

Sam Harris responds to critics of TED talk, Science can answer moral questions - AngryParsley
http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/

======
decode
Here's what Harris said in his TED talk: "If you hold to classical
utilitarianism, science can help you decide which actions are in line with
that morality."

Here's what Harris claimed to have said in his TED talk: "Science can help you
decide what is moral and what isn't."

I think it's the gap between these two things that caused so much confusion
and commentary.

Here's what Harris says in this rebuttal: "If you don't hold to classical
utilitarianism, you're either an imbecile or self-delusional, and everyone
else should ignore you. This isn't really a defensible position, but it's the
only one that makes sense."

Unfortunately, this does not close, or even address, the above communication
gap. I just can't figure out why he's afraid to use the word utilitarian.

~~~
gizmo
Hmm, I've both watched the TED talk and read the article pretty carefully and
as far as I can tell he's been saying "Science can give us answers to moral
questions" all along.

I also don't see how Harris is defending classical utilitarianism. According
to classical utilitarianism the needs of the group are far more important than
the needs of the individual, and as far as I can tell Harris doesn't subscribe
to that line of thought at all. He cites the golden rule as a decent
guideline, and I think the golden rule and classical utilitarianism are not
compatible.

He also used the words imbecile and delusional in very different contexts. He
doesn't claim that (again, as far as I can tell) that people who don't share
his point of view are imbeciles, he just considers some points of view
idiotic, such as the extreme form of moral relativism where every action can
be justified by simply accepting it as an axiom of "goodness".

~~~
decode
"I also don't see how Harris is defending classical utilitarianism."

His primary mode of definition is hand-waving, so it's hard to pin him down,
but it seems like he is advocating for maximizing
wellbeing/happiness/flourishing among all people. This is pretty much the
textbook definition of utilitarianism.

Admittedly, he contradicts himself enough that it's hard to know what he
really wants, so I might be wrong. When he says, "I think people should be
able to wear whatever they want" and simultaneously advocates for condemning
those who don't objectively promote human well-being, you know he doesn't have
an internally consistent ethic worked out.

"He doesn't claim that (again, as far as I can tell) that people who don't
share his point of view are imbeciles"

He describes important questions from critics as "profoundly stupid". But this
is the money quote: "Others will be free to define 'equality' differently.
Yes, they will. And we will be free to call them 'imbeciles.'" The others are
those who disagree with utilitarianism, so it's there in black and white.

------
AngryParsley
Previous thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1211567>

------
teeja
I'm waiting with bated breath for the day when 'doing the right thing' is a
consensus arrived at by reason -- not superstition, not the dictates of
dogmatic ideology, but people discussing the options and arriving at mutually
optimal solutions without handwaving, gunfights or terror.

Fare forward, Harris!

------
TomOfTTB
I don’t disagree with what he says here but there comes a point where you just
have to ask yourself whether it’s worth arguing with certain people. He quotes
a hypothetical critic of his theory as asking “Why should human wellbeing
matter to us?” and I’m sorry but if you don’t understand that you’re just a
fool. You’re someone who literally can’t see the forest for the trees.

Yes science studies nature and nature is indifferent to human suffering but
humanity created science because we are not indifferent to human suffering.
Our whole goal is to counter nature’s indifference by finding ways to improve
human wellbeing. That’s the whole damn point. If you’re a scientist and you
don’t get that most basic point than I’m not sure there’s any point in trying
to argue with you.

~~~
sp332
The point is to answer the question using experimental evidence and logic,
which is clearly impossible. Fortunately, that's not what he meant.

