ambush80
Senior Member
Sam Harris' latest podcast was awesome. One of the best things about it was the commentary on it in Harris' forum. A poster wrote:
"It’s an aggravating exchange when Shapiro persists in trying to bolster his theistic world view that morality can only be acquired through religion. Harris, who himself holds onto a contorted claim for absolute morality, tries to argue on the same shaky ground that “morality” is a thing. Morality is a convenient word for a class of judgments.
The argument here is backwards. Why presume that this thing “morality” exists from the outset? The idea of morality arises out of the fact that human actions must follow only one actual course out of a multitude of potential paths. When making a choice to do one thing versus another, one judges the course that will lead to the desired outcome. Depending on whether one chooses the path leading to benefit or to suffering, that choice is later labeled with the words “moral” or “not moral”. Over time, humans become more confident in predicting which choices will be more beneficial than harmful, and they are able to judge an action as moral based on such projections- before observing the actual outcome. The ability to make this judgment is a useful social tool, and we call this tool “morality”. But that is what morality is, a tool. Imperfect, but convenient. It is not some cosmic force of nature."
What do you think of this guys analysis? I see it as Utilitarian.
This response from the forum is also good:
"Yeah, Ben actually did a great job going back and forth. It seemed like Sam was dodging some of his points and looked quite silly trying to argue that his morality doesn’t come from growing up where he did as one example. It would be nice to get Ben in on the podcast as it may have been just the format that made things go the way they did. I also really liked Eric’s epigenetics analogy with religious text. Seemed to be a powerful way of arguing for that side of the spectrum."
This one, too:
"Brick Bungalow’s point about Shapiro’s mindset is dead on.
01:02:40
Shapiro: “why do you think that the firing of certain neurons is more morally appropriate than the firing of other neurons?”
And this is right after Eric’s comment about needing to avoid the category error of applying “morality” to lower level events.
“Morality” is like the metric system. It’s a tool for measuring and comparing human actions by their relative impacts.
It’s a man-made code and an aid in social harmony. But to ask how determinism vs. free will can best accommodate (the need for ) morality is nonsensical.
It’s like asking how one can best accommodate the existence of the metric system."
"It’s an aggravating exchange when Shapiro persists in trying to bolster his theistic world view that morality can only be acquired through religion. Harris, who himself holds onto a contorted claim for absolute morality, tries to argue on the same shaky ground that “morality” is a thing. Morality is a convenient word for a class of judgments.
The argument here is backwards. Why presume that this thing “morality” exists from the outset? The idea of morality arises out of the fact that human actions must follow only one actual course out of a multitude of potential paths. When making a choice to do one thing versus another, one judges the course that will lead to the desired outcome. Depending on whether one chooses the path leading to benefit or to suffering, that choice is later labeled with the words “moral” or “not moral”. Over time, humans become more confident in predicting which choices will be more beneficial than harmful, and they are able to judge an action as moral based on such projections- before observing the actual outcome. The ability to make this judgment is a useful social tool, and we call this tool “morality”. But that is what morality is, a tool. Imperfect, but convenient. It is not some cosmic force of nature."
What do you think of this guys analysis? I see it as Utilitarian.
This response from the forum is also good:
"Yeah, Ben actually did a great job going back and forth. It seemed like Sam was dodging some of his points and looked quite silly trying to argue that his morality doesn’t come from growing up where he did as one example. It would be nice to get Ben in on the podcast as it may have been just the format that made things go the way they did. I also really liked Eric’s epigenetics analogy with religious text. Seemed to be a powerful way of arguing for that side of the spectrum."
This one, too:
"Brick Bungalow’s point about Shapiro’s mindset is dead on.
01:02:40
Shapiro: “why do you think that the firing of certain neurons is more morally appropriate than the firing of other neurons?”
And this is right after Eric’s comment about needing to avoid the category error of applying “morality” to lower level events.
“Morality” is like the metric system. It’s a tool for measuring and comparing human actions by their relative impacts.
It’s a man-made code and an aid in social harmony. But to ask how determinism vs. free will can best accommodate (the need for ) morality is nonsensical.
It’s like asking how one can best accommodate the existence of the metric system."