"What Am I Missing?" Sam Harris vs Alex O'Connor on Objective Morality
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 04. 2024
- I'm speaking at LevelUp 2024 in Atlanta. Learn more here: objectivestandard.org/confere...
Watch the full podcast with Sam Harris: • Debating The Moral Lan...
For early, ad-free access to videos, support the channel at / alexoc
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- SPECIAL THANKS
A special thanks to my top-tier supporters on Patreon:
Tom Rindell
James Younger, DDS
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
TikTok: @CosmicSkeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
Just wanted to comment here to proudly share that I've been sober for 1,679 days.
Gj man
I'll drink to that.
No you just wanted to comment a made up story in a totally unrelated place for some sympathy through the like counter to make you feel better.
Wp, alcohol diff
@@FredrickGustafson-lv4tywow
The title is perfect because I feel like I’m missing 30 years of context for this conversation.
Lol maybe you miss the pretentious attitude
Might very well be, they are both going very deep with this because Alex really tries to understand Sam's point, where I think Sam's point is not accurate, so reaching an understanding won't be possible.
More like 2000+ years of context. This is the kind of stuff that's been discussed since the Greeks, and we have about as good an answer on it as they did.
@@lVideoWatcherl But Alex's point isn't accurate, either. We don't value pleasurable experiences; we value meaningful experiences, whether they're pleasurable (sex with someone you love) or not (excruciating triathlon run). And meaning isn't encoded in our brains' biology.
@@maxkho00 Why do you value meaning? Maybe because... ascribing meaning to a situation brings you pleasure?
I would reckon you could totally express this all in terms of brain chemistry. In fact, current neuropsychology identifies multiple hormones, all linked to different kinds of 'feel-good', be it supression of pain, accomplishment or simply happiness. Se xual pleasure is just one of these, but of course Alex did not just mean that kind of pleasure, as we both are aware I'm sure.
And also, _of course_ humans value pleasurable experiences in itself. Or, potentially and maybe more accurately, experiences that are especially pleasurable in any way _are_ what you likely deem 'meaningful'.
the flaw with this line of reasoning is that morality is almost never an individual construct. It's a collective one. We don't follow moral rules solely to benefit our own personal pleasure, but in order to participate in a collective where we gain benefits from that participation. You don't need a moral framework to live as an individual. You only need one in order to live in a community as part of a collective.
Say you are living as an individual, how would you know what to do with yourself without a moral framework? Morality is necessary to instruct behaviour toward others and oneself.
@@Egshsjsjsj Do whatever I want without considering morality.
Could you give an example of using morality while being completely alone?
@@Egshsjsjsj you don't need morality to treat yourself good. You do that automatically as part of instincts for self preservation. Morality is about our behavior toward others, not ourselves.
@@Egshsjsjsjhe’s not saying he doesn’t have a moral framework, he’s saying that framework is shaped largely by the society he wishes to benefit from.
This framing of morality as a “needed” tool is misguided. Objective morality people don’t view morality as instrumentally good, and they would hold that it is as necessary when living alone as in society. There simply is some objective standard for right and wrong and every action is subject to that analysis.
This is professional yapping
Professional Yapping is a great title!
Ranked yapping
My intuition and analysis of these two is that Sam is a bit more "serious" in that he cares more about how these philosophical ideas play out in the real world while for Alex, all of this is just an exciting jungle gym for his brain.
@@OriginalMindTrickI don’t agree with that. I believe Alex is having a genuine philosophical exploration while Sam is simply trying to fit things into the view he already holds.
@@evelcustom9864 Translation: You're an Alex fan.
Im just sitting here smoking a bong pretending like I have the slightest clue wtf they are talking about. Anybody else? lol
Well, you're a retarded pothead. Clearly nobody else is as adamant at proclaiming their loser status like you are.
Just you bro cause you’re not smart and you lack the intelligence and comprehension to know what they’re talking about. You should do the world a favor and never give an opinion on the topic since you’re so uninformed. No offense tho.
Word bruh 💨
Harris is being a bit overly abstract simply for the sake of abstracting his abstract abstraction of abstractness. Aka, saying complex nonsense for the sake of sounding fancy.
Same, but without bong
Hearing Alex say "Minecraft" is something I never knew I wanted.
Mein krohhft
You should adjust your wants and desires 😂
Timestamp?
@@Raphael4722 9:11
11:50 This is literally the crux of the disagreement.
"Objectively better, *IF* better means navigating away from the worst possible misery for everyone [...]."
Alex' point seems to be that the universe itself has no prescription to do what increases wellbeing. Sam's point seems to be that, if we agree that wellbeing is better than suffering and use that as a foundation for ethics, "right" behaviour is rather determined.
The fundamental question is whether one accepts that suffering should be avoided and wellbeing enhanced.
Isn’t well-being completely subjective?
@@GyatRizzler69-of3wl exactly - how do you define wellbeing and how do you define suffering
@@JoBo301 they basically boil down to health. That’s the objective basis for suffering and wellbeing which is what’s agreed on between Alex and Rationality Rules when discussing Sam Harris’s objective morality.
@@heylo5274 physical health or mental health or spiritual health or moral health??/
The hilarity is the "IF". No Sam, if you use an "IF", you are no longer defining objective morality.
Perhaps it's me but I heard him talk but i did not hear him say any thing .
Nothing worth hearing, at least.
Well the usernames certainly track in this thread.
No he was an entire nothingburger the whole video.
@@AggravatedAstronomer, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
it's you
Excellent Alex, love it..
Definitely showing the value of definition or should i say honesty of definition..👍✌️
I’ve taken that special Music pill before … and I’ll probably take it a few more times to come
What I don't understand about these experiences Sam keeps going on about is what is the point of doing it? Am I really worse off never having done it?
I'm a professional musician and I have been taking those music pills through my entire life😂
@@OhManTFE From what I infer, his line of argument was going to be something like, "you can't possibly have a subjective yuck/yum expression of this hypothetical experience-space that you don't understand...but objective data *can* say something about whether you might be likely to prefer it". Or something like that. But the argument never quite made it all the way out.
@@drangus3468objectivity pertains to that which can be proven to exist without a subjective agent’s involvement influencing the outcome, it is fundamentally flawed.
No philosophical theory of ethics has ever credibly found an objective basis for morality that is not axiomatic, and Sam Harris is indeed amongst those who are unable to reconcile the subjective-objective division without redefining objectivity to something wholly different. Inter-subjectivity is essentially ethics by committee which itself is corruptible by the theological bases he so vehemently opposes.
He’s not really convinced anybody but himself on this, hence his derisive dismissal of the cognitive abilities of those who dissent.
@@cornsockgabz I think he's just being persistently imprecise about his language as a way of engagement farming (or perhaps out of obtuseness or unwillingness to concede or insecurity...idk). It seems clear to me that he is talking about *objective facts about subjective morality*, as opposed to *objective morality*. Which would be fine and uncontroversial and uninteresting except he insists on calling these things *objective moral facts*.
Or perhaps he is actually making the strong claim of having derived ought from is. This also would not surprise me; I have a low opinion of his logical rigour.
Alex nailed it, there are objectively better and worse ways to achieve my subjective preferences. Sam disagrees and then explains in a way that demonstrates that he actually agrees.
@@billtruttschel
That sentence means literally nothing.
The premise doesn't lead to the conclusion, other than being reported in the same sentence.
@@billtruttschelclaiming other things are objectively contextualised by a subjective perspective is an oxymoron
So what though? That's still subjective morality.
@@billtruttschel I think you missed the point. What you said doesn't defeat the stance of the comment youre responding to. It's still only objective with respect to an arbitrary goal
I think it's fair to say we can not be totally objective that dose not mean we are incapable of making an objective decision or at least aiming for it and over riding our bias providing it is not a blinding bias , our view will be coloured and viewed through our experience and knowledge (distorted and limited hue if you will ) objectivity is the light we reach for rather than to attain . Hope that makes some sense to some one .
This was a great rip! Really enjoyed it and following the joust is always instructional on some level, even if only to make one reflect on the matter of communication itself. Specifically I felt Alex was somewhat attached to the comfortable feel for him in the term "preference" (now that's a preference!) I felt it bogged things down a bit unnecessarily, and as a thinker he could have used the opportunity to re-asses how universally this term is appropriate. I would have been interested in where things could have moved on to. But no matter, I can find more content with Sam around to see what else he's got to say about this. Good Show.
I think the literal fact that morality is also expressed as "judgement" that judgement is only about taste, the judgement is not built on anything that isn't a person taste interaction.
Its fascinating that such intelligent people talk for such a long time without sharing any information at all. I am beginning to believe more and more in the quote "intelligent people are very good at seeming intelligent".
Thanks for making this section more easily replayable until I wrap my head around the implications of what this all means.
Even as I read all these comments and struggle to keep the flow of the logic from turning into chaos in my mind I laugh at how aggressively everyone calls everyone else an idiot or illogical for their positions. When trying to debate something this fundamental it just seems silly how absolutist everyone is. No one really has a superior vantage point, even if I know I lean towards Alex's side heavily. I think we are all trying to wrap our heads around this and what it means. Even if some won't admit it. So I guess this is objectively a difficult question to answer because it inevitably leads to disagreement, wink wink.
Sam finally respecting the coaster is the best in this.
The conversation has at this point elevated to what Sam considers a civilized tone. This is why he now is respecting the coaster 😂
Yeah I remember that Triggerpod episode where he kept putting the drink on the table
the "boo watermark" was flipped
8:44 the there there is as
If you limit your preferences to your own perspective, you will result in different value judgements than if you consider the preferences of the entire system. That doesn't mean that because you get two conflicting answers that the value judgement isn't real.
But it does mean that morals are not objective. Where would you stand to decide; what ivory tower could you look down upon to declare a moral rule correct?
@@chazwyman I would say that the possibility for any cooperation at all between independent agents suggests that there is a supervening objective value that is only available as an abstraction and is not available to any individual.
@@erinmagner it seems to me a supervening "objective" value is only a common ground subjective value that is valuable enough to keep at bay other subjective values that would have independent agents working against each other for only personal gain.
@@sagniksarkar2471 The fact that independent agents work against each other towards the same value even if they believe the value to be personal to them implies that the value is agreed upon by the agents.
@@erinmagner agreed upon, maybe intrinsic. But not objective
Can’t you just say humans are essentially pack animals, we’ve evolved to be social and have empathy because we need to work together to survive. We also have a hierarchy. I think that is sufficient in explaining “morality”, it’s ingrained into us already.
Very nicely put. Also this is being tested scientifically in primates. The books by de Waal are descriptions of the building blocks of morality and how it is the nature of the society or group that shapes it. But i guess this does not address the issue of whether the morality is objective or subjective. Because science describes a situation, it does not give a value judgement. So we can say morality has evolved, and this would imply that these values are not strictly speaking subjective but are also not objective in the sense Harris means.
I think that's more or less correct, but in many societies there was (and still is) a different morality for external and possibly competing groups.
Sam would like the morality to be the same for all groups (ie no killing), which I also agree with.
Yes, but this description doesn't serve the purpose Sam is going for. He claims that morality can be defined objectively. He isn't just trying to figure out the basis of morality, but he's trying to argue that it's objective. You can see how he emphasizes that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. Basically, he wants to be able to state his opinions as if they were facts. Your common sense explanation of the basis of morality does not give him that.
But that logic means right and wrong are not objectively true. That would mean that terrorists killing newborn babies is not objectively (always) wrong. That cannot be.
@@billmartin3561 Well you are making a statement but you provide no objective reason why it needs to be so. In fact the only reason you are providing here is an emotional subjective reason, which is precisely how Alex says people approach the issue of morality. Now some rules for groups are usually universal because they are advantageous for societies. Otherwise those societies do not survive So people need babies in order to survive, that is why generally societies dont kill many of their babies, but all societies kill some of their own babies. Abortion,infanticide for specific reasons have been sanctioned in many societies. Now in the Bible itself, God has sanctioned the killing of babies and children in certain situations, so even God seems to think that in certain situations it is Ok to kill babies. With this I am not trying to justify killing babies. It is abhorrent, but the reasons for not killing babies are either emotional and subjective or are derivations from adapted behaviour that is advantageous. So not objective in the sense you are proposing.
i’m happy to see that i have some sort of understanding of this after watching debate and philosophy videos for like 6 months
Alex, you've become my new favorite intellectual! Absolute powerhouse. Just wanted to give couple of cinematic feedback in terms of production:
a) Have the shadow on the face-side closest to camera.
b) On the total, make sure you use rule of thirds and place the subjects head on the top third.
c) On the shot of you, the ISO seems to have been set too high (on a camera that doesn't support it) which results in noisy image. I would suggest investing in a Sony FX3 so that you can have 12800 ISO and get a crisp image.
Keep doing your stuff, it's gold.
A straightforward basis by which to parse this entire conversation is to notice that it's trying to get at the difference between DESCRIPTION and PRESCRIPTION. Everything else follows from this.
Also notice that, except for this distinction, Alex and Sam are talking about the same phenomena and the same concerns.
So is it a fundamental distinction, or something derivative or arbitrary? Well, I think it could hardly be more fundamental. It's the distinction between how things are and how things might be conceived. It's the distinction between (empirical) science and (conceptual) mathematics. It's the distinction between territory and map.
It does not, however, provide a distinction between what is moral and what is not moral. Morality remains poorly grounded whether you attempt either a descriptive or prescriptive basis for it.
Alex might say that it's sufficient to describe how preferences associate with possible choices. That's fine, but we aren't passive observers. Nothing happens until some choice is exercised, and that choice is ours to make.
Sam might say that given these preferences, certain choices should be prescribed. That's fine, but we aren't emotionless robots seeking to optimize a set of parameters. If we can't sooner or later feel the preference, we have no warrant to follow the prescription.
You can't get an ought from an is. Sam should quit while he's behind on this one.
@@matthewphilip1977 Sam would say that distinction doesn't stop prescriptions from fields like medicine for maximizing health, why the added skepticism toward prescriptions from ethics for maximizing wellbeing?
@@kyrothegreatest2749 Can you give an example of an ought from an is?
@@matthewphilip1977 I can get an ought quite easily by observing my own conscious mind. For example, I ought to stop writing this comment, because I am probably wasting my time arguing on the internet, and I also am extending my insomnia. But, I ought to continue writing this comment, because I could help you understand my point of view.
It fulfills objective moral benefits to choose one way or the other. If I found another solution that achieved all my preferences, it would be objectively better to choose that one, compared to one of the two subpar options detailed above. This would be better, not for me alone, but for the entire universe, because I am a part of what is, and desires are the definition of "ought".
If I have anything to contribute to this conversation, I think "wellbeing" is a trap word, which should be replaced with "fulfilling desires that are held". A universe full of blissful paperclip maximizers (experiencing qualia) is better than one where Yahweh tortures 90% of humans for infinite time, objectively, and you can tell because one contains desires being filled, and one doesn't. You can only tell this is the definition of "ought" by having desires yourself, just like you can only tell that you are conscious by being so (and a universe filled with nonsentient paperclip maximizers is amoral, or evil if filled with other sentient creatures that cannot defeat them).
Desires are; they are an individuals experience of "ought"; "ought" exists, it is the desires.
@@magnusanderson6681 “...I ought to stop writing this comment, because I am probably wasting my time arguing on the internet, and I also am extending my insomnia.”
Explicitly, the ‘ought’ in that sentence is meaningless. You don’t tell us that you want to avoid wasting time arguing on the internet, or that you want to avoid insomnia. It is implicit, given that most people don’t want to waste time, or suffer insomnia, but given the context of the discussion, it's not enough for it be IMplicit.
“But, I ought to continue writing this comment, because I could help you understand my point of view.”
See above.
It fulfills objective moral benefits to choose one way or the other. If I found another solution that achieved all my preferences, it would be objectively better to choose that one, compared to one of the two subpar options detailed above.
“This would be better, not for me alone, but for the entire universe, because I am a part of what is, and desires are the definition of "ought".”
You are part of a whole that consists of desires that are often competing. And desires are not the definition of ought, far from it. Desire means to want, to wish for; ought, in this context, means should, in a moral sense, and in other contexts, means should in a mere strategic sense.
Bottom line; try to provide an example of an ought from an is that is meaningful, without adding anything on to it, like;
We ought to help those in need
I ought to go to bed earlier
He ought to marry her
It’s not possible. They all beg the question; Why?
So what you end up with is an ought from an is/because e.g,
We ought to help those in need because ________ (fill in the blank).
I'm a big Sam Harris fan, but I'm in Alex's camp here.
No matter how you dress up a "should" or "ought", it remains firmly in the realm of subjective judgement.
And "Subjective" doesn't mean "less worth standing up for" than "Objective". It merely means we are continually required to reargue and justify our claims regarding it to others in our society.
We can put to bed questions such as what 1 + 1 is equal to, but we really have to continue negotiating questions like, "How much of our GDP should we spend on housing and feeding the poor?"
I'm happy to see that someone gets it.
That is not a moral question, it’s a loaded one lol
Exactly. And, you might want to examine whether Sam's other arguments are just as poorly made (guns, torture, bombing people, etc.).
@@TheHuxleyAgnosticu sound dumb, just stop
@@TheHuxleyAgnosticjust stop. Ur wrong g
This conversation goes over my head.
I read up on A.J. Ayers a while back in my study on ethics in college. So forgive me if I'm inaccurate in my assessments anywhere. The main issue I have with non-cognitivists such as Alex's Ethical Emotivism stance is that there are, in fact, truth-apt claims in moral positions. For example, what emotional states you and your parents regularly express in your formative years during adolescence will shape what genes are expressed later on as you grow up. This is a known in the study of epigenetics. These emotional habits you have later on in life lead you in life. They can lead you into a more trouble adulthood (childhood deviance leading to criminal behaviors later on) or more harmonious lifestyles (becoming a caring nurse/doctor that genuinely listens to their patients needs). This realm of ethical study is known as evolutionary ethics and it made me doubt much of the non-cognitivists positions and claims about ethics overall. But I diverge away from Harris also. I'm not sure where to place Harris' ethical position just yet. Maybe a universal prescriptivist? that argues for objective morality. But that position also suffers a number of ethical dilemmas that a CZcams comment could hardly cover. I would rather steel man Harris and get a more proper scope of his ethical position before saying anything against it.
I think the line "That does nothing deflationary for me" sums up my growing stance on this. morality is at its core subjective but so what? does that make it worse that something objective? That would require a subjective evaluation. many of the things we value most in life, indeed the vary act of valuing things is subjective. The short hands of "good" and "Evil" denote from a perspective what we believe to be beneficial of harmful to overall well being. Emotivism appears to be 90% correct in its observation of the state of things but goes to far in apparently discarding the value of value judgements and the short hands used by a moral system to denote those judgements.
"Nothing deflationary for me"... I don't think that's the issue, though. The question of the basis of morality is, in principle, a factual question. And we don't answer factual questions by commenting on the significance of the answer one way or the other. Who cares if Sam Harris feels quite relaxed about having a fundamentally subjective moral landscape? No-one. The point is not how we feel about the facts, but what the facts actually are.
The problem is that saying morality is subjective means people are willfully living in delusion. It’s like saying, “there are no right and wrong behaviors, but I will act like there are.”
Has a massive impact on moral relativism and whether you believe that is real or not.
@@johndeighan2495 It's not though. Morality is not a question of fact but of definition. Everyone has a slightly different moral framework. There is no "true" moral framework because morality is a human construct. That's why morality is inherently subjective.
@@featherton3381 If you read the comment again, you'll see I was talking about the basis of morality, not frameworks of morality. If it has a basis, what is it? That's a factual issue.
There's no fruitful discussion before the morality as its subject is properly defined and understood. Things can be good or bad depending on the assigned terminal goal.
Only conscious entities can have a goal, thus the existence of goals and morality depends on the existence of conscious entities.
Yes, and the difficulty is that people can disagree on the extent to which any given action helps them reach any given goal.
"Things can be good or bad depending on the assigned terminal goal." No. They can be wise or unwise, not good or bad.
@@ericb9804 what makes things good or bad?
@@hamdaniyusuf_dani I'm not sure what you mean. But I would say "good" and "bad" are, at best, colloquial labels we apply to things or situations depending on context. Applying these labels serves more of a social function than an ontological one.
@@ericb9804 The context is the goal you want to achieve when labelling something as good or bad. Something is good if it helps you achieve your goals, and vice versa.
Judaism: Murder is necessary.
Islamism: Murder is necessary.
Christianity: Murder is always bad.
Sam Harris: Murder is probably not ok in our current 21st century moral landscape.
Jordan Peterson: What do you mean by "murder" ?
christianity seems to be misrepresented, otherwise great joke. (plenty of times where christianity deems killing necessary, other times not so much, it's just modern christians who overwhelmingly uphold the latter)
Killing is not the same as murder. Murder by definition is an act of killling restricted by law. If we're speaking about that law being God's then by neither Islam nor Judaism nor Christianity sanctions murder
a bit generous to christianity
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@kolya727 Yeah because genocides are not murder, if done in the name of God, right?
Wow, reading the comments and seeing how many people are missing that living according to one's preferences IMPLIES the inclusion in those preferences to not be ill-treated by the group for one's said preferences trangressing predominate desires of individuals that have found, in the device of alliance, means to deliver said ill treatment. The group has predictable minimal standards (look at different cultures across time and space and see what moral attributes are common to them all) that are in-turn based on the subjective preferences of individual, predominate, human nature. This is why Alex's perspective is not an open door to chaos.
This is actually helpful and interesting thanks
@@ghostj5531 My pleasure.
This comment is meant as a comment and a question, not a judgement, even saying that first feels difficult. I have been look at the experience of psychopaths, Ive been wondering how this discussion of morality etc has an overlap with an exploration of psychopathology so called?
But then again, what is freedom?
And if freedom is what we strive for on an individual level what would that freedom look like?
When 'my freedom is not the same as your freedom'... Because subjective experiences of the physical world is guided by totally different parameters in my case than the guy or girl next to me...?
Freedom is sinlessness.
@@HIMYMTR Thanks for stating your subjective view on this.
@@smart-ass8518 It's my objective understanding of freedom.
Individual potential for boo and yay can both be multiplied exponentially through community/relationship. Morality is therefore (at least) an aggregate of our shared biology and emergent potentiality. Whether you call it subject or objective morality simply follows from whether you think it's helpful/meaningful to cordon off humanity from the universe.
Can you make a video about the Frege Geach problem?
I still haven’t heard Sam answer the obvious challenge: Why is human well-being objectively good???
I keep asking myself the same thing. Maybe I’m missing something but I think Sam is just saying a bunch of stuff to make it seem like he’s answered the question.
Humans just assume it is because humans are arrogant and vain 🗣💘.
It makes no sense for an objective observer (a sapient non-human) to care about an arbitrary line in the sand.
I don't care for Sam's views on morality but its like you didn't listen to him.
You guys genuinely doubt that tho?
There is no reason for a non-human intelligence to believe in that arbitrary 🎲 line in the sand.
Humans are just so arrogant and vain 🗣💘 they usually don't think like that.
🙄
Love this use of words :)
@dominionphilosophy3698 yes
I believe we can get a clue about moral objectivity from analyzing data from all cultures. A Universal People dbase exists and it is useful to see what moral and ethical constructs are widespread or universal.
The objectives of psychopaths are way different than the objectives of normal people.
Time to take up horseback riding if you haven’t already yet Alex; there’s two apocalyptic horses vacant. You should of course the one that pisses off Peter Hitchens the most.
Could argue there are two horses seems Dawkins fell off his and Elmo here is riding a painted pony .
Aron Ra and Matt Dillahunty, please.
Which one of these apocalyptic horsemen would enrage Peter Hitchens the most?
@@proudatheist2042his brother's of course
@@anthonyberard3507 Neither of those two come close to being intellectual in any capacity.
As much as I like alax some talks he has with guests goes right over my head
That's because he tries to hide his ignorance with complicated trains of thought that lead to nowhere.
When I first started watching debates I would always have a Google search open so that I could quickly search anything that I didn't understand. Sounds a bit silly but it really does help.
@@ianx-cast6289 Or maybe it's complicated for you because of your limited ability to understand. Alex is exceptionally intelligent after all. But that said, many of us have no probably following his reasoning.
@@rasmuslernevall6938 It's not complicated for me at all. I understand what he is saying.
@@rasmuslernevall6938 Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean you're the best one to explain something. Knowledge, wisdom and experience, among many other factors often trump IQ.
📍9:51
2📍 6:38
I've already had this conversation in my head. I dont need to see two people talk about something I can discuss with myself.
But i watched it anyway. 🤷♂️
This is the most difficult to follow exchange I’ve heard in some time. I can’t make heads or tails of what’s being said by either at almost any point in the conversation.
You're not alone. I see from comments this rests upon the "is/ought problem", which, no matter how many explanatory articles and videos I see, I will never understand.
@@maidros85 I think Sam doesn’t understand the is/ought distinction or willing to admit that he’s wrong about it.
What Harris misses, starting around the 10:30 mark, is that Adam and Eve will have conflicts of interest. Generally speaking, in between "the worst possible misery for everyone" and "maximal bliss for everyone", there is the possibility of bliss for me and misery for you. Whether that feels good to me depends on how much I value my own wellbeing over yours as an ultimate concern. In turn, the value system that maximizes my utility function depends on that. That makes the preference among value systems subjective, and, indeed *very* subjective.
Exactly! How in the hell are we meant to decide what is ‘best’ for everyone?
Our judgement is eternally clouded by our pride and our attachment to some individuals over others.
Interesting we're introducing themes of pride and selflessness as virtue or lack thereof.
As a theist and a Christian, I believe that morality requires agential (i.e. non-deterministic) discrimination between what we consider right and wrong. So I think the notion of materialist determinism denies us "choice" in any meaningful sense of the word. My question is, how can moral categories even be applicable if all of our thoughts, "choices", and actions can only unfold deterministically?
That was fun!
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
What Sam is missing is that what people agree to as being "moral" depends on the people involved. Even if being smashed in the face with a rock is universally DISLIKED, it doesn't make doing it morally wrong in an absolute sense.
How do we even know that we dislike it?
True. The universe has no opinions on what is right and wrong, we do however. Any discussion of morality should keep that in mind. Morality should really be defined based on how conscious creatures like us, perceive things, I.e. pain and discomfort = bad, and Happiness, satisfaction, etc = Good.
I don't think that's a fundamental flaw. I think the bigger flaw is that he never addresses conflict. If the two people on the island can only find enough food for one person, what's the moral way to split it? How do you weigh the well-being of one person against another? Virtually all moral dilemmas stem from conflicts in which one person's well-being is weighed against another's, and his framework is useless for handling such questions.
@jaijaiwanted how do we know that being slapped is a bad experience? How do we know it's not actually a good experience, and we just identify it as bad? Something outside of ourselves must be telling us that we like or dislike the experience. In other words, if we're just hunks of meat with no transcendent standard, then it's all a bunch of bogus for anyone to say "like, "dislike, "good, bad, etc..... these are just random, meaningless terms. Unless...... there's a transcendent standard. Which, of course, there is.
@@Neil_85 differentiating good and bad, and pain and pleasure in the way I see it won’t make sense to you unless you first change the definition you are using for these terms. You seem to be thinking of pain and pleasure as a sort of infinite truth everywhere (god given and eternal…), whereas I just see it as how whatever living organism interprets a sensory input. We evolved to be repulsed by Pain because doing so aligns with the goals of procreation, and thus those genes that were repulsed by pain became more common, and then eventually dominated the species gene pool.
Hi Alex :)
I invite all to read "The Objective Morality of Transcendent Experience". The most updated version is on the No Termination without Representation blog.
I wonder if Alex thinks "sacrificial love", whereby one gets fewer "yums" but does something for the sake of another's "yums", is in itself explainable by yums. Perhaps Alex would say there may be fewer yums but there could be at least one great big yum (in the mind) regarding sacrificial love (putting others' needs ahead of oneself). But does that really explain sacrificial love, since the best sacrificial love is getting no yums at all. I think Alex really has no explanation for sacrificial love - laying down one's life for others. Does Alex really think war vets defended our freedom by seeking the next set of yums?
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:22-23
It sounds to me like he just doesn't get what most people mean when they say "objective morality" or is actively trying to redefine it.
In your own words, define “OBJECTIVE”. ☝️🤔☝️
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServiceswithout using words define "word"
It seems like Harris is talking about objective morality as an emergent property of how human brains work, rather than in the "prescribed from on high" sense you get from religion.
Given how wildly differently different people experience the same things in some cases though, I'm not sure I understand how what he's saying works
@@ltmcolen 🤣
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn
In the limit objective morality coincides with the objective meaning of words.
Do we have a shared definition of "right" and "wrong"?
I would subjectively prefer the debate about why subjectivity is objectively negligible at explaining the physical universe. Human experience is so insignificant as to make this perspective completely dispensable without losing anything important.
What's interesting is that where the emotivism becomes more of an ought and right and wrong is where the notion of free will comes in and whether a person decides to care more about what gives oneself more yums now at the expense of a shorter life or a shorter life for someone else, or whether you maximise another person's yums at your own expense or whether you just forego more intense yums now for better yums later, a lot of these things are not obvious and as the Christian would say require one to walk a life of faith in the path they've chosen. And you have to genuinely choose what you're going to try or not try.
The problem is, there is no pill which will guarantee you increase of yums. Rather everything is a choice whether to keep the yums you have now and forego many other potentialities, or whether you have faith that in trying new things and with slight pain and trust in people you have good reason to trust, but is still scary, you might discover a more transcendent yums better than anything before. So in this landscape you have to choose. And conscience or gut feeling seems to be something extremely subconscious and complex and easily overridden by our immediate will.
So what will you listen to? The idea in Christianity is that these phenomena are real, that they are deeply connected to God and that when we trust in them that we make our connection to the more reliable path a lot stronger.
not quite. We never really know if forgoing our existing yums will lead to better yums in the future. All we know is the reasons we have for thinking one way or the other. As it comes to Christianity, there is little reason to suspect that forgoing our current yums will lead to anything, though you are free to disagree.
“What's interesting is that where the emotivism becomes more of an ought and right and wrong is where the notion of free will comes in and whether a person decides to care more about...”
How can you decide to care more about anything?
“The idea in Christianity...”
The problem there is that Xtianity is nonsense. Forgetting the talking donkeys and virgin births for a moment, you have the contradiction of Yahweh judging people for things he knew they would do, things that were determined by his foreknowledge.
One thing I haven't heard mentioned is how Harris's idea of the moral landscape seems really naively utilitarian: Like it seems like he would have to say that you ought always to pick options like wireheading or the experience machine, because he can't seem to justify not always picking the option which is "higher" on the moral landscape based on a simplistic utilitarian calculation.
sam describes the scorpion and the frog and somehow believe the scorpion won't kill the frog because it's not in its best interest... yet it does.
@@Matthew-cp2eg It's not clear what point you're making
@vakusdrake3224 Sam referred to an Adam and Eve scenario and that there would be a mutual understanding and desire to work together, while not smashing the other.
My point is Sam is niave and when you substitute his people with the scorpion and frog, you gain the understanding of just because it may seem a mutual beneficial relationship doesn't mean the nature of one will embrace that part, but rather the nature of the beast will show itself and what will result is not a utopia Sam wants
@@Matthew-cp2eg I suspect I disagree with key aspects of your model of human evil here. Since it very much seems like when people behave selfishly or irrationally there's *usually* a reason why that was useful to one's genes in the ancestral environment. Which is to say that I don't think you're appreciating the ways these human flaws are not bugs they're usually features (though some are just bugs, since certain cognitive biases can also be observed in artificial neural networks)
It's not just that people are randomly selfish and cruel, these things are the way they are for evolutionary reasons: People are selfish when they think it benefits them and they're cruel most often to people who are perceived as the outgroup or who personally wronged them. Hell even a decent fraction of our cognitive biases seemingly disappear when you ask people to put their money where their mouth is (as in when being correct actually matters).
So I would not rule out rational cooperation in quite the same way you seem to be. Though I think that people's moral intuitions radically disagree in ways that cannot be easily or objectively reconciled, particularly when you start getting access to certain technologies. However, even the inability for everybody to get their most preferred outcome doesn't rule out rational negotiation for a compromise solution that completely satisfies nobody.
I could also go on quite a lot about how much of what we think of as "human nature" is cultural adaptations that took off after we adopted agriculture. Since the most warlike and agriculturally efficient early societies would conquer their neighbors therefor creating a sort of cultural survival of the shittiest (since this translates to a far lower quality of life and physical/mental health for it's actual citizens) .
@@vakusdrake3224 I never said humans were evil or good. its much more like micro and macro economics, neither system works when applied to the other. And in this contradicting system there lies the ability for people to get along or not... However why there is competing systems, just like the overall system of economic there is a fundamental layer or driving force and that force for humans is one of self interest be it at a 1-1 or group level.
This is about OBJECTIVE MORALITY, a structured framework that is supposedly within people to determine a right from wrong, something so inherently knowing that it doesnt need to be taught...
If anything you laid the frame as to why there isnt an objective morality or is that your position? that there isnt one?
Mirrors pointing to mirrors with no hierarchy.
I like that.
Achieving as much wellbeing as possible is as objective as you can get. Almost everyone agrees with getting more wellbeing, just like we all subjectively experience gravity but agree that it exists in an objective way. We can kind of objectively say that more wellbeing is morally better.
There is conscience and there is what is reasonably right and wrong. These are the two tools that helps to get rather close to what is objectively right and wrong. What is a roadblock here is humans subjectivity so that needs to be objectivised for best results. Lots of psychology and introspection will be helpful here.
It’s an objective fact that we DO value certain things, by our nature. It’s not that we *should* (an ought) but we DO.
There are better and worse ways to realize them.
The ways to realize them, made a study, would be the study of morality.
I swear I don’t see how people don’t see this.
And, of course, we have to start with moving away from the things we don’t like, and moving toward things we do.
Like medicine is a science. But, who is to say that health is better than sickness, or life better than death? We could easily find a place to stand, philosophically, that questions these values.
But, we STILL have a science of medicine.
This would be a similar assumption in a science of morality.
Healthy > sickness + means = medicine
Well being > suffering + means = morality.
It is pretty simple. I don’t see the reason for all the confusion.
Is it an objective fact that all people value certain things? I would almost certainly disagree with that-like even some norms like murder, slavery, and cannibalism among others have been the standard in different societies. Morality much more seems to just be what people agree on at the time.
I for one believe objective morality doesn’t exist and that it’s just a product of natural game theory-everyone wants what is best for themselves, and morality is just the optimal description of the solution that pops out maximizing outcomes for all the participants.
@@soccutd77 you can argue the exceptions.
And I could say not everyone wants to live.
Does this make medicine an invalid science?
Agreed. People criticize Harris for what? ...articulating the obvious in a way that confuses them? It's just a battle of semantics.
No it is not. Not everyone values life the same. Furthermore, not everyone has the same nature. That is yet another problem with people like Alex and Sam. They try to get everyone to think there is but ONE human nature when, in fact, there are infinite different human natures: we are all different. They are assimilators: they want everyone to assimilate and therefore push the false narrative of 'One Human Nature'. Christians value a fairytale afterlife more than this very real and short life we have. They don't value life as much as they say they do and certainly not as much as atheist.
Life is "The Good" imo but not so much to most people. Most people don't even think what "The Good" is.
Alex and Sam are either to dumb to comprehend this or they are liars and simply propagandists for the oligarchs. It is pretty clear to me which one it is because they both appear to be very smart. That means they are psyop agents for Capitalism and The Oligarchs.
They are happy being the brightest mental midgets as long as they are on top. They don't care that they could be the least smart mental giant if it means they are not on top.
Even the powers that be are not free from a capitalist society.
@@MelFinehout Medicine (at least as we know it now) isn’t objective either. Most doctors will tell you that it is both an art and a science in how you care for a specific patient. Also things that are generalizable to populations have little precision when mapping to the individual-for example, if a drug has shown a 30% decrease in mortality from disease in a certain population, the probability that it will help one patient is essentially 0. Many people smoke and don’t develop cancer or heart disease-they are just more likely.
All that is to say that maybe you could see “objective morality” as some well-described guidelines for the best general way to live life for good outcomes, just like medical protocol or standards of care are the best-known general way to save life. But on the individual level, that “science” or objectivity disappears. What we think is “objective morality” is just our best guess at what we think is best for all people to adopt, just like medical guidelines are just our best guess. But because both can clearly be wrong (and often are), for example slavery or COVID, I would hardly call either one objective.
I'm very confused at this point. Can somebody please unravel the mystery of emotivism to me, cause I seem to be unshaken in any tangible way?
Same, they don't really seem to be discussing anything? Like maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the definition of good and mortality really aren't clear and are crucial to this debate. They are just coming up with impossible scenarios and making basic points with no resolution.
It’s just a semantic solution to the origin of morality. We have the rational side of our consciousness, and we have feelings. Emotivism says all descriptions of morality are reducible to the feelings
Emotivism is a meta-ethical theory
I’d recommend the book “emotion,truth and meaning” which is barely 200 pages but goes over the emotivism that was put forth first by ayer & then stevenson
Its a great book
@@Pivotcreator0 Reductionists always miss the forest for the trees though. All descriptions of immorality are reducible to feelings too.
The question of "objectivity" then becomes one of being able to distinguish the good/moral feelings from the bad/immoral feelings.
But then all philosophy unravels in all of its connotational sophistry.
Why do we feel good; or think it's right to pursue Truth?
Why can't we feel good; and think it's right to pursue Falsehood?
Objective morality is implicit in philosophy. That's why we draw the true/false distinction; and the have an implicit preference for truth.
It doesn't make any sense. Because calculation leads to emotion this theory summizes that all calculation is emotion. This is false.
A while ago I thought: every act is selfish because even the “selfless” acts we do are in anticipation of the guilt we’d feel if we didn’t act selflessly. The selfless act is delayed gratification in pursuit of long term gratification for us or our genes.
A smarter person than me pointed out that while that is a perfectly valid definition of the word selfish, it serves no practical use in reality. We would simply have to redefine the word selfless as a consequence.
While I agree you can hold the framework Alex does and it could be perfectly logical, I would like to see some practical use for defining the word preference in this way. Otherwise we may have a hard time making progress in the reduction of suffering
I like Alex's "music preference pill" hypothetical, though I'd be interested to hear Sam's position on a pill that opened you up to positive preference towards war, or murder, or violence in general i.e for those growing up in violent or wartorn conditions
if you're interested in that then you should listen to Sam talk about his views on Islam.
Hello friends, I understand Sam very well.
We getting collectively hung up on the objectivity feels to me much like the hyperskeptic "but how do you know anything is real?" type of people.
If we fight Sam's "objective" reasoning, we'll have to grand that absolutely nothing is objective, not the existence of matter, the past, of other minds, nothing.
We could do that, but holy shit, that just kills the game on the spot. So if we had to pressume ANY objective realities, I think Sam is doing a good job
How is the existence of matter not objective??
@@xanopython9062 ask a hardcore skeptic. "how do you know matter actually exists? How can you trust your senses? What if you imagine everything? What if xyz"
It feels like Alex is doing something similar to Sam in terms of morality
Feels like Harris' argument is once again decapitated by Hume's guillotine.
@@Snuni93Well, it depends on what we meant by "exist". For example, let's say that I create a simulation where an AI character doesn't know that he is living in a simulation and everything he feels and experiences feels "real" to him. So from the AI perspective, all those experiences of the simulated world would be real for the AI, while from the outside perspective of the person in real life. The simulated world would not be real. Unless we consider the information of the simulated world as something that exists in our world, which could be true since matter and energy is also information in some sense.
I think you are correct in your understanding of Sam and the state of objective morality.
"when we at the physics conference say physics for us is our understanding how matter and and energy behave in this universe if you know a Biblical creationist or somebody some other person you know unqualified for the job comes in and says well no you know I want to talk about physics but I have a different definition".
This is an example Sam uses at another point in the conversation and Alex eventually turns against him.
When Sam describes his morality as objective he is the person approaching a group of experts and saying "well no you know I want to talk about objective morality but have a different definition".
For an average person going about their life Sam's framework of morality is usually good enough.
But Sam does not solve objective morality for philosophers any more than his creationist solves the mysteries of matter and energy for physicists.
As a philosopher it is Alex's goal to convey this.
Alex you come across as quite closed minded in this exchange. You often cut off your interlocutor the moment they bring a slightly different angle to the topic, which I observe is your preferred mechanism for clarifying you both understand the foundation of what was meant previously, but it also shows you don't trust your interlocutor to navigate the complexities of your train of thought. When discussing these topics with a knowledgeable person, or a person with a lot of empathy (who repeatedly shows that they understand what you mean and that they will ask you to clarify if they're unsure), it would be nice to see you ease off the pressure and try harder to engage in a genuine exchange, to show you are willing to accept new information and perhaps even accept slightly different ways to arrive at a conclusion you previously did not see the value in. Love the content!
It was clear to me that Sam was unable to understand truly what Alex was saying. That's okay, but it gets messy when he begins to answer as though he does understand. This causes him to answer more within his realm of understanding and floats above the actual discussion. Almost as if he's talking to himself. I believe Alex was correct to be led to the conclusion of Harris being unable to navigate the thought process.
This feels strangely uncharitable. I didn’t get the sense that he was disrupting the convo or in any way stifling the positions or speech of Sam at all. This was an absurdly respectful exchange.
I think your interpretation is way off. When someone puts words in your mouth or does not follow your logic, you should interject respectfully as a means to keep them on course. It’s called managing the conversation. It’s not being closed minded; it’s being purposefully intentional.
@@Michael-kf7gm Yes. The OP is butthurt over something else.
No.
My take away is that it's good to try to see the good in other cultures ect, and when they can enhance my life and overall wellbeing.
A very simple boil down. Acts that get us closer to traveling to the stars and spread amongst the galaxy (morally good). Acts that work against that, (morally bad).
Interesting take, but people like to drive coordinated efforts on tangents where sacrifices need to be made to get back on course. If a million people agreed that pursuing space travel is paramount to their social acceptance, questions would pop up like “how do we quell dissent about the way we’re going about this?” or “who speaks for as a group?” You know, the boring, non-scientific, political aspects of keeping everyone on the same page.
I’m saying all of this because scientific achievement is scalable in an awesome way. Just one person is all it takes to make a real stride. If what you want to do is get people space traveling throughout the galaxy, you can begin this very moment on basic propulsion experiments. If materials are too expensive, you can start writing the software that will operate said propulsion in the future. It doesn’t need to be right or wrong. People will see that you’ve made an impressive step and give credit where it’s due.
Sam Harris, in a Bart Simpsons fashion, should write 50 times on a board:
"Even if we agree on an opinion, that doesn't make that opinion objective"-
If we agree that the moon orbits the earth, are we merely expressing an opinion, or a demonstrable objective fact?
Similarly if we agree that murder is deleterious to net human wellbeing in a society as defined through the lens of neuroscience and related sciences, are we not agreeing on a demonstrable objective fact?
I think that is where he is coming from. Your criticism is of how he had deployed the word "objective" and I too usually dislike the concept of "objective morality", but in this framing I think it's sound. There are objectively good and bad ways to maximise human happiness.
If you have the goal of human well-being (you don't have to . . . But IF you do) then your opinion of how best to achieve that becomes irrelevant as we can determine that some experiences are objectively better than others.
You can have an opinion. Sure. And that opinion may or may not align with objective reality.
I am of the opinion, for instance, that the principles of morality and governance mostly associated with modern western societies (individual liberty, skepticism, secularism, etc.) Are not merely different than their eastern counterparts, but objectively better at achieving human well-being.
But my opinion might be wrong. The point is that we can determine whether or not that opinion is correct in the same way we might determine any other scientific fact. It may not be easy, but it can in principle be done.
@@AggravatedAstronomer
"If we agree that the moon orbits the earth, are we merely expressing an opinion, or a demonstrable objective fact?"
We don't agree on that, we measure it.
THere is no arguments or discussion.
"if we agree that murder is deleterious to net human wellbeing in a society as defined through the lens of neuroscience and related sciences, are we not agreeing on a demonstrable objective fact?"
No, we agree on an opinion.
For example, I think Death Penalty is murder, while somebody thinks abortion is murder.
What are you gonna do, objective boy?
@@godless1014
Who's to say if abortion, death penalty and euthanasia are beneficial to the collective or murder?
@@ChristianIce That's obtuse - we do agree on it, precisely because we can measure it. And even then, there can be disagreement about how we measure it, what the right methodology is. There is nuance, for example its orbit is elliptical, as most are, so the distance to the moon changes all the time. It is also receding.
We can also measure the rise and fall of human well-being in a society across it's various strata as conditions change, we can do this through a wide range of useful metrics.
Would you seriously contest the there's no way to measure the wellbeing of human beings in North Korea and conclude that they are worse off than those in Sweden?
Whether someone is experiencing joy, or pain, is objectively verifiable and even measurable in the brain.
It's weird that you're coming off so churlish, immature, bitter and resentful, given the cordial manner in which I engaged you. I mean "objective boy"? What a melt.
You are mischaracterising Harris' argument here, on the basis of what seems to be an entrenched emotional response, that has led you to stick your head in the sand and pretend objectively verifiable facts about the brain are unknowable.
Listening to atheist is a fucking headache.
When I listen to pastors for our Christian faiths, our imams or our Muslim brothers, and even Buddhist Bhodivistas and Hindu Adiyogis, it’s always a breath of fresh air.
So much knowledge and wisdom simply explained in lessons, our chores and devotions, our priorities and our unity, we work in tandem for common goals, very natural and spiritual connection stays alive and worked on.
When athiest talk, it’s always a probing, dissecting, splicing and over simplifying shit, it takes you hrs, to weeks to years to dance around a simple notion when it comes to them, when we hear our mentors in our faiths, it’s simple yet gravitates towards prudence, always on progress, always on results of fruition.
I love my Bible, my Christian fellowship and my churches I go to, comfort in this world of peril, strife and sorrow. Most athiest I talk to are on a string line of meds, always figgity, always know it alls, always on the brink of suicide, yet all the brethren’s of faiths I talk to are always calm and collective, ensuring and comforting. I don’t even bother with the naysayers anymore. I just turn to the people of obedience and steadfast faith.
Stay up brethren’s of faith. You couldn’t pay me to debate an atheist or sit through their bullshit, you’ll be sent to a realm of chaos and uncontrollable bullshit. Stick to practicing the Bible, the Quran, the Mahabharata, the Gita, the dhammapada and other holy books. Build stronger fellowships, and attend to your churches, mosques, temple gatherings and live.
Funny how opinions differ. When I listen to pastors, I usually want to leave, thinking "why do I have to endure this bullshit?"
@@stefanheinzmann7319 Could you give an example of something a pastor said that made you feel that way?
Well, here's an atheist you can talk to that doesn't drink alcohol, doesn't use drugs and is happy with his life. You make it sound like you only know like 3 people or something!
I get that it's comfortable to not think and just get told what to do; do this, do that, get a cookie. Simple things that are easy, that a child can do.
But where's the challenge? As an adult, where's the interesting stuff and the understanding? There's none of that in church. You just get told and that's it.
Have you ever thought that trying to understand things is difficult but it can also be rewarding?
@@jvalfin3359 Cute assertions.
Though you still didn't answer the question.
@@DistrictN9ne what question? The commenter I responded to didn't ask me anything and neither did you
No one believes there is no should or shouldn't. Anyone who walks down the street, gets attacked by a stranger who punches them in the face and breaks their legs will think their attacker shouldn't have done it.
The attacker doesn't agree with that.
IMO there are two interpretations of the word "objective" which cause much of disagreements in discussions about morality.
The hard interpretation says that objective means independent from any observer. A statement can be objectively true or false even when no one is observing or verifying it. For example, the existence of the sun is objectively true even if there's no conscious entity to observe it.
The soft interpretation says that objective means independent from whoever makes the observation/evaluation. It implicitly assumes that there's always conscious entities to make the observation.
By definition, morality exists to distinguish between good and bad things. This distinction requires a goal as the evaluation criteria, or something to compare against. In turn, it requires a conscious entity to pursue the goal.
Those who said that there's objective morality must have used the soft interpretation, because otherwise, they are making an oxymoronic statement. On the other hand, hard interpretation leads to the conclusion that there's no objective morality.
Sam does himself a disservice. He uses the word objective in a way that even he doesn't mean it. The "separate peaks" of his moral landscape show this. Each peak is its own subjective value system within his proposed landscape, and he concedes this. And this is more or less the singular point of contention to his proposal.
Man, it always seems to come into a semantics problem...
Objective morality is implicit in philosophy. Philosophers pursues Truth and abhore Falsehood on moral grounds.
If the true/false distinction isn't objective then none of the other distinctions matter.
If morality isn't objective there can be nothing wrong with saying it is. "It's false!",a philosopher objects. OK. so what? I prefer falsehoods.
i think of it as "relatively objective" or "universally subjective" as in it's technically subjective but practically indistuinguishable from objective so the distinction is not really meaningful or consequential (speaking of the few moral standards that pretty much everyone agrees on, save for negligible fringe dissenters)
as a point of knowledge I'm with the notion that "I feel good about this / I feel bad about this" is the first principle for morality as a concept
@@zzzzzz69 Precisely.
The subjective/objective distinction is drawn by subjects.
The objectivity philosophers talk about is an unnattainable ideal.
The objectivity scientists talk about is simply inter-subjective consensus on the moral yardstick.
@@zzzzzz69 But if you want to be contrarian - you could trivially point out that subjectivity doesn't even exist. Everything's objective.
Our thoughts, delusions and all that stuff that goes on in our heads exist and has direct effect on our behaviour and on reality. Scientifically - that's as objective as it gets.
So now you have to manufacture "subjectivity" just to start a philosophical bar fight.
William Lane Craig destroyed Harris’s moral position years ago in their debate.
lol. Low bar bill couldn’t destroy a sand castle.
He’s won every debate with flying colors
@@lovespeaks777watch Craig debate Christopher Hitchens, I mean you have to be trolling
@@Liveforever898That was a great debate and showed how Hitchens had no good arguments to defend his position
@@lovespeaks777 Whatever helps you sleep, Craig moves the goalposts, talks ridiculous white noise. Look at his videos with Alex. How can you defend a god that let’s kids die of cancer that beg God for help and the let them die? You can’t …
In my opinion, what is missing in the desert Island is value in anything other than yourself. What I mean with this is: if we only drive ourselves by our own feelings and experience we prefer over others experiences, there is no actual sense of morality because you would just do whatever you like the most, and even doing something you don't like would be not wrong because you might just be experimenting to discover anything new you didn't know you like... The concept of good and wrong comes when you have to consider how you actions will affect something of value other than yourself. In this case, murder is not something one disapproves by itself as an experience, but as an outrage against something of value.
For example, if we don't value a fly's life, there's no moral debate about killing it if my experience is improved by removing the fly from the picture... the "booo" about murder comes from thinking about murdering a person of something of value other than ourselves.
Now where comes the idea of "something of value other than ourselves"? I think here is pure evolution, where the only system of value that works in a community is a system where my values don't contradict the values of others, therefore, things like "I like how it feels murdering someone else" can't prevail in time, since it would crush against another person's system of values, which would include himself by just survival instinct. Therefore, we would evolve in a way our system of value contemplates others, the same way it contemplates ourselves, and we should add things we need to survive too, so killing a pig to eat, would be consider good, but killing a pig for fun would be consider bad, because I'm damaging something I would might need in the future... Killing a fly won't make a difference in my life experience, so we didn't evolve into care about a fly's life.
I also think the process of considering things of value from other things we already considered valuable, is an evolution of our reasoning, in which we could understand the world into more complex experiences or activities which might benefit the things we value even if its not obvious in first hand... like eating healthy because we value being healthy in the future.
To me it all comes down to accepting that the very term "Morality" is a constructed space in itself, in which you can place truths. Like if I say: Spiderman is objectively speaking a superhero. The same with morality. That word is a construct. It is an idea. It is not a thing, and it for sure has no existence without sentience. And so in that framework, I agree with Sam: If morality has ANY validity as an idea, it must be to seek out the peaks of sentient wellbeing. And so, while we may no be able to postulate what peaks are the highest, or what routes are the optimal, we can FOR sure, AND objectively say something about two situations within this construct. We can measure them up against each other in terms of this axis we call well being. Is it tricky? Sure. But it is not subjective, unless you pick very similar elevations in this landscape.
You can't get an ought from an is. End of.
I think you are underestimating how tricky it can be to "measure them (situations) up against each other in terms of this axis we call well being." Legitimate disagreements on this do occur and when they do, there is no sense in which either one can be deemed "correct," which is why calling the situation "objective" in the first place seems a bit obtuse.
@@matthewphilip1977 If the framework you work within is an ought itself, why not? So... "we ought to have something called morality"? If we buy into the very notion that a construct like that "ought to exist" (Which we might not), then within it, the oughts are treated like is, and can be objective. It is like a renormalization ;)
We can't both invent a framework of the purest ought, and then not discuss truths within it. So, unless we simply get rid of the very notion of morality, we can justify it only by evaluating its effect in terms of the very ought it represents.
And I think that is the point. Morality is an idea, and it exists to solve one thing. And we can evaluate if it solves those things.
Anyways, you want to play another game, and I simply refuse to play it, as it has no value to me :)
@@HKragh “If the framework you work within is an ought itself, why not?”
The framework who wants to work within?
“So... "we ought to have something called morality"?
Meaningless. Why would you think otherwise?
“Morality is an idea, and it exists to solve one thing. And we can evaluate if it solves those things.”
One thing? What’s that thing? And can you give an example of an ought from an is?
Sam Harris is speaking gibberish.
Yep
8:44 “…the there there is as…”
Sam's views of morality are quite muddled, which is a bit ironic since he considers morality objective
ik I think Sam generally sees to be pretty well spoken but this is a solid 13 and a half minutes of yapping
@@TobyPearce-lv9qj He words might sound good together to some but they are always dripping with Pro-System fascist propaganda. Harris is Pro-Israel Zionist. He is 100% a genocide apologist.
@@TobyPearce-lv9qjif u can’t keep up, just say u can’t keep up, kiddo
@@MrShaiya96 nah but like genuinely he spends like 10 minutes setting up hypothetical, all the while Alex keeps saying like how does this prove morality is objective? so if its me not keeping up that also applies to Alex which, when combined with others in this comments not getting it, suggests more it's Sam Harris yapping than us not getting it. I mean finally when he does get to the point it basically amounts to in theory, we can scientifically measure some actions as causing the most of one subjective experience and as science is one of the most objective ways of discovering things, we can say that morality is effectively objective. I find it an incredibly uncompelling argument and really poorly explained
The entire conversation needs to be watched to fully understand this snippet, and put it in context.
"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike" - Oscar Wilde
You're really milking this one interview lmfao
As he should.
Why doesn't Sam talk about how zionism is morrally bankrupt
Because Harris is a Zionist
Because he is morally bankrupt.
he does
He does, and he dismisses the crimes of Israel and justifies them as "Islam is the greatest threat to EVERYTHING!!!!"
Saying something is good or bad for me, or that I enjoy something is not morality. Morality is usually doing the thing I dislike because it benefits someone else.
Suffering is the Way.
Weirdly I can’t understand not understanding Sam Harris’ view of morality
he's using the probably principle
probably, murder is not ok🤓
@@aiya5777
Self defence? Euthanasia? Death Penalty? War?
@@ChristianIce Look up what murder means.
@@azhwanhaghiri6336
"unlawful" killing.
Which is subjective as well.
Better luck next time.
I get what he means but he's still really bad at explaining it
Listening to Sam talk about how to ground yourself morally is like hearing an overweight alcoholic doctor tell you to stop smoking.
Sam Harris is immoral?
What has Sam Harris done to render you to judge him in such a way?
Right, he should be spending 90% of his wealth to supporting a village in a poor country.
Something tells me we're about to hear some river to the sea nonsense
@@groundrunner752 Abrahamic religions are hilarious
The problem with the thought experiment involving taking a pill to gain a love of music is that it lends itself to infinite regression or recursion. Taking such a pill would entail a desire to have a desire for music. But what if you didn't have a desire for a desire for music? Does having a desire for a desire even make sense? And even if so, can we not take it even further, with questions about having a desire for a desire for a desire for music? And so on. To me, this suggests that a first-order desire for something is the only level of order that makes sense. I know that there's the complicated phenomenon of addiction, where a person desires a substance in one sense, while recognizing that the substance is harmful. In that case, though, I consider it a case of competing desires, in which case it's a matter of which desire is stronger, not a "nested" system of desires. And perhaps we can rethink the "music pill" thought experiment along those lines, too, where a desire to fit into wider society's love of music overtakes the personal aversion or apathy or music prior to taking the pill.
I have the desire to desire healthy food and exercise because I'd rather be healthy, but I currently have the actual desire to be lazy and eat fried chicken.
You wouldn't need a desire for a desire for music per se, you would only need a desire for new pleasures generally.
That has been a topic of contemplation for me over the past week or so. I was observing a desire to want to be compassionate and realized that wanting to desire something IS desiring it. This interesting string of logic seemed to come from self-criticism that I wasn't trying hard enough to be compassionate. After letting it go, I was able to return to my practice of cultivating compassion and trust the process with confidence.
The helmet example he mentioned is much better & more accurate. Let’s discuss it
I didn’t hear about it in this clip. Is it in the larger podcast of which this clip is a part?
hard for me to understand what use morality has if no one has freewill to chose what is good anyway.
I'm an atheist, and I admit I have no objective morals. But neither do theists, even if they think they do.
And the Theist would say you, the atheist, has objective moral values, even if you don't think you do.
I agree, although I think I have an objective standard to base them on.
Even if I am wrong though, and morals are objective, theists don't know what they are any more than I do.
They can't even agree with each other what they are.
If God exists, and they follow his law, then they do.
@@oliverthompson9922 I think a Theist would rely on the general principles behind what we think is "Good" and "Bad", and the innate feeling when we know we're doing something "wrong".
@@brainworm666 Exactly, in which case, it would apply to all of us, not just people who believe in objective morality , that's my point.
There's no such thing as objective morality.
Even when morality is universal, it's still subjective.
When something is a banality, like "you won't throw acid on the pretty girl", easly shared by everybody, it's still subjective by its own nature.
Sam Harris needs to buy a dictionary.
In your own words, define “MORALITY”. ☝️🤔☝️
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices
Exactly.
It is subjective even in its definition :D
@@ChristianIce, so, you ADMIT that you use words of which you have no idea of their meanings, Slave? 😬
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
No this is incorrect.
There is still objective morality even though there is also subjective morality.
They both exist.
@@shamanahaboolist
Now, that's rich :D
I'd like to see Alex in a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup about the nature of reality
Yes, but what about the metaphorical substrate of our subconscious?! And what do you mean by “boo”? And what do we mean by “mean”? And is any of this “meta-true”?! -JP
And man couldn't have written Cain and Abel.
I disagree with Sam's argument that conciousness is the only evidence for conciousness in the universe
What do you propose?
Do you have another example?
Let’s here it man.
What he's saying is that there is no physical mechanism that we know of that creates "consciousness." Or in other words, there is no part of the brain where we can objectively say "Thats where the consciousness is"
What other evidence is there?
Our emotive understanding of "Boo" and "Yay" greatly rely on our subjective opinions of pain and death.
It's somehow admirable to find a person going in circles to explain the unexplainable just because he is intellectually gifted.
I will prefix this by saying I have not yet seen the longer form discussion yet.
Alex’s description of this relativist agent trying to maximize local rewards and that their policy generation is somehow special is missing that there are policies that maximizes expected rewards even if it does not optimize to his optimal policy for his current trajectory. There are actions that for a population raise the total expected reward of most people which one could argue is “good” relative to actions that aren’t (albeit a utilitarian argument). Just because not all good moral argument do not raise all rewards does not mean that this is not a good policy in general. Indeed, it may be hard or impossible to scope all actions that may raise all trajectory rewards (especially in an optimal way) in a world of stochastic scenarios but that does not mean good judgments cannot be claimed.
I have been following this discussion since Sam’s book came out. I especially appreciate the series of discussions between Alex and Rationality Rules’ channels, and for a brief moment, I nearly sided with Alex. But I think this conversation sees Alex and Sam fill in the picture between their positions enough to see that they’re more or less on the same page, albeit from very different pathways.
I’m happy to hear feedback to my claim here. I do think Sam’s position deserved more questions because on the surface it seemed to be breaking some rules, but if we admit the possibility of a material world presenting facts about what is better for human existence even on the most essential levels, we can say that science helps us find moral objectivity. I do grant Alex justifiably takes this position to task, as we all should, but once we find ourselves on that desert island with one other human being, we quickly strip the cultural and social compexity of modern life to see there are objectively good and bad things on the menu for two stranded humans beings.
It seems there is an underlying assumption that may not be entirely accurate. While individuals may express a desire for the utmost pleasure, their actions are often heavily influenced by their existing beliefs and preconceived notions. They do not seek ultimate pleasure; rather, they seek to derive pleasure from the things they perceive as desirable.
"Boo Murder!" Presumably, finding others who agree with Boo-Murder demonstrates its utility. My concern is that emotivism leads to mob rule, the mimetic contagion as described by Rene Girard. Scapegoating is critical to the success of mob rule and I would argue it inevitable to the evangelization of an emotivist expression.
I've long thought that morality can be gotten by 1) accepting the obligation to the survival of our species and 2) noting that we are, by nature, social creatures. These two things imply that to survive, treatment of others must by such that cooperation is ensured, that is to say, based on a socially acceptable morality. As for the people who can't agree to the obligation of our survival, I'm frankly not interested in what they have to say.
I'm confused about whether Sam is actually an objectivist or not. Objectivism is generally a belief in immutable laws that are true regardless of personal preference. Murder is wrong because of X, Y, Z, and whether or not you personally like that is out of the question. It sounds like he's literally describing what Alex said: I enjoy this because I do. It isn't objective, it isn't factual, and it isn't set in stone. Now, it's totally true that we can come up with objective measurements to achieve these desires and find out which actions lead to the desires I have, but the fact that I even want this in the first place is totally up in the air and arbitrary.
I like action-adventure stories with some romance along the way. If you were to scientifically examine my preferences and my brain, you'd find that there are certain things that improve this preference of mine, certain patterns that tick the story with my brain, right and wrong answers as to how I should go about finding my favorite books and things writers should do if they want my attention. There are even things that a story COULD do that I haven't even read yet and would improve my enjoyment of the book beyond my ability to comprehend until I experience it. This is all true, but the fact that I like action-adventure stories with some romance involved is completely arbitrary, and if I didn't like it, which is totally possible, then all of this scientific development is useless, and we'd start the process again to fit my new desires. The fact that you can objectively study the inner-workings of my arbitrary preference doesn't make my arbitrary preference objective.
Your reasoning is solid except for one problem. Very often many of our preferences are not arbitrary at all and can actually be completely founded in logic rather than emotion.
Is doing heinous things to a young child for no reason objectively bad?
Interesting exchange. I actually found the last little by by Sam very interesting. I'm not sure this is what he was trying to say but it almost seemed along the lines of since their are objective laws of nature there is objective morality. In this case morality being maximizing well being, or pleasure (from Alex's terminology moreso).
I've never heard it argued that way and it makes me a little more interesting in the idea that there might be "objective morality. Essentially since the systems that determine all the outcomes (laws of nature, physics, matter, etc etc) are in fact objective so all of the outcomes that translate to "better" outcomes would also be at least somewhat objective due to that.
I guess two ways to say it is looking at murder.
A) Murder isn't objectively bad, but I view it as subjectively bad since ultimately isn't productive and/or I have a distaste of it etc
or another way to see it might be
B) Murder is bad because the objective systems we live in, life and death, hurt and pain, joy and suffering, entropy, etc... all ensures that murder is ultimately and objectively bad.
Maybe the B perspective points to the idea that thinking things are good or bad or whatever is subjectivity might be surface level only, deeper beneath that their might be objective systems in our lives and universe that essentially ensure that we will subjectively dislike murder etc.
Of course murder is an easy one to proclaim such things for, a lot of other things become far more gray of course. Though maybe there's still an underlying "moral" system that is ultimately a product of the laws of the universe (not some intelligence of course). Though even if all those assumptions hold true that list of things is probably small since sure something like murder might be something most people could agree is objectively worse than say not murder, but most things aren't so easy to proclaim something like that about.
Say freedoms for example. Determining what freedoms are moral or aren't is very tricky. The freedom to not be imprisoned for example, the freedom of movement. Though if you commit a crime severe enough then it might be better for the whole that you be imprisoned, or even for yourself.
Of course one might say murder is ok in certain cases, say to end a homicidal maniac, to deal with dangers or threats. Though if my emotivism style "Boo" to certain kinds of murder is essentially hinged upon objective systems our universe and reality are based on does even that Boo or Hurrah statement become objective? Though not universally objective for everyone, but our individual sources of it stemming from something objective. This is where objective vs universal might be important to distinguish. Maybe our multiple moral systems are in fact objective if not universal.
An interesting thought exercise though.
I adore Sam Harris. Just how he approaches this conversation.. so clear, so smart, so fluent.
so genocidal ...
Maybe I'm not grasping what you're saying fully, but I believe there are moral values that are intersubjectively shared and are not merely expressions of individual emotions. Those values are honorifically objective as they are established by the moral assumptions shared by human communities. In other words, there is a basis for morality that transcends individual emotions. In fact, these values can be defended rationally and are susceptible to change and debate within a community, implying that they have coherence and persistence (coercivity) that go beyond instant emotional reactions. Any modification in moral values must endure the scrutiny of contrasting viewpoints and must evolve from the pre-existing moral framework, eventually becoming part of the community’s customs. I'm thus suggesting that morality possesses an objective aspect that is anchored in tradition, rationality, and communal consensus, and is accessible through reasoned moral discourse.
Thus, even an atheist can advocate for an objective moral framework with honorific values, independent of the universe's lack of moral directives.
So even if a psychopath feels approval towards the idea of killing someone, that would still be objectively wrong, and the intrinsic worth of an innocent human life retains its objectivity (being an atheist isn't being a nihilist). So maybe, ultimately, or in practice, the absence of divine or cosmic mandates is irrelevant to the establishment of moral truths.