Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
 

Half-Hour Video

A Transcript Of An Interview With Sam Harris

It seems like he's not talking about theological questions - heck, he wrote an article entitled "Science Must Destroy Religion" on the Huffington Post.

Quote:

Harris touched upon several important issues which I like to highlight: 1. Why have we spent more time on gay marriages instead of tackling global poverty which billions are currently under and millions are in constant hunger? 2. Why don't we discuss more on the current existing stockpile of nuclear war heads (in USA, UK, Russia, India, Pakistan, China etc.) and the danger than they impose on human civilisation? 3. Why can't we focus on global climate change which can potentially lead to the destruction of our current civilisation if we don't act in time to reverse the current path? The science underpinning moral could be neurology. The discovery of "mirror neurons" enabled us to explain why we feel empathy. If our actions result in someone feeling bad, we are able to feel this as well - with the help of the mirror neurons. Obviously, our psychological reactions are modified through our life-long social immersion in the culture we have grown up. As Harris correctly points out, an evidence-based study would lead to an objective understanding of morality. The religious-coloured lens through which we view moral today is obviously biased. Being an atheist all my life, I view moral very differently than many who are bought up to belong to a religion.Global climate is constantly bothering me. I am frustrated with the politicians protecting 'self-interest' and denying the strong science pointing to the path of self-destruction we are on.

His arguments seem pretty reasonable and he sounds like a smart guy, assuming science backs up what he says. I'd research it a bit, but I don't have the time.

I have scientifically deduced that morals are entirely subjective, including Sam Harris'. This is doubly so if morals are simply an illusion of our neural pathways even before being subjected to cultural factors.

It's kind of like saying, "Obviously we can discover objective morals even though there is no god and even atheists like me are at the whims of our hormones, emotions, and synapses in making moral decisions."

While I liked some of his ideas from the interview, I kind of agree with Magus. About the only objective thing you can say about morality would go something like this: 'All countries have laws regarding acceptable behavior. All societies have norms regarding acceptable behavior. There are consequences for choosing to follow or not to follow these rules of acceptable behavior.'

We may, at some point, find out exactly how our brain codes moral values, or rather, how moral values develop neurologically, but other than that, there's little more that could be scientifically said about them.

You could, if you had nothing better to do with your time, create a scale of life situations/ actions and give them egalitarian scores on how they affect a person's physical/mental well-being, and try to call that objective, but I guarantee that no matter how comprehensive such a list would be, you wouldn't think of something that someone else would, and then people would disagree with the scores you give to each item.

I agree. Just as every person has a unique cultural and economic upbringing, every person has a unique physical and mental makeup. One person's brain might be wired in such a way that one set of values has precedent, while another might have a very different neural structure. With study, we can most likely uncover how general trends form based on environment and genetics, but I highly doubt that a completely objective set of morals exists anywhere in the universe, physical or metaphysical.

An objective understanding of how our brains work out morals is not the same as having an objective morality.

It seems he believes that the reason why nothing ever works is that thanks to religion, everyone is on some level a hypocrite, ignoring the more obvious deduction that mankind is entirely hypocritical, and hypocrisy is unavoidable, owing to the random and contradictory natures of time, space, and information.

I am curious as to how one would propose understanding human minds and how they relate to morality would solve moral questions. Knowing that murder evokes particular feelings, passions, and responses as a mental chemical reaction or something is one thing, how to keep someone from choosing to do it in spite of all currently existing wards against such a thing is another.

I like this video and the ideas presented within.

Edit:

Brilliant. Thanks for posting.