Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions (TED 2010)

Andrew

Hj9oB4zpHww

Apreche

He's right that moral relativism is bullshit.

However, he's wrong. Morality is subjective. His entire talk is built on the assumption that "well-being" as he put it is good. How do we know that some metric like "health" is good? Maybe it's better to be less healthy. Maybe it's not better or worse, just different.

Sure, my morality, and I hope yours, is in alignment with his. I think freedom, health, well being, and pleasure are good, and things that pain and suffering are wrong. But I know full well that those base assumptions are in and of themselves subjective.

True objectivity comes from a truly neutral perspective. His so-called objectivity is bent through a filter of human emotions. Think of it like this. Pretend you are a hydrogen atom. That hydrogen atom looks at the US, and it looks at Saudi Arabia. What does the hydrogen atom feel about which society is morally correct? The answer is, it doesn't.

Rym

So we pick a reference point. We draw a line and say "on this part, we will not compromise: this line shall not be crossed." We draw a goal in the sand and say "This is our goal. We will use every means before this line to achieve it." We then objectively evaluate the means to achieve the goal without crossing the line. It's rather simple, really, if you agree on the goal and the line.

Apreche

So we pick a reference point. We draw a line and say "on this part, we will not compromise: this line shall not be crossed." We draw a goal in the sand and say "This is our goal. We will use every means before this line to achieve it." We then objectively evaluate the means to achieve the goal without crossing the line. It's rather simple, really, if you agree on the goal and the line.

Just because the course of action we should undertake is to promote a specific morality does not mean that morality is in some way objectively correct. That's just a story some people need to tell themselves.

theknoxinator

For once, I totally agree with Scott. Science and research can certainly show that certain actions result in certain outcomes, but there is no scientific way to prove that those outcomes are better than others. Maybe I'll start believing this is possible once science can prove, beyond any doubt, which operating system is the best, which method of eating food is the best, which form of writing is the best, etc.

Rym

You can prove what is best in any context provided you define what best means.

Andrew

Science and research can certainly show that certain actions result in certain outcomes, but there is no scientific way to prove that those outcomes are better than others.

He said this very thing in the first five minutes of the talk...

Apreche

You can prove what is best in any contextprovided you define what best means.

And the meaning you provide is in and of itself an assumption. For morality to be objective, that provided meaning must also be supported by empirical evidence.

theknoxinator

You can prove what is best in any contextprovided you define what best means.

best [adj]:

• of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality
• most enjoyable
• most appropriate, advantageous, or well advised

As far as I'm concerned, the only quantifiable adjective used in that definition is "effective". You could possibly say that "desirable" and "enjoyable" are quantifiable through reading brain activity, but even then, different things will cause different reactions in different people.

Maybe I misunderstood the guy's point, but it seemed like he was trying to say that for a given situation, there is one right answer. If there is only one right answer, then it should always work. That's what science tries to prove. But, he also had that graphic of a terrain with many peaks, and he said that any of those peaks, though different answers, could all be right answers. So, doesn't he kind of go back on his whole premise? In my mind, science is the pursuit of proving that when you do something in a certain way, the exact same result will always come out. If you're trying to find a solution that fixes a common problem, it's not science anymore, it's engineering. If that were his claim, that social engineering can answer moral questions, then I would actually agree.

Dr. Timo

Good commentary on the talk.

bugmenot

This is a more in-depth version of his Tedtalk. He answers some questions from the audience and tries to address them.

bugmenot

Goodcommentaryon the talk.

Here is Harris' response

Dr. Timo

Goodcommentaryon the talk.

Here is Harris' response

Meh, from the response:

Some of my critics got off the train before it even left the station, by defining “science” in exceedingly narrow terms. Many think that science is synonymous with mathematical modeling, or with immediate access to experimental data. However, this is to mistake science for a few of its tools. Science simply represents our best effort to understand what is going on in this universe, and the boundary between it and the rest of rational thought cannot always be drawn.

Sorry, but science is exactly synonymous with mathematical modeling and empirical evidence. "Best effort" doesn't play into it, there are hundreds of people calling James Randi every month with best effort's of understanding and explaining the universe.

More importantly, he's clearly a guy with an external agenda and that is enough to put him into my "questionable" category regarding science. Although Sam Harris seems like a reasonable man the dangers of postmodernism abound when trying to expand the domain of science.