than Mortal · January 01, 2015, 02:52:28 PM

Quote from: WBC Dustin on January 01, 2015, 02:34:09 PM

I'll watch it later when I'm in the mood, but I can get a tl;dw pls

Quote

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is a book by Sam Harris. In it, he promotes a science of morality and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationship between morality, facts, and science. He aims to carve a third path between secularists who say morality is subjective (e.g. moral relativists), and religionists who say that morality is given by God and scripture. Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.

Challenging the age-old philosophical notion that we can never get an 'ought' from an 'is', Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using, not just philosophy, but the methods of science. Thus, "science can determine human values" translates to "science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing". It is in this sense that Harris advocates that scientists begin conversations about a normative science of "morality".

Dustin · January 01, 2015, 02:55:36 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 01, 2015, 02:57:55 PM

Quote from: WBC Dustin on January 01, 2015, 02:55:36 PM

Okay now how about a tl;dr

>morality necessarily relates to the flourishing and well-being of conscious creatures
>therefore questions about morality have objectively correct or incorrect answers

Dustin · January 01, 2015, 03:02:33 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

g💚jira · January 01, 2015, 03:16:22 PM

Quote

The basis of his consequentialist utilitarianism (loosely defined) is that there is no other position to operate from when considering morality, first and foremost because nobody would sanely advocate a system of morality which resulted in abject destitution.

I'll have to look into it more sometime, sounds interesting.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 01, 2015, 02:50:23 PM

I remember reading something from him where he lists off philosophical words and characterizes them as "boredom inducing" before he makes his points. I was like "yeah w/e"

More Than Mortal · January 01, 2015, 03:17:11 PM

Quote from: GodspeedSnowjira! on January 01, 2015, 03:16:22 PM

I remember reading something from him where he lists off philosophical words and characterizes them as "boredom inducing" before he makes his points. I was like "yeah w/e"

hue

What's the book?

g💚jira · January 01, 2015, 03:27:21 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 01, 2015, 03:17:11 PM

Quote from: GodspeedSnowjira! on January 01, 2015, 03:16:22 PM
I remember reading something from him where he lists off philosophical words and characterizes them as "boredom inducing" before he makes his points. I was like "yeah w/e"
hue

What's the book?

The Moral Landscape?

Spoiler

Ayy, while searching for it I found that RWTUG is unsurprisingly against him

[This guy is totally nuts, but he brings up some super good points from time to time. You might wanna check the rest of his blog out too Meta]

"... I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe."

lmao

More Than Mortal · January 01, 2015, 03:41:55 PM

Quote from: GodspeedSnowjira! on January 01, 2015, 03:27:21 PM

Holy shit, reading that one guy's article on Nietzsche makes me want to punch a fucking wall.

g💚jira · January 01, 2015, 03:46:10 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 01, 2015, 03:41:55 PM

Quote from: GodspeedSnowjira! on January 01, 2015, 03:27:21 PM

Holy shit, reading that one guy's article on Nietzsche makes me want to punch a fucking wall.

At least it's not personal yet

The Lord Slide Rule · January 03, 2015, 04:52:15 PM

Quote from: GodspeedSnowjira! on January 01, 2015, 03:27:21 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 01, 2015, 03:17:11 PM
Quote from: GodspeedSnowjira! on January 01, 2015, 03:16:22 PM
I remember reading something from him where he lists off philosophical words and characterizes them as "boredom inducing" before he makes his points. I was like "yeah w/e"
hue

What's the book?

The Moral Landscape?

Spoiler
Ayy, while searching for it I found that RWTUG is unsurprisingly against him

[This guy is totally nuts, but he brings up some super good points from time to time. You might wanna check the rest of his blog out too Meta]

"... I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe."

lmao

Is that blog supposed to be incoherent?

Dustin · January 04, 2015, 07:36:09 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 04, 2015, 07:42:16 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 04, 2015, 07:36:09 PM

Although, there still isn't any objective reason to follow utilitarianism.

You're immediately holding this hypothetical science of morality to higher standards than you're holding any other science. What objective reason do you have to follow empiricism or logic, you can try and claim that it's a recursive epistemic axiom, but there's no recursive justification if you don't value those things in the first place.

Also, I should point out Harris isn't a hedonistic utilitarian in that pleasure > suffering. He is much more Aristotelian in that he proposed eudauimonia, or human flourishing, as the proper benchmark.

Dustin · January 04, 2015, 07:57:41 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 04, 2015, 08:03:07 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 04, 2015, 07:57:41 PM

Are you saying that there is no objective reason NOT to form an ethical benchmark?

I'm saying any sort of methodology or philosophy which makes claims to objectivity has to have certain assuming values in the first place, in order to get anywhere.

Dustin · January 04, 2015, 08:04:35 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 04, 2015, 08:09:52 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 04, 2015, 08:04:35 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 04, 2015, 08:03:07 PM
Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 04, 2015, 07:57:41 PM
Are you saying that there is no objective reason NOT to form an ethical benchmark?
I'm saying any sort of methodology or philosophy which makes claims to objectivity has to have certain assuming values in the first place, in order to get anywhere.
So an appeal to objectivity is meaningless, or irrelevant, as far as ethics are concerned?

An appeal to some sort of empirical justification of the first move is meaningless for anything, not just ethics. It just so happens that "human well-being" is the only thing you can meaningfully base morality on.

Dustin · January 04, 2015, 08:19:20 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 04, 2015, 08:32:27 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 04, 2015, 08:19:20 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 04, 2015, 08:09:52 PM
"human well-being" is the only thing you can meaningfully base morality on.
What exactly prevents a society from forming morality around Darwinist ethics (assuming Darwinism is in direct opposition to human well-being)?

Nothing; it's entirely possible for a society to be morally incorrect--just look at the Taliban, or ISIS. The point is that ethics is essentially a navigation problem, and questions of well-being necessarily relate to facts about humans. If a social darwinist movement usurped the ethics of a society and navigated itself away from adhering to factual guidelines regarding well-being, they're moving in the wrong direction.

Dustin · January 04, 2015, 08:53:18 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 04, 2015, 09:15:07 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 04, 2015, 08:53:18 PM

since it's not really measurable.

That doesn't mean there aren't right or wrong answers.

Just look at economics or sociology, they're just on the fringes of science and very, very nebulous and contentious. And yet there are facts relating to how economies and societies operate--whether or not we're capable of grasping them at this point.

It's the same with physics, in that general relativity usurped the ideas of Newton.

When it comes to human well-being, it's measurable in the sense that we can conceive of the extreme whereby everybody is in constant misery all the time--and if evil is to mean anything, then it is to mean somebody who would put us all there. Considering this is the case, then it necessarily follows that there are facts about how you move along this moral continuum--whether we understand them or not.