The Moral Landscape

[Josealb]

Has anyone read this Sam Harris book? Just picked it up for my father, but its very possible that ill delay its delivery on purpose. Interesting stuff.

[Patrick]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

[Josealb]

I take it you haven't read it, but you ought to. If it is good enough for Richard Dawkins, it ought to be damn good enough for me, thank you.

[Patrick]

Whatever.

[Josealb]

Coming from a guy who is too good for Yiquan?

[Steve James]

I haven't read the book, but I did read some of Harris's comments on the subject. I guess one of his primary intents is to deny moral relativism (in general) and to propose that "science" can provide answers (or at least information) to moral questions. (And, that it is not necessary to have a religious answer to seeming moral dilemmas: ie., it doesn't take God's word to know (or figure out) what's Right and Wrong. (Yep, I capitalized them on purpose).

It's an interesting topic/problem. Imo, I agree with him that there are some universal "goods" that can not come in conflict. Harris uses hunger, disease and human suffering as examples of things that can (should) be eliminated without any assertion of moral conflict. He's right, but --speaking as a closet philosopher-- those are actually trivial examples. Sure, there are those who do suggest that extending human life expectancy in the developing world will decrease the overall sustainability of the planet. I could probably produce scientific calculations (a la Malthus) to support that premise. There are too many people in China (let's say); so, what does "science" support? sterilization? denial of medical services? Genocide? Yeah, waitaminit, what is "good" anyway? Does science ever tell us that?
Anyway, that's where the rubber hits the road and I tend to have some disagreements.

The Taliban issue is less trivial, but much easier. It's less trivial because people have religious beliefs that often come into conflicts --but that's just admitting that "religion" does not hold the answer. It's easier because --to me-- it's about crime, not morality. The difficulties arise when we're talking about religious differences that have no criminal element. Ok, by criminal, I mean stuff like murder, rape and theft. Most societies have rules about those things, even the Taliban. In fact, we --in the West and others-- reject the Taliban because of the laws they institute and enforce. Is stoning a woman for having an affair a moral act? ... Is there a scientific answer to that? Otoh, does there need to be one? If there were a scientific formula (or a computer program) that could make those decisions, would we ... would anyone wait for the answer? I'm assuming that Harris is not saying that "scientists" would have moral answers here. There were plenty of German scientists in the 30s and 40s, and they made plenty of calculations. (I could easily talk about "race" science in the US, but I'm just pointing out the distinction between turning to "science" or to "scientists."

Abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment are, to me, much more complex as moral problems, not insolvable, but difficult. If Harris suggest a "science" answer for those questions, I'm willing to listen. But, ultimately, whatever the source of the answer, I'm more interested in the actions that result. For ex., if a woman has an abortion, and the father disagrees, should the woman be tried for murder and executed? Should the doctor be charged with murder? Is an executioner a murderer? Like I said, if there's a formula, I'm ready to hear it.

[Josealb]

Thanks for your thoughts, Steve. Thats the very reason im reading it...im willing to hear the guy if he says there's a formula for it, or if there will be. Its a tough nut to crack, but if he aims to crack it, ill give him some of my time.

[Steve James]

I guess that'd be my reason to read the book, too. I tend to believe that he won't provide a specific formula, only a general framework. Honestly, I get the sense that he is denying the religious framework for moral decision making. I don't think that's necessary. Pick a moral problem. The religious response might be different from the scientific response. I can't a-priori reject the religious response or accept science.

[shawnsegler]

I don't think (murder/rape) and theft belong in the same category. Maybe that's just me, but I feel that strongly.

People steal all the time for all kinds of reasons, and I've been on the ass end of the worst sort of thievery, but stealing is generally a categorically different thing than murder/rape.

Best,

S

[Steve James]

I don't think (murder/rape) and theft belong in the same category. Maybe that's just me, but I feel that strongly.

Actually, in terms of categories of crime, rape and murder are both forms of theft. The difference is that they (m&r) are also forms of assault. Fwiw, kidnap can also be included in the same category; but even adultery is a form of theft --as much as a breech of contract. Actually, "rape" originally meant "taking away" --literally stealing a woman (and her chastity also). Same root as "rapture."

rapture
c.1600, "act of carrying off," from M.Fr. rapture, from M.L. raptura "seizure, rape, kidnapping," from L. raptus "a carrying off" (see rapt). Originally of women and cognate with rape (v.). Sense of "spiritual ecstasy" first recorded 1620s.

Now, putting things in the same category does not imply that they are equal. There are degrees, and people disagree. For ex., in a culture supposedly built on "property rights," it was perfectly legal to "steal people." In the old west, stealing a horse carried the same punishment as murder.

[zenshiite]

I think the irony to Harris' claims is that for most religious people the response would never be that you need God's revealed word to know right from wrong. The word is a reminder, often with calls to draw one's attention inward. The Qur'an specifically calls mankind to contemplate the Signs of God inside and outside of ourselves, and says mankind is created with an innate nature attuned to God's Will. So how does science disprove religion in this regard? If my view is that the universe itself has morality built into it, and indeed that God is the Source and ultimately the driving force behind it all... all science does is confirm what I already hold to be true.

Harris and his ilk cannot possibly "disprove" a religious point of view that is firmly grounded in traditional metaphysics, they can only sway those who don't have that perspective. Religion is not a thing from without, and God is not distant from His creation nor does He impose something from outside but the creation is literally generated in accord with His Will. That is the traditional view.

[Steve James]

Reminded me of two quotes:

"When you kill a man, you steal a life. You steal his wife's right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone's right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness."
— Khaled Hosseini (The Kite Runner)

Was it in Unforgiven where Mumy said something like "When you kill a man, you take everything he has and ever will have."

[Steve James]

for most religious people the response would never be that you need God's revealed word to know right from wrong.

One problem is that, even among members of the same religious communities, there is disagreement about their inner-God wants them to do. So, in most religions, there are times when practitioners ask for Divine guidance. The Methodists in 19th c. US split down the middle on the issue of slavery. One side quoting scriptures (Servants, obey thy masters) and the other side quoting back (And he that steals a man, and sells him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death). For some, this means that there has to be a third way. I wouldn't use or pretend to rely on science. (Personally, it'd be a golden rule issue. I.e., I'd just imagine if I were a slave or a stolen person and then ask what I think is right. From my own perspective, fwiw, I argue that I can never have a "right" to take away the same "right" from someone else. If someone thinks it's ok to rape and sell his wife and daughter, then it's ok if he thinks it's right to rape and sell mine (or me). He's morally consistent, but he'll still get a bullet in the brain if he tries it with me. I can't help that someone is a sociopath, unable to identify or empathize with me. For me, the problem is with people who allow others to convince them of what God wants, or that something that would obviously evil for them would be God's will for someone else. That's the opposite of "compassion" which, along with the much more difficult quality of "mercy", are the primary examples of the Divine in a human. Btw, I don't believe that those qualities can be scientifically quantified.)

[Darthwing Teorist]

It seems to me too that science is not a particulary good domain for creating moral laws. First of all, science shifts our understanding of the world quite rapidly. Maybe it is a good thing to have a moral system that is flexible enough to change with the latest theories and maybe not. But too fast is not good in the domain of morality, unless it becomes an abstract thing, which IMO will be difficult to be taught and applied (just look at the trouble we have with the current, relatively stable moral and legal systems).

Second of all, there are many levels of complexity in nature. Like I said before, as individuals I don't think that we can completely understand the ones above us. So, how can we determine which ones have priority: individual (human and/or other species), society/nation, species, biosphere, planet, universe? Moral laws should deal with both the individual and greater good and regulate their interactions and conflicts. For an extreme imaginary example, someone may scientifically prove that wolves or even worse, humans are detrimental to the planet's biosphere. Should that species be exterminated? We don't have a vision that transcedents time, at least not yet, so we cannot judge what are actions, especially the more drastic one will have as consequence in 100 years, 1000 years or a 100000 years later.

Rationality is needed but tradition should be considered as well when dealing with moral laws, the basis of society. Discard what is no longer useful. Personally, I liked Heinlein's ideas in "Us, the Living" where he describes a moral system based on empiricism. He acknowledges the difficulties of creating an absolute system so the best rational system should be based on the goals of the current society.

Of course, I left the whole Divine element out of the question but I liked zenshiite's point.

Anyway, this topic is good food for thought.

[Patrick]

Moral: a set of statements to regulate the social life.

Empirical science can only verify if a certain goal is fullfilled by a system of normative statements, e.g. if
a theory of normative statements regulates our social life better than any other theory.
Empirical science can not tell us what moral system we should choose without having any moral criteria before.
This fellow clearly has a criterium of what he considers good to beginn with, e.g. "To avoid pain". Then of course
he can use empirical methods to verify the results. But that criteria did not come from science. He just cares for other beings.
Someone who kills for fun, can use science to enhance the experience of pain for his victim too. Empirical science can only
verify the truth or nontruth of descriptive sentences(what is) and not if the statement "You should kill" is true or
the negation "You should not kill" (the truth predicate makes no sense with prescriptive statements).
It is just our own personal choice what system of normative statements we want to follow or not
(of course they affect others).