tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post5861244273874431689..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: A science of morality?Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57803359692959530692010-05-17T23:53:31.996+10:002010-05-17T23:53:31.996+10:00I've now written so many long comments that I&...I've now written so many long comments that I'm starting to wonder about the utility of the promised post directly on Harris. But I'll still say something to tie some it together.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-75174306417100600982010-05-17T18:01:34.992+10:002010-05-17T18:01:34.992+10:00When we consider Sam Harris' work I think it i...When we consider Sam Harris' work I think it is instructive to consider what really powered the momentum and urgency of his moral argument: a broken heart in the contmeplation of mass suffering during 9-11 and the forced and confrontational realisation of the destructiveness of religous faith.<br />So, all his arguments follow a path toward the end of faith - and the start of a rational science-based understanding of the world. We New Seculars understand the logic of this approach and the basis for an attempt to make it work: the dismantling of alternative subjective concepts of morality, especially those of the various theisms. <br /><br />If we are to dismantle faith as I believe we should then let us not be surprised at the end that we have no books to tell us what is now to be our collective moral stance. Many now see the signal smoke rising form some future Empathic Civilization, to reference Jeremy Rifkin. And Sam Harris himself refers to a global government. One presumes such governments will have a legislative body subject to the moral will of an electorate.<br /><br />I think in this case is ought to be ought. That is, I think we need a science of morality because the day will come when we will need one. And if that day doesn't come, then heaven help us all.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02451565378939401732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-75084903267554807512010-05-15T11:54:03.924+10:002010-05-15T11:54:03.924+10:00My "hammer" post explains what I mean by...My "hammer" post explains what I mean by "relative" and "subjective" and why there a perfectly innocuous senses of these words. I still need a post that brings all this together and relates it specifically to Sam Harris.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-5675018425173540202010-05-15T02:58:13.917+10:002010-05-15T02:58:13.917+10:00I've recently felt that the argument from naiv...I've recently felt that the argument from naive moral relativism ("Who are you to criticize their culture!") fails most obviously in that the argument can be turned against itself ("Who are you to say I can't criticize!"), and meaningful discussion breaks down. Even if the origin of morality is ultimately subjective, there is no good reason why we can't discuss morals anyway.Friend of Icelosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-39217153925335741862010-05-14T23:31:15.377+10:002010-05-14T23:31:15.377+10:00Well, morality is "relative" in a sense....Well, morality <i>is</i> "relative" in a sense. I don't see what else it could be. It's also "subjective" in a sense. Indeed, all our evaluations are relative and subjective in a sense. But it's not the sense that's thrown around in vulgar moral relativism of the type that Harris seems most worried about, or in the sorts of vulgar subjectivism that one sometimes hears about (I don't know whether anyone really subscribes to such a theory). None of this entails that morality is just arbitrary, though there may certainly be arbitrary elements in particular <i>moralities</i> (plural).<br /><br />I think we can only avoid the dangers (presumably the ones that Harris has in mind) by explaining the subtlties as best we can, including the somewhat limited and innocuous senses in which morality can be described correctly as "relative" and "subjective" or as having those elements. They are senses that shouldn't really bother Harris (he more or less acknowledges them!) or upset anyone who thinks them through carefully.<br /><br />There are a couple of implications that may be startling, but I think we can live with them.<br /><br />Anyway, I'll have to explicate all the above cryptic remarks in the longer post that I promised.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-84810619731089997142010-05-14T22:07:28.866+10:002010-05-14T22:07:28.866+10:00No, I do not think we are made for morality at all...No, I do not think we are made for morality at all, but I think the "..and they can be changed to suit our purposes" phrase is dangerous and hints at arbitrary moral relativism and could be used by some as "anything goes".NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-76033134919470113622010-05-14T21:16:07.594+10:002010-05-14T21:16:07.594+10:00George (at Sentient Developments) is taking a brea...George (at Sentient Developments) is taking a break, not sure why.<br /><br />If you think that we are made for moralities, not moralities for us, I look forward to watching you conform to them all, NEB. ;)<br /><br />Anyway, more later. I'm mainly here to clean up troll spore.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-37095668862331188132010-05-14T20:27:53.603+10:002010-05-14T20:27:53.603+10:00"I also think that the approach Harris takes ..."I also think that the approach Harris takes leads him to miss an important conclusion: moralities are made for us, not us for them, and they can be changed to suit our purposes."<br /><br />This seems to me to be moral relativism. I will await your further words.<br /><br />I briefly looked at the <i>Sentient Developments</i> web site and there are very few comments on the posts there. It seems the audience here is larger.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-69141785817368533012010-05-14T17:40:58.260+10:002010-05-14T17:40:58.260+10:00But more later.But more later.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-74436015637310537112010-05-14T17:40:43.255+10:002010-05-14T17:40:43.255+10:00I think we can reach those three points that I men...I think we can reach those three points that I mention without going by any implausible moral realism, let alone full-blooded moral objectivism. But that's not to say Harris would accept this. Then again, some of his argument is very vague.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-78902627837804494222010-05-14T17:17:33.798+10:002010-05-14T17:17:33.798+10:00It seems to me that Harris's moral realism (be...It seems to me that Harris's moral realism (belief in objective moral truths discoverable by science) is not just a minor part of his position, but the central issue. So I don't think you can disagree with him on that and still agree with his "main" conclusions.<br /><br />But perhaps, when his book comes out, his position will turn out to be more subtle than his online articles suggest.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.com