The Moral Landscape

[j.woodard24]

Very briefly, I was wondering if anybody had read, or was aware of the argument presented in Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape". If so, what are your thoughts on it? Does he successfully breach the is/ought distinction?
If you are unaware, it is a book by Sam Harris arguing for objective morality from an atheist perspective.

[Pharaoh Cat]

I didn't read the book.

Can you summarize his argument?

Objective ethics and bridging is/ought have never convinced me before but I'm willing to consider the question.

I suspect this thread might get moved.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I've read it. I'm a regular poster on Project Reason, one of Harris' fora.  Harris argues that science can determine moral values.  He argues that the concept of the "well-being of conscious creatures" is an objective basis for determining morality.  I disagree that you can derive an "ought" from an "is," so I disagree that philosophically one can arrive at a basis for objective morality.  However, Harris does make some good arguments about the value of science.  If we assume or collectively decide that the "well-being of conscious creatures" is going to be our standard, then without question science can assist in determining what creates well-being.   

[Pharaoh Cat]

If we assume or collectively decide that the "well-being of conscious creatures" is going to be our standard, then without question science can assist in determining what creates well-being.   

Thanks, Ecurb Noselrub, for summarizing the argument.  I agree that once we pick X as our value, we can then employ science to clarify the best way to achieve the most X.  But our choice of X will be subjective (hence unscientific) in every instance. 

It can be entertaining (until it gets tedious) to try arguing for the objective validity of values that seem self-evident to oneself, like, say, the survival of the species.  Were I to go on a philosophy forum and contend categorically that whatever ensures the survival of the species is good, I would be pelted with half a dozen tomatoes, all from people who don't care if the species survives.  The well-being of conscious creatures wouldn't fare any better.

However, a society can agree voluntarily and for completely subjective reasons to enshrine X as a collective value, and then can strive objectively, scientifically, to remain logically consistent with the enshrining of X.  That's a solid, no bullshit stance.  Value-selection, subjective; resulting behavior, objective; science mute as to the former, vociferous as to the latter.

[Melmoth]

I might read it but, from the sounds of things, I probably won't agree. As ecurb says, you can't get an "ought" from an "is". There are objective reasons for the sense of morality itself, perhaps - as in, we can understand why something like altruism would evolve - but that can't provide moral instruction. We can also understand why an impulse to rape and kill would evolve - that in no way recommends those things.

[j.woodard24]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. The is/ought distinction is what I have trouble with, here. However, he describes it as not necessarily an objective standard for morality, but "an objective survey of a collection of subjective facts." I feel as if I'm missing something, because Sam Harris is almost certainly more intelligent than I am, but I still can't work everything out.

[Pharaoh Cat]

The only people who think they can get ought from is are those who assume they ought to be able to.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The actual title of the book is The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.  Thus, Harris claims that science can essentially determine morality (if our values are determined objectively, then our morality follows).  But he can't do this and doesn't do this.  He essentially argues that "the well-being of conscious creatures" is a given as far as morality is concerned, but one could just as easily argue that "my personal well-being" is the only thing worth considering.  But, again, the idea that science has something to say once we agree upon the moral standard we choose to follow is certainly valid. 

[Pharaoh Cat]

He essentially argues that "the well-being of conscious creatures" is a given as far as morality is concerned, but one could just as easily argue that "my personal well-being" is the only thing worth considering. 

Or honesty might trump well-being.  Or justice might.  Or knowledge.  Or accomplishment.  Or vengeance.  Or virtue.

Not to mention the various ways well-being might be parsed.  Does physical well-being trump emotional well-being?  Or vice versa?  Is there such a thing as spiritual well-being?  How about moral well-being?  Intellectual well-being?  Financial well-being?  Political well-being?  For any of these that exist, where does it fit in the hierarchy? 

The closest I come to morality is compassion for sufferers and hatred for bullies.  Regarding the latter, any bully older than six years old who picks on someone smaller could justly be tossed in a cage with an angry gorilla as far as I'm concerned.  Or if the bully was part of a group that picked on someone they outnumbered, lock each member of the group in a crate with a hundred hungry rats.  "No mercy for the merciless" would be a good slogan.  I see this as moral.  Yet I bet no one agrees with me.  Why?  Subjectivity.  My hate is stronger than yours or anyone's.  I would grind bullies into paste to be fed to hogs.  They are far less than human in my eyes.  Less than worms.  I would refrain from stepping on a worm.  A bully I would go out of my way to crush under heel.  This is all entirely subjective.  I don't argue for the rightness of it.  No value can be successfully argued for.  All we can do for any value is present it.  Those who are drawn to it, will be drawn to it.  Once the collective has formed, we can devise strategies.  Here at last, science can be employed.  Would you fear science if I wielded it?  Suppose your kid was a bully?  I say again that I don't argue for the rightness of my vengeance valuation.  There is no such thing as right or wrong where values are concerned.  There is only agree or disagree.  Feel the same way or feel differently.  Feel as intensely or feel not so intensely.  Beware intensity that wields the laboratory.

[xSilverPhinx]

The closest I come to morality is compassion for sufferers and hatred for bullies.  Regarding the latter, any bully older than six years old who picks on someone smaller could justly be tossed in a cage with an angry gorilla as far as I'm concerned.  Or if the bully was part of a group that picked on someone they outnumbered, lock each member of the group in a crate with a hundred hungry rats.  "No mercy for the merciless" would be a good slogan.  I see this as moral.  Yet I bet no one agrees with me.  Why?  Subjectivity.  My hate is stronger than yours or anyone's.  I would grind bullies into paste to be fed to hogs.  They are far less than human in my eyes.  Less than worms.  I would refrain from stepping on a worm.  A bully I would go out of my way to crush under heel.  This is all entirely subjective.  I don't argue for the rightness of it.  No value can be successfully argued for.  All we can do for any value is present it.  Those who are drawn to it, will be drawn to it.  Once the collective has formed, we can devise strategies.  Here at last, science can be employed.  Would you fear science if I wielded it?  Suppose your kid was a bully?  I say again that I don't argue for the rightness of my vengeance valuation.  There is no such thing as right or wrong where values are concerned.  There is only agree or disagree.  Feel the same way or feel differently.  Feel as intensely or feel not so intensely.  Beware intensity that wields the laboratory.

Underlined bit: basically the golden rule?

If I could, my greatest satisfaction would be to teach others how to put such people in their place, by humiliating and all...take them all on, and prevail.

(It's easier with some than with others...)

[The Magic Pudding]

After seeing the contortions theists go through to defend their absolute gods I don't really understand the appeal some atheist philosophers find in absolute values.  I'd disagree with some people about the correct values for a cooperative society, perhaps I'd see them as dishonest or misguided.  Others are predators, they may feel free to take what they want, I'm free to declare them my enemy.

The closest I come to morality is compassion for sufferers and hatred for bullies.  Regarding the latter, any bully older than six years old who picks on someone smaller could justly be tossed in a cage with an angry gorilla as far as I'm concerned.  Or if the bully was part of a group that picked on someone they outnumbered, lock each member of the group in a crate with a hundred hungry rats.  "No mercy for the merciless" would be a good slogan.  I see this as moral. 

It sounds like you're becoming one of the merciless, six is a bit young for death by rats.
Be outraged by the cruel, don't become them.

When I went to school we used to sing god save the queen even though she seemed to be doing OK.
When I went to school there were no ethics classes, there was a scripture class once a week. 
Jesus said you should be good and if you weren't you wouldn't get into heaven, unless you said sorry, to god that is, not your victims. 
So the queens far away, god's even further or nowhere.
There was football, and football coaches, never learnt much benevolence from them.
If a good kid has a parent with a talent he may learn right before his his own cruelty disgusts him enough to find it on his own.

There has been a push for ethics classes in schools for those who don't want god classes, (they can just go to the library now) the faithful are opposing this because values are gods domain as far as I can tell.
Ethics classes probably wouldn't usher in a new era of kindness but it'd be nice to try.

[Pharaoh Cat]

"No mercy for the merciless"

Underlined bit: basically the golden rule?

Lex talionis - eye for an eye: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_talionis

If I could, my greatest satisfaction would be to teach others how to put such people in their place, by humiliating and all...take them all on, and prevail.
(It's easier with some than with others...)

I'm with you.  We should train our children in the martial arts from an early age - I didn't - and instill in them the principle of taking no guff from anyone - that I did.  We should also teach our children how to gather a circle of friends around themselves as protection against the scum who target loners.  (My kids understood this instinctively.  As a kid I didn't.)  The two lessons combined contribute to a tribal mentality that would end the bully problem forever.  But the third thing we need to do is eliminate all stigma from hand to hand combat in response to unprovoked harassment.  When the principal asks, "Why did you hit him?" - and the answer comes back, "Because he made fun of me" - the principal needs to say, "Oh, I see.  Good work."

I guarantee there are many reading the above who disagree with some or all of it.  Their values are different from mine.  They don't hate what I hate, or they don't hate it as intensely.

[Pharaoh Cat]

Ethics classes probably wouldn't usher in a new era of kindness but it'd be nice to try.

Compassion classes might work.  Empathy classes.  Even if the scumbag bullies are impervious, their classmates may not be, and if their classmates think the bully is the asshole, rather than thinking the victim is, the bully might stop, out of a desire not to be viewed as an asshole.

This is the other side of what approximates a conscience in me: compassion for sufferers.  It might help approximate a conscience in others.

[Sandra Craft]

The only people who think they can get ought from is are those who assume they ought to be able to.

I think Harris is trying to spread science too thin -- make it cover things that simply aren't part of its domain, the way theists do when they try to turn religious beliefs into science.

[xSilverPhinx]

"No mercy for the merciless"

Underlined bit: basically the golden rule?

Lex talionis - eye for an eye: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_talionis

If I could, my greatest satisfaction would be to teach others how to put such people in their place, by humiliating and all...take them all on, and prevail.
(It's easier with some than with others...)

I'm with you.  We should train our children in the martial arts from an early age - I didn't - and instill in them the principle of taking no guff from anyone - that I did.  We should also teach our children how to gather a circle of friends around themselves as protection against the scum who target loners.  (My kids understood this instinctively.  As a kid I didn't.)  The two lessons combined contribute to a tribal mentality that would end the bully problem forever.  But the third thing we need to do is eliminate all stigma from hand to hand combat in response to unprovoked harassment.  When the principal asks, "Why did you hit him?" - and the answer comes back, "Because he made fun of me" - the principal needs to say, "Oh, I see.  Good work."

I guarantee there are many reading the above who disagree with some or all of it.  Their values are different from mine.  They don't hate what I hate, or they don't hate it as intensely.

I did take some martial arts classes when I was young, and you might be disappointed to know that they stress the importance of avoiding fights as part of their philosophy...that before defensive rather than offensive measures. As for myself, I don't see myself as a fighter, I will put up a resistance, but I don't get physical, basically because I don't want to hurt anybody. I already know I can. Also, things can get a bit complicated when you start to fight physically, especially when you notice about yourself that you think that a very good offense is the best defense. 

I do strongly feel that bullies who deserve it, should be put in their place though, through their own undoing, not mine I'll just facilitate the process

And yes, know who your friends are and value them