What does /pol/ think of Sam Harris?
Intellectual who hates muzzies and religion
His podcast is great but I've never made it through a full one without falling asleep.
>>71660787
Atheist advocates are degenerate
I have read at least three of his books. I respect him highly.
>>71660787
He is too advanced for /pol/.
>>71660787
Like most of the New Atheists he's wised up to the dangers of Islam, so thats good, and he can be reasonable at times. The problem is that like most of the New Atheists, he has the unenviable quality of doing philosophy, calling it science, and acting like he's a genius for doing so.
Yes Harris, the reason people have argued about morality for ages is because we couldn't quantify pleasure. Not because we had fundamental differences in what values we believed were worth pursuing. Just keep playing with your neurology equipment while the grown ups talk.
Moron.
>>71660787
he's the boring version of Hitchens
>>71660787
As with most atheists, he is a Jew.
>>71661314
Well to be fair he argues about "well being" not "pleasure" and brings some examples of quantifiable measurements of it and ideas , i don't remember his book in detail though
Says the Jews brought the holocaust on themselves
Points out there are New York zip codes that have contributed more to humanity than the entire Muslim world
B A S E D
A
S
E
D
>>71661647
The point is, that rather than attacking the primary attacks of Hume and Nietzche on most moral systems, ideas such as "All moral systems ultimately rest on subjectively asserted axioms", he simply chose the morality that was closest to his culture [a variant of utilitarianism if I'm remembering correctly], then said "Because we can quantify pleasure/well being, that means morality is obvious"
It doesn't stand up to five seconds of critique, because the main objections to this morality is whether "well being" is the end all be all value, and secondly whether "the pursuit of well being for the greatest number" is a good idea, whether it should in fact be universalized.
If you were to even ask these questions to him, I imagine he would blink, become undignified, and say something like "Well how could someone possibly want to not help people?" and start talking about neurology and what's he's "proven"
These New Atheists, who I don't really hate being an atheist myself, are really, really ignorant of philosophy and theology, and yet think they're God's gift to the human mind. It really becomes obnoxious at times when the primary people fighting superstition do so by completely ignoring half the western canon.
he is right about everything
hate is the only way
eliminate your enemies
I like him for the most part but I think he's too comfortable with the mainstream media and wants to be trendy.
And everyone into philosophy seems to despise a lot of what he says but I'm not that into philosophy so I couldn't say why.
>>71662042
He is just too sophisticated for /pol/. He also fucking hates (((Chomsky))) which I support fully
>>71660787
WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT SOME RANDOM, IGNORANT, POORLY EDUCATED IDIOT
GO READ ARISTOTLE OR CICERO INSTEAD
>>71662211
This isn't quite right. He says that he believes science can reveal an objective morality. He uses arguments about wellbeing to prop up this stance.
>>71662716
Why does he believe that anyway? Is it because he doesn't believe in cultural and moral relativism and he needs there to be some sort of objective morality and being an atheist he needs a non-religious source for it?
>>71662716
And he's an imbecile for doing so. Science is merely the application of induction to phenomena through the process of experimentation. All it does is give us technically approximate, but in practice true, information about the cosmos. At best, it could tell us the likely consequences of any value we choose to pursue.
It would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about telling you what values to actually pursue. This is another reason I don't like these guys, they're not philosophers, they're wizards. They think Science=Technology=Truth, and that all statements [even theoretical or mathematical ones] are subject to inductive reasoning, and that any question no matter how subtle or how profound can be answered simply by bashing their toys together long enough.
The primary criticism of most moral theories, is that while they may be brilliant and complex, they are ultimately more like a political system than a scientific theory. You start by stating what you wish to accomplish with the system, then start creating the most efficient means to accomplish those ends.
In order to "prove" a single morality as the "true" one, you would somehow have to validate an axiom which is by definition subjective. Its asinine.
>>71660787
Kike
>>71662211
Indeed his set of morals lies on subjectively asserted axioms, even if he thinks he found some objective way of determining moral "rights" and "wrongs" , they stay relative to his own utilitarist view" wich can be discussed .
(He would probably argue : on what grounds other than utilitarism ? )
Since you seem informed on the matter , what book of Nietzche and Hume would you recommand ? I'd like to know the other side of the story.
>>71662211
>Because we can quantify pleasure/well being, that means morality is obvious
Props for actually reading his stuff but this is a mischaracterization.
His argument was that regardless of the claims of existing claims about morality, wellbeing is ultimately the foundation of any moral system. And this claim is pretty well supported. You can disagree with his supporting claims but you can't say he's wrong to simply ignore Hume and Neitzche. If he's right about wellbeing then their claims don't have to be addressed. They were barking up the wrong tree.
The only objections I've seen to his claims about wellbeing are arguments from consequence, ie if this is true then we're stuck without any complete moral systems to work with, at least for now. But that's a bad reason not to believe it.
>>71660787
He looks like Dave Rubin
>>71663903
that's because they are both Jews
>>71660787
He'z a fucking jew who singles out christians
>>71663965
he's*
>>71663903
I see Ben Stiller.
>>71663965
>singles out christians
He shits on islam a lot.
>>71663876
>wellbeing is ultimately the foundation of any moral system.
Which is wrong, and is just a variation of utilitarianism.
Anyone who actually believes that hasn't read any deontological or virtue ethics in their life.
>>71663965
That's why the left hate him for being a bigot that calls out Islam, fucking moron.
>>71663876
But morality based around well-being isn't objective, it's entirely subjective. If he argues that what benefits the human race is good, literally all I have to do to completely destroy that argument is disagree or ask for proof, since (under secular reasoning) there is nothing axiomatically moral about humanity's continued existence.
>>71660787
very self absorbed
successfully pushed for the abolition of christianity but lacked the foresight to see what would replace it: islam
the white race has been beaten into submission and will be extinct within a few hundreds years.
its all shitskins from here on out, so all his work will be purged from history and nobody will ever remember who he is or what he did
>>71663861
Well to the first, his system of "Always pursue the greatest wellbeing for the greatest number" really is objectionable by many people, because many people have rejected it. Kant rejected it in favor of deontology, Aristotle in favor of virtue ethics, Nietzche in favor of his own take on the subject, and so on.
Just pick it apart
1. Why is "well-being" the ultimately value? Why not truth? Why not beauty? Why not power? Is being "healthy" really the greatest thing you can do with your life?
2. Why should this sentiment be universalized? Human beings are tribal animals constantly in competition, and much of this violent competition is what drove our evolution. Why is global humanism the best system, for me personally or for humanity? If you pay attention here, most New Atheists, despite being evolutionists, really, really have a boner for modern pseudo-Christian value systems that favor things like the brotherhood of man, and near-pacifism except in self defense. As Nietzche says in places like Twilight of the Idols, Thus spoke Zarathustra, and my personal favorite, Genealogy of Morality, these people cling to a Christian value system despite supposedly not being Christian any longer.
The real flaw in Harris' argument is that moral disagreements have nothing to do with the state of affairs as they stand, but on personal disagreements on what outcome is ultimately desirable. Someone who follows a more Nietzchean or even a classical morality like Aristotle, would look at the utopia of Harris, a modern technological marvel where people just sit around enjoying themselves in petty hobbies and affections, and occasionally pursuing 'knowledge', with sheer horror and disgust.
>>71663965
>I've never read a single thing by Harris but I'm going to broadcast my opinion over the Internet in a Thea's about Sam Harris.
>>71660787
Sam / Samuel is a jew name
>>71664500
>these people cling to a Christian value system despite supposedly not being Christian any longer.
As much as I agree with alot of Nietzsche's thoughts, this is one in which I think he was wrong I have to say.
>>71664380
>But morality based around well-being isn't objective, it's entirely subjective
By a sophist's standard, yeah. But from a scientific standard, no it's not.
This is exactly why morality always ends up tying itself in knots - it's based on something observable / objective, but in order for philosophers to take it seriously everything has to be a priori. So philosophers bend over backwards to justify morality without appealing to the thing that we actually judge it by in practice. Kant came closest to avoiding this trap but he still couldn't pull it off.
People shit on Harris for being a philosopher but he's actually ready to set the whole discipline on fire and go for something more practical.
He is not even human but some sort of an ascended being
>>71664163
>>71664380
He has said several times that his moral system relies on a presupposed position. He is attempting to create a science of morality. All of science relies on a presupposed position. To ask for for a science of morality that doesn't rely an a presupposed position is to ask for a a science of morality that is more science than all of science.
>>71663876
>>71664163
>>71664380
This. There is absolutely no reason to assume that "well-being" is the obvious foundation of all moral systems, because it objectively is not. There are dozens of moral systems which would scoff utterly at the idea of "well being" being the highest good. Unless you're going to argue that Nietzchean morality and Aristolean virtue ethics and Kantian deontology are all secretly about the greatest well-being for the greatest number, you really don't have a case.
This is the problem with most moral theories. People have different values, and want different things, so the moralities they create are always different. Because the highest values in any given morality are asserted as axioms [because you cannot derive an ought from an is], the only way to universalize a given morality is to try and take your ethical stance, and turn it into a psychological one. To argue that not only is your morality THE BEST, but that everyone else on earth ALREADY follows your morality, they just don't know it yet.
Its a ridiculous and insulting argument on par with the worst aspects of religion. Its like those insufferable missionaries who tell you that you know "deep down in your heart" that what they're saying is true, when in reality you really do hold different beliefs then them.
It makes me sick.
>>71664937
>People have different values, and want different things, so the moralities they create are always different.
You realize that Harris knows this and that it doesn't contradict any of what he's saying. Right?
>>71662042
Where does he say that about the Jews?
>>71662042
He says, as a jew, that their insular culture and insistence on being defined as a race exacerbated their poor treatment since antiquity.
He didnt exactly blame them for the holocaust but said they contributed toward their own hatred.
>>71665347
meant for
>>71665146
>>71665146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5KF2_zgIzQ
>>71664500
-well reducing his -non clearly stated- definition of "well being" to "healthy" is not completely honest, well being is arguably linked positively to the other values, while it's true that they couldn't be the "ultimate value" under his system .
-This is a good argument, but then if competition is contributing to strenghtening our evolution, couldn't it be considered as an important variable in long term well being ?
It's true that the christian value system is still floating around everyone in western society and it's hard to come out of it completely.
-that's true but i guess it depends of the actual definition of "well being" since it's not really defined , it's kind of a moving goalpost to attack.
Just like a lot of other educated people, Sam Harris thinks he's a lot smarter than he is.
Anyone with a decent IQ can become a brain surgeon, it's merely a matter of study. In fact, one might say that neurology requires so much study, that a person who made a career out of it would have very, very little time to study anything else.
The funny thing about atheists is, it's impossible for them to win the "Is there a God?" debate. They know this. Christopher Hitchens was once forced to admit, in a debate with William Lane Craig, that he agreed there was "a 1% chance" that there was a God.
These modern atheists who make a career out of appealing to people's strong desire NOT to believe in God are just carnival hucksters. Once you get into the meat of the subject - First Cause, prophetic arguments, teleological considerations, morality - they lose their footing and fall back on the same demand atheists have been making of Christians for years - "Prove to me there's a God."
Obviously that's not possible. Nor is the opposite possible. HOWEVER...there is quite a bit of evidence for God.
Secular historians, for example, are now in virtually universal agreement that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who lived when the Bible says he lived, and was crucified by the Romans. Prophetic mysteries of the Bible are definitely coming to light in the modern era, particularly where they concern the Nation of Israel. God himself once famously said that the evidence of his existence lies in the things that have been created - so from that perspective, evidence of God is all around us.
Anyway, Sam Harris is just another know-it-all who actually only knows one subject.
It's just one of many human frailties - tell a person he's smart and he actually starts to believe it.
>>71665400
Harris has a PHD in neuroscience, not surgery.
>>71665400
>there is quite a bit of evidence for God
>>71665400
>there is quite a bit of evidence for God.
>>71664935
>He has said several times that his moral system relies on a presupposed position.
Every moral system relies on an axiom. The problem is that that doesn't mean it's scientific, and neither does it mean it can be scientific.
>>71661149
accurate.
>>71660787
/pol/ is not worthy
>>71665012
>>71664910
It contradicts it completely, because he missed the main point of moral disagreement, which is PURELY SUBJECTIVE DISAGREEMENT ON WHAT OUTCOME IS PREFERABLE.
Suppose I desired my own power and happiness, and those of people I liked best, more than anything else. Which is to say, I followed a eudaimonic tribal morality similiar to what Aristotle would propose. I won't go out of my way to screw over strangers, but I'm not beyond fighting them if we're in competition over something.
How would someone, much less Sam Harris, convince me that my morality is "wrong"?
The answer is, he can't. Because all moral arguments really are based in one of two things.
1. Arguments over consistency. They say "We both desire X, but your stated desire for Y contradicts X, therefore you should desire Z instead". Take for example abortion. The person arguing in favor of a pro-life position says "Abortion is murder, we're both against murder, therefore you should be against abortion". All such moral persuasions rest on the ASSUMPTION that deep down there is some common ground, and that by holding to your current position or moral system you are being in some fashion hypocritical.
OR
2. Arguments over preference. This is when someone finally makes it through the realization from step one, that deep down, we really do sometimes want entirely different things.
The problem is that you cannot "prove" which end to put into morality, because morality is not "objective", it is far more like art or politics than science, so trying to apply science to it is an exercise in futility.
All moral systems rest ultimately on an unproven assertion, an axiom of what you deep down, really WANT. There is no morality so well constructed that you cannot dismiss the whole thing by simply saying "I don't want that" to whatever their founding statement is. And they have no response to your alternative morality, other than call you "evil" for disagreeing.
I prefer Sam Harris' spooks and he is well spoken.
>>71665400
>there is quite a bit of evidence for God
>>71665870
It is simply postmodernist bullshit to propose that we cannot objectively measure human suffering.
Any belief system that reduces human suffering is preferable. Suffering exists on a continuum.
Just like science has done with mental health we will eventually determine what are the best and worst conducive actions for mentally healthy human beings.
>>71666170
"You know hitler made the Eiffel tower , i mean look at it : it's there ! So it's proof that he made it"
Being into philosophy I never bothered picking up Harris as I thought he was a meme pseudo-philosopher as many other youtube stars nowadays. However recently I was writing an essay on moral realism and I noticed he's one of the few modern critics of naturalistic fallacy. In a way he's making an extension of the argument explored first by Descartes (probably a polar opposite of his in general philosophical outlook) that moral propositions can be derived from objective, natural qualities in a way of "what's inclined and projected on our mind can be assumed as true, because all human cognition is based on varying levels of belief". Very interesting belief. Might be first major proponent of moral realism since Berlin, Moore and the Anglo-Saxon circles.
>>71665870
>It contradicts it completely, because he missed the main point of moral disagreement, which is PURELY SUBJECTIVE DISAGREEMENT ON WHAT OUTCOME IS PREFERABLE.
Wait, wait - are you one of those idiots who thinks that he's arguing for one possible desirable outcome in all cases?
Because he's not. Not by any stretch. If you don't realize this then you either haven't read his work or you're a numbskull.
>Suppose I desired my own power and happiness, and those of people I liked best, more than anything else. Which is to say, I followed a eudaimonic tribal morality similiar to what Aristotle would propose. I won't go out of my way to screw over strangers, but I'm not beyond fighting them if we're in competition over something. How would someone, much less Sam Harris, convince me that my morality is "wrong"?
Why would he even try? His system accommodates your morality just fine.
>>71664910
>By a sophist's standard, yeah. But from a scientific standard, no it's not.
But that's completely wrong. You can't measure or test for morality. You can't go put a sample of ethics into a petri dish and observe its reproduction. You can't even run 'morality' through an equation.
You could, I am quite sure, measure and test for well-being and determine which actions have the most benefit to humanity, but that does literally nothing to prove that benefiting humanity is in itself "good".
It's like spice, you can scientifically measure how spicy any particular food is, but making it more or less spicy is entirely meaningless in terms of whether it is good food as different people have different tastes and tolerances.
The point is that you absolutely cannot scientifically determine whether something is good or evil because you would first have to scientifically define what "good" or "evil" are in order to judge against such things.
>>71662644
He hates chompsky because they have completely different priorities in their advocacy and neither of them realize they are just talking past each other, so they both get frustrated and got into a stupid public pissing match which is frankly embarrassing to both of them.
Chompsky is interested in political misdeeds of the United States and its proxies, and to a lesser extend every other nation, while Sam is concerned with a more abstract best possible world scenario. They are both right to a certain extent, and don't register for some reason that they have a much different emphasis on the same overall phenomenon (overall human morality)
>>71661314
He takes essentially the same view as economists on utility in that they avoid defining it, because an exact definition is not required except in the most ludicrous of mental exercises (e.g. utility monsters).
>>71665608
>>71665689
So you deny that the fact Jesus existed is evidence of God? You deny the fact that the Bible clearly prophesies the restoration of Israel as a nation is evidence of God? You deny that the fact we are aware the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago, and therefore was "created," is evidence of a Creator?
Either you folks aren't aware of the difference in "evidence" and "proof," or you're just dumbasses. Probably the latter.
>>71666484
You are fundamentally misunderstanding his position like most people who haven't read his works.
He isn't arguing for one particular moral determinism, he's saying that morality can be defined by minimizing human suffering.
Any act that reduces human suffering can be considered a moral act.
You are tangentially attaching claims to his argument.
>>71666245
You're missing the point completely. Its not that we cannot objectively measure human suffering, its that we have absolutely no reason to assume that "global human suffering" is the ultimate evil, and "global human well-being" the ultimate good, besides your say so.
You're just asserting your ideology as self-evident like a religious fanatic, then shaming people for disagreeing.
There are different ideologies and different worldviews which, while they do seek in many cases to minimize human suffering, do not see promoting global human well-being [as you've defined it], as the highest value.
What you're doing now goes back to what I was saying in an earlier post. The moral dogmatist, refusing to believe that other moralities exist, resorts to trying to elaborately claim his morality is in fact not an ideology, but a facet of human psychology. In short, he doesn't need to convince everyone to agree with his ideology, because everyone already does, they just don't know it yet.
Its ridiculous, its silly, and you're silly for doing it.
>>71666484
>That's completely wrong because you can't do it. You can't! You can't do it, you madman!
How about instead of just saying 'you can't do it' you actually respond to his supporting claims. He makes a lot of them and they're pretty persuasive.
Jesus christ the critical response to his work has been fucking depressing.
>>71666768
There's no point in arguing with you if you willing ignore what sam actually writes for your own mentally retarded masturbation. Several people have pointed out how misinformed you are on his works. Please educate yourself.
>>71666593
That Jesus existed as a historical figure is not evidence that he was the son of god.
>>71660787
ben stiller? meh. hes alright.
>>71666768
>Its not that we cannot objectively measure human suffering, its that we have absolutely no reason to assume that "global human suffering" is the ultimate evil, and "global human well-being" the ultimate good, besides your say so.
Given that pretty much everybody already behaves as though this is the case in a practical day-to-day sense - willing to bet that includes you - I'm prepared to ignore the handful of philosophers who insist that it isn't the case for dubious reasons.
Just like Harris argues. Did you read his fucking work or are you just responding to what you assume he said?
>>71666593
If the historical figure of Jesus actually exists, then there is no evidence that he is the son of God, or that god exists.
>>71663965
>singles out Christians
>>71662211
What is the good?
Well-being.
What is well-being?
Living maximally well.
How does one live maximally well?
By making decisions which maximize the good in life.
What is the good?
>>71660787
Calm.
Rational.
Extremely precise with his language.
An asset to humanity.
The scourge of filthy, shrieking muzzies everywhere.
Me likey.
>>71666792
The word "good" and the word "bad", at their simplest level, mean "That which is desirable" and "That which is undesirable".
The problem is that while we can quantify consequences and quantify suffering, we cannot quantify why suffering is "wrong", because "wrong" is a linguistic term that is defined by fiat, much as "bad" is a term whose definition is simply made up.
>>71666745
By saying that morality "CAN" be defined by minimizing suffering, he's really just proposing a baseless ideology. Morality can also be defined by conquering your enemies, achieving your personal goals, and bringing greatness to your self and your tribe [Nietzche, Aristotle, etc] or by fulfilling your duty no matter what [Kant].
That is the entire problem. Morality is something that is defined into existence. There is no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena.
>>71666574
But the entire crux issue of morality is what is Good, what is ultimately, DESIRABLE. The entire problem being that what is ultimately desirable is simply asserted, you can't prove that one thing is cosmically more desirable than another. Its something you assert by fiat. Its an axiom.
>>71661149
>He is too advanced for /pol/.
Agreed
>>71667338
>By saying that morality "CAN" be defined by minimizing suffering, he's really just proposing a baseless ideology. Morality can also be defined by conquering your enemies, achieving your personal goals, and bringing greatness to your self and your tribe [Nietzche, Aristotle, etc] or by fulfilling your duty no matter what [Kant].
Are you purposefully ignoring what he actually says to make yourself look stupid?
>>71667326
>Calm, Rational, Extremely precise with his language.
This is why I like him more they say Dawkins.
Dawkin come off as ass usually but Harris makes it work.
He's a Neocon propagandist making it kosher to hate Islam in public discourse, who cares only about Israel and keeping New Athiests pro-Israel and philo-Semitic, since he understands that any intelligent, freethinking investigation of the Abrahamic religions leads right back to the Semitic shitbag Jews as the source of the problem.
I also hate his smug kike face and would live to smash it to a bloody pulp with a piece of rusty rebar.
>>71665870
But what if there's a proxy objective criterion that can be used to generate objective meta ethics which can determine who's wrong and who's right in the subjective disagreement about preferential outcomes? That's the point of The Moral Landscape
>>71667338
This is mental masturbation. You're ruling out a system of morality because it doesn't scratch a transcendental itch that simply cannot be scratched.
You don't need a transcendental definition of morality to behave morally. We have an intuitive grasp of what wellbeing is even if we can't define it as precisely as you want to. Harris even argues that we should avoid defining it too precisely to avoid more unnecessary mental masturbation.
All of which you'd know if you'd read his work. You clearly haven't. Fuck off already.
Sam Harris On the Nazis:
>An example of whites slaughtering Jews in the name of Christianity
Sam Harris On Trump
>"He's dogwhistling to bigots!"
Sam Harris is the physical embodiment of happy merchant. He is a neocon. Americans fall for that trick every time. They always look to Jew intellectuals with ulterior motives to tell him how to think.
He criticism Islam with the same arguments of a leftist:
>muh sexist bigots!
Yes, remove kebab. But never fall for the hand-picked, media-groomed Jew intellectual.
>>71667298
>phrases Harris doesn't use
No one with an education would use a phrase as inelegant as "maximally well". Just stop.
>>71667298
>What is the good? Well-being
Prove it scientifically.
>>71667132
>I'm going to assume my moral ideology is correct because its the dominant ideology
Kill yourself. Literally kill yourself. If you went back in time to ancient Sparta, would your utilitarianism still be self-evident now that no one practices it on earth?
Also, most people aren't utilitarians who want to maximize global well-being, they're unphilosophical drones who try and pursue their own happiness and those immediately close to them within the confines of the law and a loose sense of personal decency. Stop trying to assume your morality is a fact of human psychology. If it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
>>71666981
>That Jesus existed as a historical figure is not evidence that he was the son of god.
No, it's not. But when taken in context with the Bible, which does say he's the son of God, it is evidence that the Bible is, at a minimum, not trying to sell you on the existence of someone who never existed. Therefore it is evidence.
In a criminal trial, murderers are very, very rarely convicted without the body of the victim being found. There may be evidence that the accused committed a murder, but thee is no evidence that the alleged victim is dead until the body is found.
So now we know Jesus existed. He'd have to exist before he could be the Son of God. Therefore: evidence.
Most of you people trying to debate subjects on the internet are completely unaware of what constitutes a valid argument. In a court of law, the guideline is that "a preponderance of evidence" must show a person guilty. This simply means that there is more evidence that he's guilty than that he's not.
On the subject of God, there is plenty of evidence that he exists. And NON that he doesn't. A court of law, in a properly executed trial following all proper procedures - and of course IF such a trial were possible - would find that God does exist - based on a preponderance of evidence.
Looks like God isn't interested in proving his existence. Looks like God is willing to let us decide what the preponderance of evidence indicates. Looks like the atheists are choosing to ignore the evidence and believe what makes them most comfortable - which is EXACTLY what they accuse Christians of doing.
>>71665400
>there is quite a bit of evidence for God.
lolololol back to /b/ with you
>>71667771
At least someone else gets it.
>>71667765
No, its not. Its metaethics. You can't just assert something is the highest value, the ultimate aim in life, then when criticized say "W-well its intuitive"
No its not. His morality was invented in the 1800s, I don't think human beings were just suppressing their instincts for the first 100,000+ years of our existence. "Well-being", much less universalized well-being for all mankind, is a modern philosophy, not a psychological fact.
>>71667695
Then that criterion would be subjective. There is no such thing as objective metaethics any more than there is such a thing as objective meta-aesthetics.
>>71667826
Jesus, you're like that Christian guy who keeps talking about the Crocoduck no matter how many times people explain that he doesn't understand how evolution works.
You keep mistakenly attaching transcendental meaning to practical claims, presumably because that's the mental box you're stuck inside. Climb outside of this box and MAYBE we can have a conversation.
I'm not claiming what you think I'm claiming and neither is Harris. You have FUNDAMENTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD just about everything said so far.
>>71666745
>morality can be defined by minimizing human suffering
Completely baseless gibberish. That's literally the same thing as saying "Tacos can be scientifically determined to be good based on how much sour cream they contain". If I don't like sour cream, on what logical scientific basis am I proven wrong? None.
Similarly, if I define human suffering and death as good and desirable, Harris has absolutely no basis for calling me wrong.
It's absolute nonsense.
>>71667771
>He is a neocon.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.
>>71668268
>No, its not. Its metaethics. You can't just assert something is the highest value, the ultimate aim in life, then when criticized say "W-well its intuitive"
You can, actually. When metaethics is a practical dead end you can absolutely appeal to realism to solve your problems.
Instead of saying you can't do it why don't you respond to the supportive claims Harris makes arguing that you can? Oh that's right you still haven't read his shit. Fuck off already.
>>71668369
>Similarly, if I define human suffering and death as good and desirable
Then you are engaging in postmodern nonsense. A human being dying is engaging in human suffering. Anything that can reduce the aggregate suffering in the world is considered" ethical".
Note, this also includes killing those who would harm.
>>71668334
>Its okay that his ideology is horse shit he made up off the top of his head, because its a pragmatic claim.
If his entire morality was just supposed to be a shorthand pragmatic morality with no real basis, why is his book called "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values"?
If it was just supposed to be a pragmatic modern morality, he wouldn't have marketed his damn book as a scientific defense of moral realism you moron.
I'm all for moral pragmatism, but that is obviously not what Sam Harris is defending in his book.
>>71667890
-"The bible is sometimes not saying fiction , therefore it's evidence." wtf
-Jesus existed: he'd have to exist before he could be the son of god. okay but that implies nothing about if he was or not , and about god.
-all the evidence that he exists is not "ignored" it's dismissed because false or invalid , lots of atheists are actually searching for the truth and would like to find solid proof, and the others you talk about will appreciate creating a rebuttal of these.
>>71668598
Please stop posting and read his books before making obviously baseless accusations against it. You look like a fucking moron.
>>71668589
>Anything that can reduce the aggregate suffering in the world is considered" ethical".
>Source: muh feelings
>>71668736
Source: an attempt to logically define morality.
>>71668510
>>71668589
>Disagreeing with modernism means you're engaging in post-modern nonsense
I GUESS ARISTOTLE IS JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE PO-MO FAGGOTS AMIRIGHT? SO IS KANT.
IN FACT, EVERY MORAL PHILOSOPHER BEFORE SAM HARRIS [PBUH] WAS JUST DENYING THE OBVIOUS LIGHT OF WELL BEING!
Go. Kill. Yourselves. This is exactly what I said in my first post of the thread.
>>71661314
You people don't know the philosophical tradition, going back thousands of years, and all the variances of ideas and opinions, and being too lazy to learn, you instead look to "science", to solve all your problems. And when its obvious it can't, you spew nonsense about intuition.
>>71667890
>So now we know Jesus existed. He'd have to exist before he could be the Son of God. Therefore: evidence
How about... no? If I claim that Tom Hank's son is the devil, he'd have to exist before he could be the devil. He exists, therefore: evidence.
That's right, according to your logic.
>there is plenty of evidence that God exists
>and NONE that he doesn't
Laughable. Tell me, where is this evidence? Please present some to me. I'll gladly take a look at what you call evidence so that I may debunk or or agree with it.
However, right now, in the top-right corner of your screen, there is a big red square that has the following symbols on it: [-0_0-]
It is a cute little robot face. On every electronic device in the world, on everything with a screen, there is this robot face on a red square.
>B-b-but Anon, it's not there!
Oh yeah? Of course it is, you just have to believe in it.
>>71669087
Yes. Aristole's contributions to philosophy were fundamentally important to his time and are rather irrelevant now.
The entire field of mental health proves human beings can objectively measure and define well being.
But please, keep attempting to conflate Harris' arguments with metaphysical claims.
>>71668905
That's just it though. You're defining it into being. Like EVERY OTHER MORALITY SINCE THE DAWN OF MOTHERFUCKING TIME.
Fuck. You're just like those Christian fundamentalists who think the only two ideologies on earth are Christianity and "Murder and Rape are just fine guys"
Saying that reducing human suffering isn't the ultimate value isn't the same thing as saying it has no value you cumslurping troglodyte.
>>71668718
>Hurr ur dumb.
K I L L Y O U R S E L F
>>71660787
Boring cuck, reminds me too much of Seth Green, can't take him seriously when he pretends that it's Islam and not the fucking kikes who are the danger to our civilization.
The first sign that someone is not to be trusted is when the thing they're fighting to defend is the exact thing that is destroying civilization. Harris wants to kill a religion to protect Modern Secular Western liberal bullshit. We're not fighting for the same things. I want what he loves dead, I just also want the sandniggers dead.
>>71668598
Practical, not pragmatic. Harris takes a pragmatic stance in many cases but when I say practical I'm talking in the philosophical sense. Ie practical / critical-transcendental. Whatever. Why am I even trying at this point.
Also harping on the title is retarded. Marketing bends the truth to attract attention. It's not a paper published in Nature ffs, it's a bestselling book on philosophy.
Props for reading the title, though! Good job! Now read the rest of the fucking thing.
>>71669411
>>71669348
>We can quantify mental health, this means pursuing good mental health is the most worthwhile thing in life. No I can't actually prove it, its supposed to be a "practical" guide helping those who already want good mental health. That's why my book is marketed as a defense of moral realism and why I mention science and neurology so much in it. Damn it I"m a genius for being so intentionally misleading!
>>71660787
Ben stiller is so funny, hes looking good nowadays
>>71669599
You are so confused it fucking hurts to read your shit. Ugh.
>>71669599
>im going to post an ambiguous quote instead of addressing the arguments
>>71669752
>>71669771
>Sam Harris was only pretending to be retarded: The Posts
>>71669402
Please contain yourself to what we are actually saying instead of assumptions. I know its hard for you since you have already done it dozens of times against Harris.
>>71668905
>an attempt to logically define morality.
It wasn't a very good attempt if the entire basis is your subjective feels.
>>71667132
>Given that pretty much everybody already behaves as though this is the case in a practical day-to-day sense
They don't. How the fuck can you say that a devout Christian operates with the moral principle that less overall human suffering is the good, and more of it is the bad?
Protip: They don't, and no matter of assertion that it is scientific is going to change a religious person's mind.
>>71669985
It isn't subjective feels. Harris spends dozens of pages describing what this would look like in practice, of which we are only summarizing.
Again, saying science can't articulate morality is false as it has already achieved this with mental health.
>>71669985
>>71670047
This is the primary vice of the New Atheists. They aren't philosophical people, and they by and large are not acquainted with the philosophical tradition, but they think they're the best damn philosophers in the world, because they call ideology "scientific".
>>71670208
Its rather ironic to call someone not antiquated with the philosophic tradition when you haven't even read the fucking text you're arguing against.
>>71668678
>all the evidence that he exists is not "ignored" it's dismissed because false or invalid
What evidence is false or invalid? Historical evidence? Because that's what I'm talking about.
The Bible is evidence. All historical evidence is in the form of written evidence, artifact evidence, or geological evidence. True or false, it's evidence.
Now I'm aware that none of the atheists ITT have actually studied any of the evidence. I've had the argument enough times to know that all atheists are talking straight out of their assholes. They are equipped with nothing more than low-3-digit IQ's and a strong desire to consider themselves the highest form of life in their own little private universe.
They aren't interested in exploring Christianity from a scientific perspective at all, they made up their minds long ago. Now they just want to mock people who believe what they don't believe, never realizing all along that they're only mocking themselves.
Me, I've done the research. And when you go back in time - back, back, back, to the beginning of all things - what you find is that "something from nothing" is the LEAST likely scenario - even more bizarre than belief in a being above our understanding who created a universe for reasons only he would know.
What's really funny is, the best argument of all has always been Simulation Theory - it seems airtight. Assuming that mankind will eventually have the ability to create simulations in which the participants believe they are independent beings with free will - and we are almost there now - it is safe to assume that mankind will create many such simulations for various research purposes. Therefore, the odds that we are living in just such a simulation are much, much greater than the odds that we are living in the current reality.
So you see, atheists are even aware that WE will someday have the power to create a universe - yet still they can't accept that OUR universe was created.
>>71670208
>They aren't philosophical people, and they by and large are not acquainted with the philosophical tradition
I am literally critiquing Sam Harris's bullshit utilitarianism you mongoloid sperg.
Don't blame me for his lack of clarity on the subject of ethics.
>>71670198
You're still missing the fundamental argument against his entire philosophy. Namely, that he is asserting that his values are self-evident, then saying he's "proven them" by describing how efficient the means he's created are for realizing them.
If someone says "Good hamburgers can be defined by how much ketchup they have on them" and someone says "I don't like ketchup" what are you gonna do, say "Well I think the only hamburgers worth talking about are those that have ketchup"?
Its retarded. He does a wonderful job of proving neurology can quantify well being. Now prove to me that global wellbeing is what is desirable, deriving it purely from the state of affairs.
Derive an OUGHT from an IS. Please do that, without just asserting your morality as self-evident just because it hurts your feelings to imagine other moralities exist that, while they do seek in some ways to minimize suffering, are not against it by definition, or for whom "maximizing well being" is not their primary goal.
>>71661314
Sam argues that science can be used to help people and since action results from the brain makes him the right person talking about it.
>>71670389
>not antiquated with
>tfw all you have to do to argue with atheists is sit back and wait for them to show their real power level
>>71670047
If you asked them they'd say differently. If you observe how they actually behave and ignore what they say it turns out their underlying concern is still wellbeing. It's just obscured by layers of ritual, tradition and abstraction.
>the moral principle that less overall human suffering is the good, and more of it is the bad?
This still isn't quite right. These are his actual claims c&v:
>(1) some people have better lives than others, and (2) these differences are related, in some lawful and not entirely arbitrary way, to states of the human brain and to states of the world. The idea is that a person is simply describing material facts (many about their brain) when they describe possible "better" and "worse" lives for themselves. Granting this, Harris says we must conclude that there are facts about which courses of action will allow one to pursue a better life.
Also:
>no matter of assertion that it is scientific is going to change a religious person's mind.
So what? How does that matter? Are you arguing that Harris is wrong because it'll be hard to convince people that he's not wrong?
>>71670644
>Sam argues that science can be used to help people
It sure can, by developing vaccines and anti-viral drugs, and researching medicine.
But science will never be able to say: "This action is wrong because X".
>>71670554
Oh, I was agreeing with both of the people I linked. I agree with everything you said. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
>>71670607
>Now prove to me that global wellbeing is what is desirable, deriving it purely from the state of affairs.
He doesn't have to. How much longer are you going to keep missing this point? It's getting late.
Boring faggot
>>71670781
Science is a tool to quantify certain aspects. If you clearly define your factors you want to improve science surely can make such statements.
>>71670607
Because many, including sam and myself, believe that we can use science to derive and ought from an is. We can do so by using our current metrics we have for physical and mental heath and apply it to ethics. For example, the human suffering continuum that you have yet to address. Just because you austitically flail that science can't apply to morality doesn't mean it cannot.
>Okaaaaaayyyy....Welcome to the Waking Up Podcast
>Once again I apologize for the audio.
>First I have to take care of some housekeeping...
>Not enough of you are donating to my Patreon. I'll have to conclude that doing this podcast is a waste of my time and yours unless you give me more money.
>Now, a lot of people have been making some noises on Twitter. I don't know why I use Twitter.
>Once again, it's the usual suspects: Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan.....
>I know that this gets incredibly boring to deal with all the time, and I promised you all not to talk about them again, but I'm going to talk about how stupid they are again for 20 minutes.
>And a lot of you had criticisms for me. Rest assured you didn't understand what I was saying.
>By the way, did I mention that I am indeed a liberal? Because I am. I am a liberal. Remember that.
>>71665347
I'm a Jew and I totally agree with his statement.
>>71670742
>The idea is that a person is simply describing material facts (many about their brain) when they describe possible "better" and "worse" lives for themselves.
But this is the point. Someone can completely disagree with him, on what a person "ought" to value, because there is nothing authoritative morally speaking, about physical and material facts.
This is literally elementary ethical philosophy.
>So what? How does that matter? Are you arguing that Harris is wrong because it'll be hard to convince people that he's not wrong?
No, I'm arguing that the moment someone doesn't accept his moral axiom, no further argument could convince people, because they do not agree on the fundamental principle of his theory.
>>71670607
>I won't be satisfied with anything less than transcendental moral claims even if that standard holds humanity back. Don't ask me to justify my position.
>>71661563
>that sonic shirt
lel
His idea that religion is "failed science" is interesting.
Same score as every atheist thread:
Atheists: 0
God: 1
>>71671123
>This is literally elementary ethical philosophy.
Funny, that's what I've been saying all along. You're stuck humping the same two points you heard in your elementary ethical philosophy class.
Read a fucking book already.
>>71671150
Actually I am satisified with pragmatic claims. Its just that Sam Harris is arguing very obviously for moral realism. I'm perfectly fine with subjective ethics, but his entire book is supposed to be providing a defense of moral objectivity.
>>71670975
>>71670902
PROVE. SUFFERING. IS. BAD.
If the way to advance my wellbeing involves hurting someone else, is that wrong?
If achieving one of my desires [such as for power, fame, or knowledge] involves severely harming myself, is that bad? If "well-being" is to be defined as the basis of morality, by all logic, it should be.
If I choose to prioritize one group's well-being at the expense of another groups, is that bad? If so why.
God damn it man you're literally just calling an ideology "Science" then enjoying the stench of your own farts. You can't just call a poorly constructed philosophy "scientific" then act like you've accomplished something.
>>71662654
>Cicero
Seriously someone give him a hand
>>71671430
You are again not understanding the context in which the human suffering continuum is based because you have not read his work. Its pointless to discuss this with you if you will willing strawman our positions for cheap sophist points.
>>71671430
He wants to maximize the amount of flourishing people.
>>71671430
>PROVE. SUFFERING. IS. BAD.
I. DON'T. HAVE. TO. YOU. FUCKING. MORON.
How many more times do I have to say it? You're holding these claims to an unjustified standard. Why don't you prove that I NEED to prove it first? Or do you still not realize that your claims aren't the assumed standard for all moral claims ever? Christ you're thick.
>>71670781
>But science will never be able to say: "This action is wrong because X".
I don't think you've read any of his work, if you actually believe this. Your position would have been regarded as tenable 50 years ago, but it is inconsistent with contemporary scholarship, and I'm not even talking about Harris' work. Human morality is increasingly open to becoming a field of scientific inquiry, just as psychiatry was 100 years ago. It is no longer the monopolized domain of superstitious religious leaders. Human well-being and flourishing can now be addressed in objective, quantifiable and comparative terms. You're embarrassingly out of d8, m8
>>71671426
>Funny, that's what I've been saying all along.
Well maybe I jumped in a discussion you had with someone else then.
The point I'm trying to make is that the fundamental moral axiom of utilitarianism can be disagreed with, and just by the fact that people can value something else, proves that it isn't scientific at all, and will never be scientific, because it is fundamentally relativistic, unlike 2+2=4, or the fact that gravity is a force of nature.
>>71671430
>If the way to advance my wellbeing involves hurting someone else, is that wrong?
>If achieving one of my desires [such as for power, fame, or knowledge] involves severely harming myself, is that bad? If "well-being" is to be defined as the basis of morality, by all logic, it should be.
>If I choose to prioritize one group's well-being at the expense of another groups, is that bad? If so why.
What obvious questions, I wonder if Harris addresses them directly and at length in his book?
Yup he does. What a surprise. Once again you look like a fucking moron.
>>71663563
Nice to see someone with sense.
>>71668334
This post is true.
>>71668598
Stop posting.
>>71671818
Based Canadian bro nails it. The idea that philosophy and morality are untenable by science are simply outdated.
>>71671818
>>71671793
>>71671776
>>71671714
>After over 100 posts, the New Atheists still continue to say science's ability to quantify suffering is proof that suffering is inherently undesirable and that globalist humanism is the ideal philosophy
>When we told them that you cannot derive an ought from an is, they referenced the current year and said that proof is for faggots
>>71663563
>In order to "prove" a single morality as the "true" one, you would somehow have to validate an axiom which is by definition subjective. Its asinine.
It would be if that's what he were trying to do. Good thing it's not. But you know that already, having read his book, right?
>>71671818
>Human well-being and flourishing can now be addressed in objective, quantifiable and comparative terms.
Doesn't matter, because several other ethical theories other than utilitarianism posit other moral axioms.
Deontological ethics for example doesn't hold that human well-being is the goal of morality at all, but the following of moral rules in accordance with a principle of not violating a human's rational autonomy.
So what now? If you don't consider human well-being the goal of morality, Harris's argument just shatters into a million pieces.
>>71672206
>Doesn't matter, because several other ethical theories other than utilitarianism posit other moral axioms.
>Doesn't matter, because several other ethical theories other than utilitarianism posit other moral axioms.
In other words, 'I don't have to understand what I'm attacking because I already know some other stuff that makes sense to me.'
You're a real riot, buddy.
>>71672124
You are boring because you insist on the subjective definitions of good/evil. Its more interesting to look into evolution and biology and see what humans actually strive for and develop rational (objective) morality based on this. There is obviously more to this, but you should notice how unoriginal your arguments are.
>>71672124
>if..if..i bring up aught from an is i automatically win every philosophical argument.
Again, we've demonstrated several times that the advancements in mental health and psychiatry proves science has just as much validity in moral matters as hackneyed philosophers.
>>71672356
The only thing I get from this post is how hilariously uneducated you are.
>>71672356
>>71672167
>When he realized that Sam Harris' defense of moral realism was an obvious failure and philosophically illiterate, our friend the New Atheist desperately claimed that Harris was "just kidding bro" and that "he totally just wanted to give a pragmatic guide to modern morality".
>When it was pointed out to him that the book was in fact a defense of moral realism, not a practical guide to modern living, he began muttering something about "go read the book" and repeated his previous claims about brain-scans proving suffering exists.
>>71672206
What other definition does morality have than human well-being? You are again relying on postmodern shenanigans.
>>71660987
Sandnigger religion apologists are degenerate
>>71672594
>What other definition does morality have than human well-being?
Premium b8. You cannot be this retarded.
>>71672594
He can't offer a definition of anything.
His entire argument presupposes that definitions can't exist.
>>71670208
It's gotten really bad. It used to be intellectually engaging debating with the 'top tier' atheists. Even though as a Christian I would have to disagree with them, they would at least be logically consistent in their points and the better of them would really require one to think in order to respond or rebut. Then you'd have a 30-something step chain of logic which you would both agree was sound and you'd end up tracing all the way back to find the point of contention, the acceptance or denial of which was generally more often than not a matter of faith on either side.
Nowadays every room-temperature IQ normie that has found Reddit and read Dawkins suddenly thinks themselves to be an intellectual philosopher and scientist, despite being ignorant of both subjects and making rudimentary logical errors that would get you marked down on a community college Philosophy 101 exam.
>>71670198
>action X is good because action X contributes to well-being
>why is well-being good?
>it's good because I say it is
>this isn't muh feelings though I promise
>>71672823
And that is why i am calling his argument postmodern bullshit. Definitions exist and ignoring them wastes everyones time.
>>71660787
I mostly agree with him but he's completely insufferable. I don't think I could stand talking to him for more than a few minutes.
It's incredible to me that someone who wrote a whole fucking book at meditation could still have such an overinflated ego.
>>71672951
They don't intrinsically exist, they're abstractions created by humans. But he assumes this means they can't be discussed.
>>71672594
>What other definition can morality have besides advancing global human well being.
AHEM
1. Advancing personal well being
2. Advancing the well being of a group of humanity that is not the entirety of humanity.
3. Truth
4. Power
5. Pleasure regardless of long term conquences
6. Duty/Honor
7. -
I could go all fucking day mate. The fact that you don't even know what the other ideologies even FUCKING ARE proves you and Harris are not fit to speak on this issue. You can "disagree" with the above philosophies, but you can't deny they exist.
And the fact that they exist proves that your morality, your system, is not universal. And its not scientific. You can use neurology to quantify pain. Good for you. If I use psychology to quantify fame or power, does that mean my morality can be scientific too?
If I use sociology to quantify national success, does that mean a morality of nationalism and ruthless tribalism instead of global humanism is science now too?
Fuck man, read a book nigger.
>>71672823
>>71672951
Nobody said definitions don't exist you shitposting fagtrons.
Apparently it's hard for you to grasp the fact that other moral systems exist, other than utilitarianism.
>>71672935
>why is well-being good
>>71672935
>action X is good because action X contributes to well-being
>why is well-being good?
>it's good because I say it is
>this isn't muh feelings though I promise
What's funny about this is that if you replace "I say" with "God says" you wind up with the same outcome.
>>71673048
>if i add words to his argument and then argue against it no one will notice.
>>71673131
Except we can objectively measure human suffering. you faggots keep ignoring this fact,
>>71672823
>>71672779
>arguing that science can be used to objectively quantify morals =/= arguing that flourishing is the definition of moral good
Its very intriguing to see that people only disagree with sam harris when they supposingly don't comprehend his arguments.
>>71672124
>Atheists still continue to say science's ability to quantify suffering is proof that suffering is inherently undesirable
No, rational people - forget scientists and atheists - think suffering is inherently undesirable, and regard this as axiomatic. Are you actually saying that you believe that suffering may be desirable? And that this is the foundation of your rejection of the idea that human morality is amenable to scientific inquiry?
This is why Harris threads don't really work well in /pol; most people here can barely even string a sentence together.
>>71672430
Accept the possibility that I understand the ought from is problem, that I understand virtue ethics, deontological ethics, utilitarian ethics, meta-ethics, consequentialism, Kantian ethics, etc. etc. Stop assuming you're right because you know more than we do. You're wrong, but more importantly it's a fucking lazy way to argue.
Now I'll say it one more time: If Harris is right, then Deontological ethics (or whatever other system you please) doesn't need to be addressed. It can be safely ignored.
Saying otherwise is like saying that special relativity can be ignored until it addresses the claims of Newtonian physics. And not just in the 'appropriate for slow speeds' way, I mean reconciled metaphysically. This is retarded and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both systems.
>>71673362
>No, utilitarians and hedonists - forget scientists and atheists - think suffering is inherently undesirable, and regard this as axiomatic.
FTFY.
I think he's bought into this mindfulness and meditation meme too hard.
>>71673048
>The fact that you don't even know what the other ideologies even FUCKING ARE
He's not saying he has no knowledge of their existence you moron, he's saying that they're not justifiable.
Seriously are you autistic?
>>71673468
>If Harris is right
That's the point. He is only "right", if you accept the fundamental moral axiom, which is something people can choose to do, or not.
This is not objective science. This is not 2+2=4. This is not doing fundamental particle physics. This is about what humans value ethically, and this varies across nations, history and culture.
>>71673362
I think suffering may be desirable in many cases. Debate me. Why is suffering always wrong when
1. Most self-improvement relies upon suffering
2. Most advances in mankind's history have been brought about through conflict
3. Advancing your own group often involves making another group suffer.
That's my view, the Aristolean/Nietzchean view. There's also the Kantian view that says
"Why is suffering always wrong when morality has nothing to do with well being, and everything to do with being worthy of it?" and then goes on to say that its better to die than to tell a single lie.
I think that's choosing truth over well being. How odd. Its almost as though this issue is vastly more multifaceted than you thought.
>>71673693
Why are they not justifiable? Bonus points, use an argument that doesn't involve your feelings.
>>71673362
Hello there, when you grow up you will not only see that there is no such thing as neatly labeled discrete "suffering," but that suffering makes men and prosperity makes monsters.
I love these atheists and liberals and rationalists whose argument is literally like the butcher's customer in Bulgakov: "Good, I like. Bad, I do not want."
>>71673506
And you are asserting that everyone else - the "right" thinking people - believe that human suffering may be "inherently desirable".
Ok, I do make some room for the BDSM crowd, and you *are* Norwegian so I'm not too surprised, but, generally speaking, shoving cacti up people's assholes is not conducive to human happiness and flourishing. Just putting that out there. You can take this to your fellow countrymen and debate this radical notion, I don't mind. In the meantime, keep those cacti away from the rest of us.
>>71673752
>That's the point. He is only "right", if you accept the fundamental moral axiom, which is something people can choose to do, or not.
And special relativity has two postulates which I can choose not to accept. If I choose not to accept them I guess special relativity is wrong. Is that your reasoning?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
>>71673752
>That's the point. He is only "right", if you accept the fundamental moral axiom, which is something people can choose to do, or not.
Wow. You are saying that his position rests on the validity of the idea that human will exists when he has written an entire book refuting that that could even be true.
You know nothing of Harris' work. Stop. Please. For your own sake. You're only looking like a guy who's making shit up as he goes.
>>71673131
Well I do actually believe in quasi-objective morality along that line. I absolutely couldn't claim to prove it without first proving God himself, so I'm not going to open that ten-thousand year old can of worms in this debate.
I am operating within a secular framework here in this discussion because
1.) Whether God exists has no effect on Sam Harris or 4chan posters being dumb
and
2.) I don't want to derail the thread.
>>71673283
>Except we can objectively measure human suffering
No one in this thread or else in human history has ever denied this. But it's still on you to prove said suffering is bad.
>>71673766
Boy I wonder if Harris addressed these obvious questions in his book.
Oh right, he does. At length. In great detail. Fucking hell, people.
>>71674071
The difference is that relativity is a law of the universe and not a subjectively constructed social system designed to categorize all human behavior into two neat categories.
>>71674094
No, he's saying his position is only valid if you accept the axiom that maximizing global human well being and minimizing global human suffering is the best thing one can do.
You cant' ignore dozens of other philosophies that reject that axiom just because they hurt your feelings.
>>71673766
>I think suffering may be desirable in many cases. Debate me.
Ah, but I don't have to debate you because we are not in disagreeance.
What I am saying is that human suffering is not *inherently* desirable. Sure there are instances in which, in the forge of human suffering, greater goods are achieved. That's happened plenty of times. I'm just saying that human suffering is not "inherently desirable" - which is to say, desirable ALL the time - which is the position of the other anon.
>>71672935
>Even though as a Christian I would have to disagree with them
Aha. This is coming into focus. You're one of those people who've heard 'value can only be defined by a higher power' so many times that you've stopped even considering reasonable alternatives.
>>71674071
>And special relativity has two postulates which I can choose not to accept. If I choose not to accept them I guess special relativity is wrong. Is that your reasoning?
No, because physical facts are what they are. If the math is correct, the math is correct.
If I, however say to you, that I do not consider well-being to be the goal of morality, what will you say that can convince me otherwise?
>>71674233
Oh I'm sure he does. And like every other moral philosopher, I'm sure his rebuttals fit into one of the two categories I defined in this post.
>>71665870
If he made an argument against my points that isn't just a ridiculous attempt to say I already want well-being above all else, I just don't know it yet, or a blatant appeal to his existing values and fee-fees, please by all means share it with the class.
Otherwise STFU.
>>71674094
There is nothng more common in these kinds of discussions than people destroyed the red straw man while sheltering in the loving arms of the blue straw man.
>>71674378
>You cant' ignore dozens of other philosophies that reject that axiom just because they hurt your feelings.
Yes you fucking can you god damn nitwit. How many more times do I have to say this before it finally sinks in?
It's on YOU to explain why philosophies based on totally different fundamental assumptions have any bearing on Harris' ideas.
I'm out. I can't take the bullshit.
This whole thread has been trying to get people to talk about what Harris actually says instead of bizarre mischaracterizations of his ideas. What a waste of time.
To everyone who thinks they made good arguments: congratulations, that straw man really took a beating.
>>71674495
>le strawman face
>>71674603
This has nothing to do with politics or religion. This is a field of scientific inquiry. The fact that all of these "rebuttals" are embedded in larger religious/political arguments just shows how biased these dissenters are.
I'm a conservative and I'm religious. But I don't need to appeal to either to know that human suffering, once quantifiable and comparable, can then be manipulated to optimize human happiness. I know that I am supposed to be happy only in the light of God's revelations, but it may be possible to expand (and not contradict) that view by finding other ways to be happier as a species. Why you resist this invitation to a better life, I'm sure I don't know. But it's your life, and you can do with it as you will.
>>71674889
Cya Harris fanboi.
>>71674483
Well sure. Nothing is inherently desirable.
>>71674495
Except your other opponent, me, is an ardent atheist. The fact that your philosophy is shit has nothing to do with whether a deity exists or not.
Hell, if we're being honest, even if God did exist that wouldn't create an objective morality, it would just create a new subjective morality with a very powerful Subject willing to enforce it.
>>71660864
Agreed. Smart guy but so boring.
>>71674889
This is what I'm talking about.
You can't discuss Harris in /pol.
Better to stick to Trump memes here.
>>71674620
>It's on YOU to explain why philosophies based on totally different fundamental assumptions have any bearing on Harris' ideas.
Not him but we all know what happens when utilitarians get their ethical system into politics. You get shit like:
>We need to kill 6 million Jews to save the Germanic people.
>>71675332
>utilitarians are bad just think of the shoah!
>>71675080
>>71674889
>>71674620
>>71660787
He's good at fighting Islamism but the guy is clearly full of himself, he just sounds so smug and condescending to everyone he speaks to, even though often times he has the right to be.
>>71675537
It also applies to Chinese Commies.
>We must use 40 million people for the Great Leap Forward! For the glorious revolution and the greater good!
>40 million people die.
>>71675571
>>71675747
>>71662644
>>71666548
He also hates Chomsky because Chomsky blew him the fuck out in an e-mail debate which Harris later posted online expecting everyone to support him and...instead got told he was BTFO. Kek
>>71675059
Looks like someone needs bread and circuses
He likes jiu jitsu, so he is alright by me.
>>71675646
I know, I'm not argue utilitariansim right now.
It's just whenever someone mentions the 600 trillion I have to post a Jew pic. It's become like a reflex action at this point.
>>71675877
link please
would like to see how two philosophers shit on each other
>>71676113
>It's just whenever someone mentions the 600 trillion I have to post a Jew pic. It's become like a reflex action at this point.
Fair enough :^)
>listen to one podcast
>he shits on Muslims
>talks about why immigration is bad for Europe
>talks about how SJWs are fucking up college
10/10 would listen again
>>71676689
Link?
>>71660787
A bit pretentious, but I like him.
He shits on Islam which pisses off the ultra left.
>>71675877
I don't think people get what he was trying to do. Or is trying to do, it's a project of his.
He's trying to talk to his opponents and try to reach an understanding. Chomsky got personal and it turned into a shitfest of missed intention on both parties.
Harris has more of these on his podcast, and it's an interesting project to me from a 4chan/pol/ perspective, given that this place is a hive of contrarians and some of us like that. You'll always be met with furious dissent and rarely that leads to new understanding in a way that's not possible unless there's that mix of sparring disagreement.
One of his "failed" versions of this is trying to talk to a Guardian columnist who couldn't stop distorting and lying. This is a friend of Greenwald (who should be familiar to /pol/acks) who has a hate boner for Harris.
What's interesting about his opponents is that they're both hard left and right. It's like Hitchens (though Hitch was a much better debater in general), the left hates him for having been marxist and then changed his stances, the right hates him for having been marxist.
And for both of them they attract these frothing rabid people who will paint everything they say in the worst possible light and extrapolate genocides out of single words.
It's fun to watch. Something about the futility of human existence.
>>71677015
I've been listening to Harris recently and been liking it, he seems to stay clam generally even when opponent gets rabid. Is Hitchens better debater?
>>71660787
I sort of feel like Sam "there is no is-ought gap" Harris and Dan "qualia aren't interesting" Dennett aren't as philosophically naive as they seem.
They probably just decided that acknowledging the "technically correct" arguments against their positions would lead to horrible outcomes, so they ignore it. It's like they're Lovecraft characters who figured out that knowledge drives you mad.
Rational people with rationally chosen no-go areas.
>>71677374
Hitchens is a battle axe.
Harris is a scalpel.
>>71677374
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCHHfBeu0QE
Hitchens was that sassy bitch who had clever insults which made it impossible for his opponent to have a comeback
>>71671065
Spot on, my friend
>>71678197
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiZOFoOJYK4
>>71660787
Sam Harris is pseudo-intellectual bullshit, and would not be taken seriously by any decent academic, or really anyone who is not just pretentiously smart.
Its fucking insulting that people treat him like he is an equal to people like Richard Dawkins, Noam Chomsky, etc.
Harris specializes in making outlandish remarks and slanderous charges with terrible logic that makes sense until you think about it for 10+ seconds, while his dumbfuck fans pretend he is so profound.
>>71661149
>>71665765
>>71667399
These are the types of idiots that Sam Harris appeals to.
>le he's too advanced xD
Fuck off retards.
>>71679809
Dawkins is the same.
>>71679891
No, he's not.
Dawkins is one of the greatest philosophers alive right now. Harris is like a cheap imitation of him that tries way too hard to be edgy in order to gain attention.
It works I guess with some retards, like a few in this thread.
>>71660864
Have you listened to the podcast with douglas murray?
>>71680121
>Dawkins is one of the greatest philosophers alive right now
>>71680121
>Dawkins is one of the greatest philosophers alive right now
>>71680210
He is, Christcuck. Maybe if you were to read him a little and grasp the subtely and complexity of his work you'd see that.
Either way, regardless of what you think of Dawkins, Harris is complete fucking garbage in comparison and in general.
>>71679809
>Sam Harris is pseudo-intellectual bullshit
>>71680121
>Dawkins is one of the greatest philosophers alive right now.
Please cite some specific comparisons that make you think one is "pseudo-intellectual" and the other is the greatest philosopher.
You do know these two agree on a majority of points, right?
>>71680121
Will you back up some of your claims? I'm just discovering Harris but am not seeing what you are seeing.
>>71680404
He just gets a boner for Dawkins accent.
>>71680404
They pretend to, but really Harris is a liability to Dawkins.
I'm not here to provide you with research. Go read a fucking book.
>>71673283
Could you objectively determine that a world with 100 happy men and 100 miserable men is better than a world with 50 miserable men? What about a world with 1000 somewhat sad men with tremendous knowledge compared to a world with 1000 happy idiots? Your objective moral is one dimensional at best.
In practice it is impossible to calculate the long term effects of your actions given the immense complexity and randomness of events on planet earth. You have a 50% change of reducing the overall suffering that will happen here on this planet.
>>71680462
Sure, just read through this exchange. Try not to cringe at Harris blabbering on like a fucking moron about the same dumb point that Chomsky eviscerates right off the bat.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/sam-harris-made-himself-look-idiot-email-exchange-chomsky-and-has-shared-it-world
As for Dawkins, you'll have to read his work, but yes he is infinitely better than Harris. Dawkins is ground breaking, whether some people here like it or not.
>>71680530
>I'm not here to provide you with research.
I'm asking you for some specific points of comparison given the similarities between the two and your polar opposite judgements.
You're responding as if you've been stung by some deep insult.
You're so out of your depth you can't even formulate a few examples of what you mean? And you call others pseudo-intellectual?
>>71660787
He's another Zionist atheist which is an oxymoron.
No thanks.
>>71680800
Come down Sven.
See
>>71680770
>>71680121
Hitchens is better than both.
>>71680893
>Come down Sven.
>See
Yes I see another post where you make a vague handwave with zero specifics other than your personal opinion, restated for the fourth time.
Do you understand my question?
Do you see why it's strange that you'd have such strong opinions and not be able to reach a concrete example without waffling for several posts?
>>71681033
I'm typing from my phone, and I'm not going to start giving you citations.
The article I linked will have to do.
>>71660787
Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Douglas Murray, Dan Dennet, and Jerry Coyne are some of the greatest intellects of our generation.
Glad they're around.
>>71681140
It's not even a citation, it's just specific examples. Jesus fucking christ.
They share the same platform but for a few outlier topics I doubt you could name. One being the "greatest philosopher" and the other "pseudointellectual" that should give you pause. But it doesn't. Because you have no fucking idea what you're arguing.
>>71660787
He was pretty funny in Meet the Fockers
>>71660787
>be Jewish rationalist
>*twirls moustache* heheh, now I can finally get to work on dismantling Christianity!
>it happens
>oh no Muslims are destroying Western civilization! how could this have happened!
>>71681532
And you do realize they're not carbon copies of each other? As in they do have areas where they diverge?
Have you ever avtually read either of them? Are you sure you know what you're fucking talking about?
And dipshit, I never claimed Dawkins was "the greatest philosopher". I said he is one of the greatest alive right now. Big difference.
>>71680770
Harris in the very first emails:
>Before engaging on this topic, I’d like to encourage you to approach this exchange as though we were planning to publish it
translation: i might do so
Chomesky at the end:
>w-w-why do you want to publish it? i don't understand
>waaah waaah!
typical leftis
what leftis will never understand about harris:
he cares for the result and does not go the airheaded philosphopical hippie BS way of "the way is the goal"/"we must stay to some over idealistic principals no matter what"
>>71680812
So am I sort of, if Pikes WW3 must start, then Israel is where it will start, far away from me.
>>71681813
>As in they do have areas where they diverge?
I just mentioned that in my post.
>Have you ever avtually read either of them? Are you sure you know what you're fucking talking about?
Are you just copypasting my posts now? If you tried reading them instead maybe you'd understand the simple request to specify what makes one man so great and the other so bad, given their immense overlap. It should be a simple fucking task, as you point out yourself.
But you're just chronically fucking evasive to answer a simple question.
The only reasonable explanation is you just can't.
>And dipshit, I never claimed Dawkins was "the greatest philosopher". I said he is one of the greatest alive right now. Big difference.
Not to this question of comparison, no.
>>71682025
*principle
damn you auto correct
>>71680530
>Go read a fucking book.
I love this response. It's a quicker way of saying "I've got nothing, please laugh at me and encourage others to do so."
>>71660787
fake intellectual with fake degree in fake "theoretical" science
they're all alike
Cult leader who shills for Israel.
Bullshit scientific credentials
>>71683453
He doesn't publish papers because they're a ton of effort and nobody reads them.
>>71667807
>unless verbatim it's not the same argument
1. Post short concise phrases demonstrating curcularity of Harris' ethical philosophy
2. /pol/ attacks my adverbs instead of the argument
>>71667826
Structure of Harris' ethical philosophy is suspiciously round. However if you contend well being is entirely separate from the good you're using "moral good" differently than any western philosopher whose ideas have ever made it to the plebs irl
>>71668369
Define suffering as the "good" all you want, in that world I aim to minimize the good and maximize evil. And you morally ought to do the same you contrarian jack wagon.
>>71680121
>Dawkins is one of the greatest philosophers alive right now
Not even remotely, and I'm a huge faggot who has eaten dinner with the guy.
>>71680404
Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene," which is a significant contribution to the philosophy of biology.
Calling him "one of the greatest philosophers alive right now," if accurate, would be an indictment against living philosophers generally.
On the other hand, Sam Harris, with his focus on religion and free will, is a lightweight competing in subfields crowded with heavyweights both living and dead.
