tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post6404680445229423913..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Uthman Badar on religion (4): Moral objectivityRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-19870291307278516422011-01-09T03:22:54.145+11:002011-01-09T03:22:54.145+11:00Harris is using conscious well being like an econo...Harris is using conscious well being like an economist uses money.<br /><br />What I believe Harris is doing is blazing a trail (in the public consciousness at least) that will allow various discussions and general rules to form and be tested.<br /><br />However, just as in economics, knowing the expected outcomes of policies or actions on conscious well being (or money) only involves an ought when there is a Pareto improvement (which there virtually never is). This implies you <i>can</i> get an ought from an is, which many people will disagree with but, like Harris, I have to ask what the point of morality (or economics) is if not to aid our goals of creating more conscious well being (money).March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-26774886354426754252011-01-08T03:49:28.926+11:002011-01-08T03:49:28.926+11:00So, with all due respect (in all seriousness), wha...So, with all due respect (in all seriousness), what was the ultimate point of the 4 part series? You'll have to pardon my 16 year old mind, I've read Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and the likes of them, but I had a difficult time following your dissertations here. I apologize.Dimitrihttp://deafeningsilence-dimitri.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73820090553988912492011-01-08T00:14:50.606+11:002011-01-08T00:14:50.606+11:00I would argue that, given an error theorist accoun...I would argue that, given an error theorist account of moral language, objective moral truth is a logical impossibility, like a square circle. Even an omnipotent being can't make a circle square or make true an objective moral claim.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-1450364245372559672011-01-07T21:50:34.368+11:002011-01-07T21:50:34.368+11:00TGM, I'll be very interested in your response ...TGM, I'll be very interested in your response to the Harris book when you can get to it.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-25354447731963142592011-01-07T20:54:42.777+11:002011-01-07T20:54:42.777+11:00As expected a brilliant response Russell. It's...As expected a brilliant response Russell. It's always a pleasure reading someone engaging in a clear discussion of philosophical issues. The Moral Objectivity post is a personal highlight. <br /><br />Just to develop on one of your comments a bit you say:<br /><br /><i> Of course, there can be interesting questions as to whether the folk really crave objectivity in such a strong sense. Perhaps some weaker idea of objectivity will satisfy them. And perhaps, when pressed, they are confused about what they want. Even if weaker ideas of objectivity are not enough to be completely satisfying, psychologically, they may be perfectly adequate for building and assessing moral systems. As I said earlier, there are plenty of objectively true statements that at least seem relevant. But of course, secular thinkers have just as much access to weaker forms of objectivity as the religious do.<br /></i><br /><br />I haven't had a chance to read The Moral Landscape yet as it's not out in the UK till February I think and I'm pacing my reading a little bit so I don't know if this is accurate, but I felt this was roughly Sam Harris' strongest point in his arguments with Sean Carrol. He seemed to be suggesting that we can have moral objectivity in a weaker sense. I have to be careful about what how I say this, but it's probably a combination of Science has developed many ways to make weaker forms of objectivity very robust and that because of that moral reasoning doesn't need to be seen as any weaker than science more generally, maybe somewhere on a scale of robustness? <br /><br />Joseph: <br />The issue is an important one. Whether you look at morals as a special area of language or whether you look at language more generally, there is a very strong intuition more generally that words commit you in a very strong way to the world being a particular way. Obviously there are various wrinkles with some kinds of things we say not being meaningfully truth evaluable like "go fish" or "go team", but then again there are other statements like "it's going to rain" that nakedly commit me to the world being a certain way. I think at the very least this intuition needs to be respected and acknowledged but it certainly means that moral realism is going to be a tricky thing to get rid of.That Guy Montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387637105335886493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-27557390247905851532011-01-07T14:19:28.126+11:002011-01-07T14:19:28.126+11:00"Notoriously, Harris thinks that morality is ..."Notoriously, Harris thinks that morality is objective. A bit less notoriously, I don't think morality is objective and I think he misunderstands what is actually at stake here. But then again, I find that many people want to side with Harris ..."<br /><br />I am currently reading The Moral Landscape for the first time. After seeing his equaly notorious TED talk, I have been very very keen to dig in. And I think you've hit the nail on the head saying that people want to side with Harris.<br /><br />I want to side with Harris, on a number of levels. There's a lot to like, but I am held back by a certain caution. I recall saying to a friend of mine when I watched the TED talk, this is interesting, and I'm finding myself trying to work out why I am all-but-onside with it. He raised a lot of objections which you have articulated previously. Still, I think I'll be re-re-re-reading it a few times also. <br /><br />David MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-75102663880011257892011-01-07T14:18:01.845+11:002011-01-07T14:18:01.845+11:00But yes, theism generally seems easier to shake of...But yes, theism generally seems easier to shake off than moral realism.<br /><br />Bear in mind, though, that there are all sorts of "moral realist" positions.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-83989812613404465972011-01-07T14:16:27.302+11:002011-01-07T14:16:27.302+11:00And I bet you're wrong.And I bet you're wrong.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54745729235422035672011-01-07T12:05:50.688+11:002011-01-07T12:05:50.688+11:00I'm going to bet that my last comment, which h...I'm going to bet that my last comment, which had a link, got stuck in the spam filter.josef johannhttp://josefjohann.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-84155791822135506282011-01-07T12:05:16.490+11:002011-01-07T12:05:16.490+11:00As I'm currently re-re-reading The Moral Lands...<i>As I'm currently re-re-reading The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris, I'm painfully conscious of this. Notoriously, Harris thinks that morality is objective. A bit less notoriously, I don't think morality is objective and I think he misunderstands what is actually at stake here</i><br /><br />And then there are <a href="http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl" rel="nofollow">the 72.8% of analytic philosophers</a> who count themselves as atheists, a pool of people that also goes for moral realism by 56.3%. <br /><br />And however many more they represent.josef johannhttp://josefjohann.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com