Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape"
Nov. 11th, 2010 08:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
spoonlessvia ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 witheaswaran 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 witheaswaran, 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."
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."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-12-07 12:01 am (UTC)The thing you gave me was not what I would refer to as a fundamental ought! What you stated is what I would call a desire, motivation, intrinsic drive of the AI. I mean, it could technically fill the role of a fundamental ought, but it would be trivially stupid.
Your statement that "kill all humans" is a trivially stupid fundamental ought, while "create a thriving global community is a great one is very obviously motivated by an emotional response, not be reason or science.
What you mean to say is not that it's stupid, but that it is morally wrong, ie that you feel anger and outrage over it, rather than warm fuzzy feelings like you feel about "create a thriving global community". I have similar feelings about both of those statements, but it seems like I'm more aware that my emotions are what is making me feel that way. You've somehow convinced yourself through circular reasoning that you don't need any foundation for a fundamental ought and that it's somehow self-derived.