Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[TraneWreck]

Well this can be shown with out genetics, because you can't get people from different cultures to agree on what races there are

Sure, but the genetics provide a global rejection of all such arguments. Certainly that's important.

But so what? Why does there have to a meaningful difference between my group and some other group to get people to fight for the dominance of the group that they are in? This idea of equality needed to be there first. For example has science proven that say the king is the divinely ordained ruler of all of our nation, who's word has the force of rightness? Could genetic studies show that you can't distinguish between the king and his butler do anything to disprove that?

I don't quite follow. Knowledge about genetics doesn't solve every problem with human interaction, it explicitly rejects one type of argument almost universally advanced through human history that justifies/d a massive amount of horrible behavior.

Anyone arguing for equal treatment of all people has had their position strengthened by genetic discovery.

The thing is that with many positions it depends on how they frame the argument as to if it can be refuted with evidence or is something that must be accepted or rejected and evidence can play no roll in its determination.

Sure, but again, there was and is one form of racist argument based on the inherent inferiority or some other "racial" trait (Jewish greed) that justifies some sort of oppression or violence. This is not a minor argument in human history, and genetic discovery has shown it to be entirely specious.

On a non ethical ground take this question, can science disprove the biblical creation story? Well it depends on what the person believes about it, if they believe that the evidence supports a 6 day creation of the world 6000 years ago, then it can be. But if they believe that some supernatural entity hid all the evidence of creation and replaced it with evidence of a 14 billion year old creation of the universe, then science can not say anything about that belief.

If you're arguing that people will simple alter auxiliary hypothesis to maintain whatever belief was undermined by scientific discovery, I don't disagree at all. But just because something can't solve all problems, that doesn't mean it can't solve some.

Edit: maybe one way to think about how this genetic science has altered ethical debate is to looke back on the 19th/20th centuries. There used to be a class of "intellectual racists." People like Kipling and Carlyle, and even people who tried to advance human rights on some fronts but were incredibly racist, like Woodrow Wilson, made reasoned arguments about the inherent inferiority of some races. That sort of racist no longer exists. Thinking people cannot advance such arguments.

Certainly you're right and there will always be racists, but that sort of thinking, like YE creationism, becomes more and more marginalized over time precisely because the scientific facts are so much more compelling.

 

[Michael Redman]

In the "race" example above, it's answering a scientific question. The scientific question is: "how do "races" differ?" The moral question is "why does this matter morally and what should we do with the information?"

True, and the popular inability to distinguish between the two is why "science" gets blamed for genocide.

 

[Paulhoff]

Bottom line, the Bible etc were written by men, not so-called gods. So where do they really get their morals from, besides debating about them before writing them down to paper or whatever.

Paul

 

[dudalb]

I am betting that it will be variation on the "All Morality Is Rooted In Suvival Instincts" theory.

 

[bokonon]

You are wrong. Units are objective. In general, they are also arbitrary, but arbitrary is not the same this as unobjective. And the difference matters. Whether I measure energy in Joules, calories, BTU's, or megatons, these are all still objective measurements. Our choice of units is irrelevant, any calculation or measurement of energy can be done in any units, and conversion between units is trivial.

Good point. I was wrongly conflating "unobjective" and "arbitrary".

But morality is not objective. It isn't simply a matter of finding "units" for it: units will do no good if we can't even agree on which of two outcomes is morally preferable. No system of measurement will work if we cannot agree on that. And we cannot.

I think we might be able to do so in many instances. If we make "beneficial to life" the good end of the moral scale, and "detrimental to life" the bad end of the scale, it is clearly possible to agree that the outcome of not killing one's daughter because she was raped is morally preferable to the outcome of killing one's daughter because she was raped.

Surely you can't argue that randomly killing people on the street is no better and no worse than feeding the hungry. While it may not always be possible to resolve where two actions lie on a numeric scale, it should be possible to study outcomes objectively and determine which are more helpful than harmful and which are not.

Thank you - you saved me a lot of typing

Now, don't be lazy.

 

[Apathia]

Science is descriptive, not proscriptive.
It can identify a generally healthy diet or healthy behaviors.
It can inform a decision.
But it provides no way to calculate or measure when risky behavior is appropriate to an end of mixed consequences or what pursued value takes the priority.

There is no scientific method for determining when the good of the collective or the good of the individual gets first place.
Some cultures, such as "American" place a higher value on the individual. Some, such as Japanese, place more value on the dynamics of the group.
There's no science that says either is more healthy or moral.
Our socio-cultural contexts have the major role in morality.
("Mores," you know.)

What's more, compassion and empathy are not a method of making the other an object of a moral calculation.

But many people in our age of anxiety who crave some way to be always right and free of blame would love to believe that a holy book or a scientific authority could have a ready answer, or at least that there are absolute answers.

Having lost the holy book and other means of moral divination, I suppose some people would now want science and technology to become their moral authority and shepard.

"I'm glad I'm not a gamma!"

 

[dudalb]

Let's face it, Sam Harris has been talking a lot of Piss recently.

 

[Paulhoff]

Science is descriptive, not proscriptive.

Science is people.

Paul

 

[TraneWreck]

Science is descriptive, not proscriptive.
It can identify a generally healthy diet or healthy behaviors.
It can inform a decision.

Isn't that enough to answer the OP's question in the affirmative?

For instance, "are there inherently inferior races?"

Science: "No."

That doesn't give us a positive answer about how to move forward, but it certainly rejects a category of behavior. It does actually proscribe action by rejecting the factual justifications that guided it.

The Scientific Method has definitively told us that any activity based on the assumption that some races are inferior to others has no basis in reality.

One way to answer a moral question is define appropriate behavior. The other is to describe inappropriate behavior. Science is very good at the latter.

 

[Apathia]

Science is people.

Paul

"Better a gramme than a damn!"

 

[Dragoonster]

Isn't that enough to answer the OP's question in the affirmative?

For instance, "are there inherently inferior races?"

Science: "No."

That doesn't give us a positive answer about how to move forward, but it certainly rejects a category of behavior. It does actually proscribe action by rejecting the factual justifications that guided it.

The Scientific Method has definitively told us that any activity based on the assumption that some races are inferior to others has no basis in reality.

One way to answer a moral question is define appropriate behavior. The other is to describe inappropriate behavior. Science is very good at the latter.

Is a 100 IQ inferior to a 120 IQ? Is a 100-degree body temperature inferior to a 120-degree body temperature? Are molecules with 100 atoms inferior to molecules with 120 atoms?

Scientists can conclude that some values work better to achieve certain results in certain conditions, but it needs such context, and can't conclude that the results achieved are desirable without an additional context. A 120-degree body temp is "inferior" to a 100-degree body temp only if someone has decided that it's more desirable to be alive than dead. A lower IQ is inferior to a higher only if one has decided that it's more desirable to be smarter.

"If the average inherent black IQ is less than the white does this mean blacks are inherently inferior to whites?" or "if the inherent IQ of blacks is at least 10 points less than that of whites, can we treat them differently?" are moral questions, which science is incapable of answering. The moral answers would be "yes" or "no" to those, and it doesn't matter what the science will show. Testing the actual IQs is going to return a numerical value, not a yes or a no.

 

[Apathia]

Isn't that enough to answer the OP's question in the affirmative?

Yup! (If that's all Sam Harris means to say.)
Science is informative.

Allow me to unpack Pauloff's quip, "Science is people" a bit.

Soylent Green has been determined by extensive testing to be an excellent nutritional source for Human Beings with no contraindications.
It's after all a recycled, processed protein product.
The science indicates its good for you.

However ...

The moral issue is in the however.
The science provides valid information, but doesn't address the issue in full of whether we really ought to be consuming that product.
The science sees nothing reprehensible about it, but that doesn't answer it.

I became a vegetarian in my teens. Part of the reason involved a desire to avoid contributing to animal suffering.
I attempted to go whole no-hog by becoming a vegan, but that wasn't giving me the protein my body needed. So I compromised with dairy products.

At age fifty I got into a relationship in which I was sexually active. It felt to me at that time that my vegetarian diet wasn't up to it, and that I needed some "preprocessed protein." So I began eating fish or poultry once a week.

Recently I decided to return to my vegetarian diet (I'm done with sex!)

Science tells me I'm an omnivore. Meat is good for me. My kind has chowed down flesh from before my species evolved.
But that's not the final word.
The final word on what I should do is a quite subjective matter for me.
At most science just says I have the option.
But I'm not a vege because I have the option.
It's because I don't feel right taking those lives.

I know a guy who is vegan.
It's obviously not good for him. (He's terribly thin and looks like death warmed over.)
And he admits that. He says he knows his veganism isn't good for his body, but he asserts he does it for his spirit (He's a strict Buddhist.)
It seems dubious to me that abuse of one's body could be good for the spirit. But I understand his moral convolutions, and that he must come to a decision that science can't make for him.
(BTW He did not raise his son as a vegan.)

Science can inform us what is healthy and what isn't, but more soul searching is involved in determining what is right for us.

It's not a moral authority.

 

[Paulhoff]

A very very cheap shot, YOU GAVE UP SEX, explains a lot.

Paul



I'll crawl back under that rock.

 

[Apathia]

A very very cheap shot, YOU GAVE UP SEX, explains a lot.

Paul



I'll crawl back under that rock.

A friend tells me I should practice "vegan sex."
(that's sex without orgasms.)

I suppose "science" tells me I ought to be fulfilling the biological imperitive by helping to crank out more members of my species so that we can dominate the galaxy.
But I'm scientifically and Catholicly immoral.

 

[TraneWreck]

"If the average inherent black IQ is less than the white does this mean blacks are inherently inferior to whites?" or "if the inherent IQ of blacks is at least 10 points less than that of whites, can we treat them differently?" are moral questions, which science is incapable of answering. The moral answers would be "yes" or "no" to those, and it doesn't matter what the science will show. Testing the actual IQs is going to return a numerical value, not a yes or a no.

There are a ton of assumptions in that. Genetic research has quite conclusively shown that traits related to intelligence have nothing to do with so-called "racial" traits. You're picking a test with dubious scientific value and applying to a population with far more variables at play than just genetics and trying to conclude something about science from that.

The point I'm making is much more simple: in human DNA there is no basis to conclude that racial characteristics have anything to do with superiority/inferiority.

You're making a claim about society. The two are very different.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yup! (If that's all Sam Harris means to say.)
Science is informative.

[...]

Science can inform us what is healthy and what isn't, but more soul searching is involved in determining what is right for us.

It's not a moral authority.

Sure, I don't think we're really disagreeing. My point is simply that science can clearly reject certain moral claims. This might not tell what IS moral, but it certainly tells us what ISN'T.

When a positive moral assertion is made, rejecting the facts on which its based is sufficient to undermine the claim.

 

[Apathia]

Sure, I don't think we're really disagreeing. My point is simply that science can clearly reject certain moral claims. This might not tell what IS moral, but it certainly tells us what ISN'T.

When a positive moral assertion is made, rejecting the facts on which its based is sufficient to undermine the claim.

Yes, for example the so called "female cicumcision" practiced in some Middle Eastern and African countries (and falsely attributed to Islam).
The science is that it is unhealthy and dangerous.
The facts then inform a moral judgement that is cruel and reprehensible.

 

[AlBell]

One of the most important moral questions in human history was pretty conclusively answered by genetics: are there meaningful differences between races?

Hell, they basically showed "race" isn't even a discernable concept genetically speaking.

I suppose you could argue that the old naturalistic fallacy prevails, and just because we have that knowledge, we can't draw any conclusions about how to behave towards other humans. But I think it's pretty clear that rejecting the basis of various race-based arguments is sufficient to undermine those claims and the resulting behavior.

Have you alerted the medical community they are wrong as they assign differing probabilities of illness based on race?

 

[cienaños]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=


This is Sam Harris at TED. Can science answer moral questions? Does Sam Harris even answer that question in this talk?

What do you think?

Well, I actually watched the thing. I'm not sure what's going on in this thread, but it seems like the content of the video is not being addressed.

At the top, he posits that the separation between science and human values is an illusion. He goes on to link facts with values. One observable fact he uses is a comparison (pictures) of a weeping mother in extreme poverty vs. a joyful mother who is not in extreme poverty.

Sci•ence: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\ noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

Scientific Method: noun. circa 1810
Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Science is not ignorant to the fact that malnutrition leads to accelerated physical decay. The mind, being the "command center" clearly suffers as well. The scientific method applied to this could be something like, for one year, let's have 50 people live in abject poverty, and 50 people live in stability, well nourished. The focus of this particular study is malnutrition and how it affects human well-being. The conclusion of course is obvious.

Now, I think he does address, somewhat shakily I'll admit, the gradations that exist between two such extremes. He also fully admits that he does not believe science will someday answer all moral questions. From this I gather that he is not claiming science be the only tool in bettering human well-being. It feels like he's more trying to build a bridge, or to say hey, let's build a tool kit, and science, can be one of the key tools.

The game of chess analogy he uses, functions as a response to the "objectivity" question. And the relativity question. He uses the 'sacrificing the queen for the win move' as an almost perfect example. ie. my family will sacrifice their queen (my life), for the win (pull the plug) to end my suffering (were I in a coma with zero chance of recovery), -- given that I'd clearly expressed that to be my final request of course.

Just because gradations exist, that shouldn't tempt us to say "it's all or nothing." Science/Scientific Method is but one tool. A powerful one, yes. But, if we have it, why not modify our human attachment to it so that we can decrease human suffering?

There's a great quote that I think applies to this, this stubborn trait that I see in science circles as well as religious circles: "It's okay to have beliefs, just don't believe in them."

Peace Love

 

[TraneWreck]

Have you alerted the medical community they are wrong as they assign differing probabilities of illness based on race?

Growing up in Kansas I've had the great fortune to meet several honest to goodness racists. I've never heard someone say, "Segregation was a good system because African Americans (probably not the phrase they would use) have higher rates of sickle-cell anemia."