Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape"

[spoonless]

via crasch,

In this highly anticipated new book, the bestselling author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation calls for an end to religion’s monopoly on morality and human values.

"In this explosive new book, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken about the relationship between morality and the rest of human knowledge. Harris urges us to think about morality in terms of human and animal well-being, viewing the experiences of conscious creatures as peaks and valleys on a “moral landscape.” Because there are definite facts to be known about where we fall on this landscape, Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of “morality”; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible." - The Free Press

"I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me." - Richard Dawkins

Very interesting! This caught my eye because of my recent debate with easwaran over whether science might ever be able to bridge the "is-ought" gap and give moral prescriptions:

http://spoonless.livejournal.com/180836.html?thread=1532772#t1532772

As I argue in the thread with easwaran, I do not think science will ever be able to say anything about fundamental values, and I do not believe there are objectively right or wrong answers to questions like "how many kittens lives is one human life worth?" I've never believed that moral "truths" are the same kinds of truths that we talk about when we talk about facts about the world--rather, I think they are facts about our personal desires and whims, which are inherently subjective. But I have great respect for Richard Dawkins, and if he says this book (which just came out a month ago) has completely changed his mind on such an important issue, then I will surely give it a chance--perhaps it can change my mind too. Somehow I doubt it, but nevertheless I look forward to reading it! While I've never agreed with the idea of objective morality, I have always found the possibility positively tantalizing and have often thought "I'd like nothing more than for that to be true--I wish it was, but I know it couldn't possibly be."

Comments

[geheimnisnacht.livejournal.com]

What makes you pretty certain that science alone cannot answer moral questions?

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

essius just linked me to great piece written by Sean Carroll on the subject. His views on ethics are pretty much identical to mine, from what I can tell:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/05/03/you-cant-derive-ought-from-is/

I think they also represent the views of most mainstream scientists on the subject.

Of course, after my debates with easwaran, and after watching Sam Harris's TED talk (that Sean links to) I am a little more open to the idea that philosophers may one day work out some kind of sensible objective morality. I don't think it will ever be completely objective, but perhaps there is a way that some of morality could be seen as objective. But if someone comes up with a way to do this, I expect it will take years of detailed complex philosophical arguments, to come up with a consistent way to do it... I don't think it's anything you could just run into the lab and do. I mean, let's say an experimentalist measures some type of brainwave activity, and then publishes a paper claiming that it proves some kind of activity is morally wrong. Why should anyone believe him? We would at least need some philosophers to publish joint papers arguing why what he measured should be connected to morality.

Another example of a similar thing would be interpreting quantum mechanics. I don't think it's an issue that science can settle by itself, you need philosophers to weigh in on it because there are so many things that depend on basic assumptions that need to be sorted out. Of course, in the case of quantum mechanics, I think we are way closer to having an answer than in the case of morality.

[geheimnisnacht.livejournal.com]

Interpreting quantum mechanics: what do you see as the role for the philosopher there? What would they be interpreting?

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

Ummm... they would be interpreting quantum mechanics? I'm not sure what you're asking here. Wikipedia has a good article on what the issues involved are in interpreting quantum mechanics and why it's one of the largest subfields of Philosophy of Physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

The physicists all agree on the math (well, aside from a few nuts), so their work was done a long time ago. But there are still all kinds of unanswered questions about what the best way is to translate the math into English. For example, should we speak about the other branches of the wavefunction as possibilities or actualities? Should you think of the other copies of yourself as "you" or other people? Should you be a realist or an anti-realist about particles, fields, strings, the wavefunction, worlds, etc. (you can answer yes or no to any of those independently). It's a very active an ongoing philosophical debate.

When someone asks me a question like "is quantum mechanics deterministic?" the only answer I can give is that it depends on your interpretation and a whole lot of philosophical assumptions. You can make arguments for or against using the word in different ways, because the word "deterministic" means different things to different people. Only professional philosophers have the time and the perspective to sort through all that and figure out what the best way (or ways) to say it is.

[geheimnisnacht.livejournal.com]

So, as you say, it seems to be a matter of translating the math to English. If, during this translation, you are adding 'explanatory power', by actually tying the equations into some larger framework, I guess I would call that physics still. If it is simply translating a given example/equation set into something more easily understood with common language, which doesn't have any implications elsewhere, is that really philosophy?

This is all food for thought though, I'll need to consider what you've said, but I am at least seeing some things differently now.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

The lines between physics and philosophy are not always clear. Nobody knows for sure to what degree spending more time on cleaning up the interpretation of quantum mechanics will possibly lead to new insights that could spur new physical discoveries, or if it is just something interesting to think about.

Most of the work on interpretation of quantum mechanics these days is done by philosophers, but there are a few physicists who also contribute from time to time (like Tom Banks).

I went to two different philosophy lectures on the interpretation of quantum mechanics while I was at UCSC, and they were both very interesting. Although sadly, I think philosophers could benefit from understanding the physics a bit better, some of them have a somewhat loose grasp on it. Tom also published a paper on his view of how to interpret quantum mechanics while I was there--actually, I guess it wasn't published, he just put it on arxiv.org for people to read.

And of course, Bruce and Fred wrote their book on the subject, unfortunately they are both so ignorant of philosophy they end up saying a lot of silly things about consciousness and free will. I think the best work gets done when physicists and philosophers work together, or when people cross over from one field to the other.

There's a picture I have of Tom standing next to David Albert, one of the foremost philosophers of physics who specializes on interpretations of quantum mechanics. They were at a conference dedicated to understanding the Arrow of Time, something else Tom also wrote a paper on, and that lots of philosophers like to think about too.

[geheimnisnacht.livejournal.com]

Sounds good to me.

I should thus mention that when I referred to philosophy as "a human approximation to the truth", I was directing this at the parts of philosophy that deal with figuring out "rules to live by" or "morals" and etc. The type of philosophy above would be separate and necessary, as it is more of a translation interface between the sciences and humans.