Since my last post, I've gotten married, I now have a year and a half year old son and have been working hard in my surgical residency - which I am just now starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Suffice it to say that my recent life has seriously curtailed my elective reading.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I liked the book for the most part. Besides for one odd chapter where he seem to tangentially go off on Francis Collins, Sam Harris does a good job defending the concept of a secular objective basis for morality. He does this by identifying the common values of humanity being human flourishing and wellbeing and that there are acts and social policies, etc, that objectively either progress or regress on those goals. Morality is then that which moves us towards greater human wellbeing; immorality that which moves us further from it.
Here's Harris giving the general argument in a TED talk:
It also helps that before my hiatus I had made some very similar arguments on my own. Much of my discussions were found on the now defunct blog of XGH, but as I wrote in the comments of this blogger post from 2009:
"Morals are made in response to human nature and the human condition - objective facts. People may disagree on methods and mechanisms but the goals are always to do what is in the best interests of man. And unless you believe all interests are equally rational and valid, i.e. to eat an apple is as valid a choice as is swallowing a gallon on bleach, then you must recognize a hierarchy of objectively correct decisions: that some acts, some moral codes, make more sense than others. The value of human life makes sense whereas it's non-value is self-defeating.
With that recognition and the assumed goal that rules be made to lead to the best interests of man then it becomes potentially able to be studied scientifically - objectively. Does a given moral in a given society lead to the wellbeing of man in that society? By the mere process of evolution of human civilization, we have already learned how a great deal of once-idealized moral behavior is in fact counterproductive."
Of course different people can converge on similar ideas, but it makes you wonder if Harris was a Jblog fan himself...
29 comments:
Nice to see you post again - would love to hear an update on your "religious" life - one day
Nice to see a current post from you since I discovered jblogshere after 2010.
Mazel tov on your marriage and child.
You laid out the argument for objective morality very well.
U have been busy - congrats on child, marriage, and now surgical school. U ARE EXCUSED from the absence. Great to see U back and that U did not delete your blog.
Please visit my fairly new blogspot which is explaining why I rejected OJ over 3O years ago !
wow. nice to hear from you and mazel tov!
If morality is defined as maximizing benefit for humanity, and we define benefit as things like tzedaka and chesed, and religion encourages people to do stuff like chesed, then religion is, by Harris's definintion a decidedely moral enterprise.
Nat,
Religion can, of course, motivate people to do good things, but it also can motivate people to do bad things. The point is that morality is not based within religion, it exists as an objective thing regardless of your creed.
-OP
How do you know that? What is your basis in logic for saying morality even exists? Adn how do you know which morality is better, objectively? How do you know that your morality is better than, lets say, Hitler's. At leased he claimed to ground his morality in science.
Nat,
Did you even make the effort to read this blog post to which you posted comments? Your questions are what the post directly addressed.
I did. I don't see any actual logic that says that morality actually exists, or that one morality is objectively better than another. Monkeys also act in the best interests of monkeys. But that i just instinct, not morality. And people have not always acted in the best interest of man. Some people only act in the best interest of themselves, or their family, or tribe. Morals are not always made in the best interest of man. And that is just talking about behavior, anyway. And what is the basis for saying that all interests are not equally rational and valid. And why assume that the goal is that rules be made in the best interest of man. Assuming is arbitrary. One you grant that morality exists, and you decide arbitrarily that morality consists of acting in the best interest of mankind, and arbtrarily deciding what benefit and well being means, then we can objectively use science to decide how to achieve that goal.
Nat,
Human wellbeing exists like health exists. Just like people may mean different things by "healthy" [an Olympic athlete would be heartbroken to wake up in the body of an average person], so too people may understand different types of wellbeing, but there is no doubt an objective difference between disease and health like there is between a tortured life in slavery and a fulfilling life of comfort.
The imprecise nature of health does not preclude us from pursuing medical science, so should not the imprecise nature of human wellbeing preclude a type of science of morality. Just like objectively we know the difference between nurturing food and poison, we can discern the difference between moral and immoral acts or policies.
This is Harris' essential argument.
If you're truly interested in the topic, I suggest you read his book.
-OP
How do you know morality even exists? Unless you define morality as just behaviors. Monkeys behave certain ways, too. And why is human wellbeing any more moral than pursduing my own wellbeing and not concern myself with anyone else. Unless you take certain things as axiomatic, that is, you believe it withour logical proof, then you are being arbitrary.
What if the well being of the majority of the population deepened on murdering somebody? That was the rational behind gladiatorial combat in Rome. Or slavery provided maximal benefit. Would you still say it was moral?
Morality is the strategy for groups of conscious minds to collectively achieve wellbeing. Some of the social interests are self-serving, but if you have no interest in the good of the population then you excuse yourself from the conversation just like a suicidal person excuses themselves from commenting about what is healthy.
If you declare that serving only your own interests is "moral," that would be like someone declaring having AIDS is "healthy." You can say the words, but medical science isn't going to care much for your point of view. Moral science doesn't need to listen to sociopaths.
In reality, different societies succeed or fail to different degrees in advancing these collective goals. It is the moral policies and behaviors they employ which makes the difference.
There are innumerable conceivable scenarios where someone we typically would consider immoral would in fact be the best thing one can do, but its pedantic to go one by one when we're really discussing fundamental issues.
Something*
Anonymous:
IF you choose to define morality that way, then fine. But what is the basis for saying that it is better than defining morality as doing what I want?
And monkeys behave in ways that achieve collective well being as well. Are monkeys moral? OR do they just follow instinct.
Nat,
The anonymous comment above was me.
You can make a sentence saying that "morality" is just serving your self-interest, but that is as meaningful as saying "health" is promoting colon cancer to grow in your body. It simply does not define the words in any sensible way.
Monkeys are limited cognitively, more limited than a young human child. I wouldn't consider them morally responsible for their behavior.
-OP
Why is defining morality as promoting benefit for all mankind more sensible than defining it as promoting my own welfare, my families welfare only, or my tribes welfare only? OR why is it more sensible that Nazi racial Darwinism? At least that could be claimed to be scientific?
And so what if monkeys are limited cognitively? If you believe in evolution, then humans are just jumped up monkeys.
I know objectively that health and disease exist, I can see them. I don't see morality existing outside of people's subjective moral sense.
Nat,
You don't see the consequences of moral societies? Would you rather live in a state of law and order where you have rights and basic comforts and plenty of food or live in a state run by self-interested warlords who steal from their people, where human trafficking is common and you barely have enough water to slake your daily thirst? It is the moral principles in force which make these realities. How is this subjective?
Morality should include all of mankind because there is no logical reason to create false divisions to include only some subsection of humanity. Racial Darwinism is NOT scientific.
What do you mean "so what if monkeys are limited cognitively"? That's the whole point. I don't hold animals, babies or mentally retarded people morally responsible for their actions. Adults are literally "jumped up" babies - what's your point? Their origins have no bearing on their current abilities.
-OP
It is subjective to say that living in a society where, for example, is my rights are respected is better than my decision to act only in my selfish interest. My preference is by definition, subjective.
And the proponents of racial Darwinism claimed to be scientific. They were taking a scientific principal and applying it to society.
And if there is no qualitative difference between monkeys and humans, how can you say that there is some qualitative difference in our behaviors. All monkeys have is instinct that allows them to live in groups. What is your basis for saying humans are different?
I'm hearing a lot of opinion from you. There's nothing wrong with that. What I'm asking for is logic or science or something. I guess judgements of what is right or wrong, are by definition subjective.
Nat,
Human suffering is objectively real and it is objectively true that different societies worsen or lessen human suffering based on the moral precepts they observe. This is the essential logic you continue to gloss over. You can say you prefer to be a criminal but you have just excused yourself from the moral conversation. Your opinion has as much credence as someone at a medical conference saying they prefer disease.
Racial Darwinists can claim what they wish. Their claims are false. Your point?
Your point with monkeys is invalid and incongruent with my prior responses. The qualitative difference is that monkeys cognitively cannot make moral decisions.
The Romasn lasted for a long time, and they had lots of slavery and stuff. The Egyptians had slaves and lasted for two millenia. Anyway, why is saying that societies lessoning suffering is any more moral than me choosing to do what I want? That's a subjective judegment call. And who says morality even exists, outside of behaviors and the subjective moral sense.
Are you saying Darwinism is false, or racial Darwinism? How abotu social Darwinism as applied to individuals? Anyway, they claimed that they were moral. If their claims about race were true, would they then be moral?
How do you know monkeys are not making moral descisions? How do you know we are not just following instinct, like monkeys? And were did we get the ability ot make moral desicions, anyway? It can't be intelligencwe alone, since intelligent people can be amoral.
Nat,
There's only so many times I can tolerate reiterating the same arguments you continue to not address.
Plainly I'm not making any headway with you. I suggest you actually read Harris' book if you have true interest in the topic.
You keep on just stating an opinion. That's okay. But I'm asking for logic or science or something.
And you seem to be changing your definition. I understood you to be saying at first that maximizing benefit is morality. Now you are saying that minimizing suffering is morality. Y'know a very efficient way to minimize suffering would be to euthanize people who are unhappy. Is that moral?
.
When people make moral decisions are thye thinking about what provides maximum benefit for mankind, or are they just following their intuitive moral sense.
SO GLAD U R BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did Sam Harris recently write a book called Free Will where he claimed that we have no free will?
If I have no free will then how can anything which I do be moral or immoral? I am simply a part of nature, no different than a raindrop or a grain of sand.
Perhaps for atheists, morality is a sacred mystery, like the trinity.
Honest atheists must admit that anything other existential nihilism is irrational.
Post a Comment