Sam Harris: "...a public challege..." (1000 words or less)

[Justin]

Hi All,

I happen to be a member of the Sam Harris forums and I recently received an email about a contest that Sam Harris is having in February regarding moral philosophy. He's asking fellow thinkers to send in a rebuttal to his Moral Landscape book/theory (however you want to perceive it). I've always been a fan of Sam Harris but I've never been satisfied with his well-being vs. suffering postulation as all my conscious brain can do is poke hole after hole in his arguments that ultimately come down to utilitarianism (in my opinion).

 

So he's got this contest, here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge1 The prize is $2,000 dollars to be published and $10,000 if you're actually able to change his mind. Frankly, I want Stef to take it to the hole here, but that doesn't mean that any one of us couldn't put forth the best arguments (1000 words or less) based on what's (starting to become) natural to us. This is fun, it's incentivized, and it's an opportunity to get Sam Harris thinking more about UPB.

 

If you're interested, I'm glad I was able to show it to you. I hope everyone is doing great. Thanks and keep supporting FDR and each other.

 

Justin

[TheRobin]

well, as far as I see it, you'd first have to buy and read his whole book basically, to get to his argument, before going on to refute it, so idk. I think if he wants to have a 1000 word rebuttal, then he should first provide a 1000 word public argument that is to be rebutted, else it's kind of cheesy imo.

I mean he says the basic argument is this one:"Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, fully constrained by the laws of Nature (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science. On this view, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life. "

But all that basically says is that some people (objectively and measurably) find pleasure in things and dislike other things. Unless he wants to claim that all humand minds are similar in that regard (something which is clearly not the case) he'd say that "morality" is basically "whatever people like or dislike", which isn't quite the same thing (or if he'd claim that it is, then that would rather be a case for saying that "morality" is a useless concept to begin with).


From an (amaeteur) praxeological point of view "value" is also not something that can be objectively measured except as seeing through the action of people, that they value A higher than B at point C. So you can makea  temporary scale of things that are valued more or less than other things, but that's it. No possible comparison could be made for comparing the scales of two different people (unless they meeet and exchange things). So it's not a constant even for one person, let alone the whole human population. So again, unless he wants to claim that moral is whatever people like in the moment, then it's quite obvious how that doesn't hold.

BUT I'm assuming his argument is probably a bit more, erm, sophisitcaed, BUT again, we'd probably need to read the book first, which I'm not sure is kind of a fair way of having a contest on his part.

 

tl;dr: Unless he makes a  public statement somewhere where he actually defines "moral" and shows how his theory holds logically and empirically, I don't see the point of bothering. Unless he's kind of a really famous guy whom a lot of people listen to, but I genuinly don't know that.

[Waster]

Harris has a bigger audience then Stef, so...

 

But all the good arguments are already made. In his FAQ he linked towards some of the criticisms and they are all valid. I had more problems with Harris own rebuttals. One of the counters of Blackford:

 

 

 

If we presuppose the well-being of conscious creatures as a fundamental value, much else may fall into place, but that initial presupposition does not come from science. It is not an empirical finding… Harris is highly critical of the claim, associated with Hume, that we cannot derive an “ought” solely from an “is” - without starting with people’s actual values and desires. He is, however, no more successful in deriving “ought” from “is” than anyone else has ever been. The whole intellectual system of The Moral Landscape depends on an “ought” being built into its foundations.

 

And this was Harris rebuttal:

 

 

Again, the same can be said about medicine, or science as a whole. As I point out in my book, science is based on values that must be presupposed—like the desire to understand the universe, a respect for evidence and logical coherence, etc. One who doesn’t share these values cannot do science. But nor can he attack the presuppositions of science in a way that anyone should find compelling. Scientists need not apologize for presupposing the value of evidence, nor does this presupposition render science unscientific. In my book, I argue that the value of well-being—specifically the value of avoiding the worst possible misery for everyone—is on the same footing. There is no problem in presupposing that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad and worth avoiding and that normative morality consists, at an absolute minimum, in acting so as to avoid it. To say that the worst possible misery for everyone is “bad” is, on my account, like saying that an argument that contradicts itself is “illogical.” Our spade is turned. Anyone who says it isn’t simply isn’t making sense. The fatal flaw that Blackford claims to have found in my view of morality could just as well be located in science as a whole—or reason generally. Our “oughts” are built right into the foundations. We need not apologize for pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps in this way. It is far better than pulling ourselves down by them.

 

 

The mistake Harris is making is that by simply living in the universe we already accept certain principles. We can argue against them, but then we would be false. The scientific method is only a way to find out more about the scientific laws of the universe. There is no one that should accept any value. If you have no desire to understand the universe, you can still discover something if you follow the rules of the scientific method. I see the scientific method as a recipe to truth. If for some reason i dont believe scientists, i theoretically could follow the recipe myself and verify that some claim is true. Therefore it is objective. There are no values or oughts build into the scientific method. And principles like logic is a fact of the universe. 

 

However morality is a man-made thought system. Morality does not follow from the principles of the universe. That is the is-ought problem. All moral systems presupposes a kind of good and bad to legitimate their own system. And Harris is doing the same thing by begging the question and defining the good and bad by already assuming a kind of good and bad to begin with.

[Justin]

 Unless he's kind of a really famous guy whom a lot of people listen to, but I genuinely don't know that.

 

He is kind of a really famous guy--you actually put it just about how I would put it. He's one of the "4 Horsemen of Atheism" (do a Google search for that phrase), along with Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. When he is using reason to combat religiosity, he's an extremely articulate, thoughtful, and convincing public speaker. If this was just some random guy offering up money, I wouldn't bother posting. The money is part of the incentive, but the other is that you'd be conversing with someone on the level with the most prominent atheists in the world at the moment (barring Christopher Hitchens).

 

It'd be great to just plop UPB into the submission box, but I think it would be a good challenge to distill UPB into 1000 words as a rebuttal to Sam Harris specifically, as there are very good reasons you'd want UPB to be either accepted or criticized, especially by someone you'd want spreading its reason.

 

If you haven't ever heard of Sam Harris, I'd suggest listening to any of his talks (barring those on morality at first!!!) on YouTube to see what he's all about.

[Kevin Beal]

If you haven't ever heard of Sam Harris, I'd suggest listening to any of his talks (barring those on morality at first!!!) on YouTube to see what he's all about.

 

Yea. I love listening to him debate religious folk.

 

He does have some things backwards though. A couple years ago he was arguing to everyone at an atheist conference that they should be buddhists and that determinism is true. That's just what I heard, I could be wrong. But it would pretty a pretty fatal flaw in any theory of morality since he says there is no choice possible.

 

He also seems to believe in some sort of reincarnation.

 

Supposedly he's a brilliant neurologist, idk, but those are some pretty big red flags as far as I'm concerned.

 

/ad hom

[Justin]

Harris has a bigger audience then Stef, so...

 

But all the good arguments are already made. In his FAQ he linked towards some of the criticisms and they are all valid. I had more problems with Harris own rebuttals. One of the counters of Blackford:

 

 

 

 

And this was Harris rebuttal:

 

 

 

The mistake Harris is making is that by simply living in the universe we already accept certain principles. We can argue against them, but then we would be false. The scientific method is only a way to find out more about the scientific laws of the universe. There is no one that should accept any value. If you have no desire to understand the universe, you can still discover something if you follow the rules of the scientific method. I see the scientific method as a recipe to truth. If for some reason i dont believe scientists, i theoretically could follow the recipe myself and verify that some claim is true. Therefore it is objective. There are no values or oughts build into the scientific method. And principles like logic is a fact of the universe. 

 

However morality is a man-made thought system. Morality does not follow from the principles of the universe. That is the is-ought problem. All moral systems presupposes a kind of good and bad to legitimate their own system. And Harris is doing the same thing by begging the question and defining the good and bad by already assuming a kind of good and bad to begin with.

 

You're preaching to the choir with me (to use a filthy, dirty phrase).

 

The main problem I see it the one Robin brought up. It sounds like we'd have to read the book. Ha! 

 

Yea. I love listening to him debate religious folk.

 

He does have some things backwards though. A couple years ago he was arguing to everyone at an atheist conference that they should be buddhists and that determinism is true. That's just what I heard, I could be wrong. But it would pretty a pretty fatal flaw in any theory of morality since he says there is no choice possible.

 

He also seems to believe in some sort of reincarnation.

 

Supposedly he's a brilliant neurologist, idk, but those are some pretty big red flags as far as I'm concerned.

 

/ad hom

 

His Buddhism speak, as far as I've listened to and understood him, is on a purely scientifically-curious and personal-well-being-motivated level, So, meditation has these effects on our consciousness and we're not sure what that's all about, but it seems to be much more beneficial than anything as well as something worth researching, perhaps. Sam states that just because the previous may be true is no reason to suggest that any of the superstitious aspects of Buddhism are to be accepted. To him, if I were to speak for him, Buddhism can be analogized as a martial art or merely a workout routine, except there are very curious psychological benefits and experiences that have yet to be fully understood that relate to the mystery of consciousness.

 

I don't know enough about his stance on determinism to say anything at all. He does state he's not a Buddhist. His position on paranormal claims aren't rock solid, but he doesn't accept any of them and thinks some are interesting and may be worth studying if you're into that kind of thing (paraphrased from link below):

 

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

 

I actually don't want to defend Harris just so people would take up the contest. My ultimate goal is to have the reason of UPB hit the world stage, coming from more than just FreedomainRadio, one being from a prominent speaker such as Sam Harris. Even if he only begins to accept the premises of UPB, slightly altering his opinion on his own stance on morality, I think that would be a boon to the rationality at large. Let me know if you think I'm pushing this too hard or if it seems dumb or futile. I thought it might be a good personal challenge and I can't help but say I'd be eager to see Stef and Sam speak at a debate on morality. That would just about be the coolest thing in the world and I'd buy plane tickets.

[PatrickC]

I think it's definitely worth a try, for those that have the time. Thanks for sharing Justin.

[Duderio]

goodbye

[Justin]

Have you listened to his appearance on Joe Rogan? Harris is a frightening statist facist who believes the American administration/military is still 'the good guys'. I don't think this guy is open to change his mind about morality.

 

A) As soon as I get home, I'm going to listen to that podcast because regardless of the statism aspect, that sounds like it could be an awesome interview, as well as one that would make me froth at the mouth while yelling at him through my computer--so, either way, it's something that will keep me stimulated. B) I changed my mind about morality before I changed my mind about statism--I was definitely a "moral statist" before I was a moral anarchist.

 

It's just really exciting to see a prominent thinker be this excited about morality as well as the showing the prospect of maybe changing his mind. Have him say to himself rather than an argument say it to him: "Well wait a second, this implies anarchy!" Well of course it does; the individual and his/her interactions with other individuals necessarily come before the state, and the state is obviously not an arbiter of morality any more than it is an arbiter of science, so you must accept the possibility that morality may contradict statism and move from there." But all that comes after the rebuttal, after his reading, and after he decides to start a conversation. I think he can be moved, is all. I don't see it out of the realm of possibility.

 

Anyway, like I said, I'm less concerned about his statism than I am excited about his openness to a moral discussion. I haven't yet convinced myself otherwise that this would not be worthy of pursuit. I may just be more of a fan of Sam Harris than others.

I think it's definitely worth a try, for those that have the time. Thanks for sharing Justin.

Thank you for your response.

 

I'm making a case for it like it's the end of the world, but I definitely don't feel that way. It's just the context of the thread. I think it would be beneficial to get involved and to get some sort of response. And I know of no other community that could do it better, and I know of no other prominent rational thinker that would take our responses as seriously within this context. It seems like it could have a positive synergistic effect.

[PatrickC]

Well, we are a community that wants to spread great ideas.. and well, it would hardly be the first time we got ignored. I think it's a great idea for those that feel up to the challenge.

[TheRobin]

Well, I'm not sure if it's even appropriate to come up with the whole UPB framework, as that itself requires certainly more than 1000 words explanation, but Harris isn't asking for alternate theories to his, but for a rebuttal to his theory, so I think it'd be certainly nto in the sense of his contest to provide an alternatr theory, as long as he still accepts and can't find the flaws in his own.

 

But yeah, thanks for sharing, there's still a lot of time until february, so, let's see what happens or what rebuttals come up.

 

On a very basic level I think, the easiest way to do it is focusing on the lack of possibility of comparison or the vagueness of his terms. He seems to try and dodge this by a  (imo very faulty) analogy with saying that there are no "units of health" either, so he doesn't need to provide "units of well-being", but the problem is that you don't compare a patients health to another and use that a s a metric for who gets the treatment (well, unless it's a clear emergency).

 

But if he can't provide a clear method of figuring out who's well-being at what time and in regards to waht conetxt would be more important and therefore jsutify the behaviour as moral, then his theory can't even pass a simple two guys in a room test. As if you're in a room with a murderer, at least one of you will be dead afterwards, either kill in self-defense or being murdered, but using Harris' method, both results would be equal from a "well-being" persepctive (unless he clarifies that in his books somewhere), so idk. edit: just listened to the first 15 Minutes of said Joe Rogan podcast. interstingly he calls himself Libertrian and made the claim the that people who don't cause anyone any harm have the right to be left alone.Nothing to do with the mroality challenge, but makes him at least to me quite a lot more sympathetic than before :)edit2: ah, nvm, 15 more minutes and I have no idea what the guy's principles are about -_-'

[Formelyknown]

Frankly I don`t see anything wrong with his approach. If human is part of the observable universe. It is making perfect sens to suggest we could also observe what constitute or what bring human to come up with values to follows.

 

Maybe the flaw it is that he need to explain what constitute a human. Why a sociopath or psychopath can`t be part of the human experience? Isn`t that the same as the majority make the rules? Why having a wider spectrum of emotion depth, empathy is better then less?

[Justin]

Well, we are a community that wants to spread great ideas.. and well, it would hardly be the first time we got ignored. I think it's a great idea for those that feel up to the challenge.

Thanks.

 

Well, I'm not sure if it's even appropriate to come up with the whole UPB framework, as that itself requires certainly more than 1000 words explanation, but Harris isn't asking for alternate theories to his, but for a rebuttal to his theory, so I think it'd be certainly nto in the sense of his contest to provide an alternatr theory, as long as he still accepts and can't find the flaws in his own.

 

But yeah, thanks for sharing, there's still a lot of time until february, so, let's see what happens or what rebuttals come up.

[...]

edit: just listened to the first 15 Minutes of said Joe Rogan podcast. interstingly he calls himself Libertrian and made the claim the that people who don't cause anyone any harm have the right to be left alone.Nothing to do with the mroality challenge, but makes him at least to me quite a lot more sympathetic than before :)edit2: ah, nvm, 15 more minutes and I have no idea what the guy's principles are about -_-'

You're right about trying to cram in UPB. But I don't think you could really debate against Harris effectively without using the principles of UPB. 

 

Also, thank you for reminding me about the podcast. I shall attempt to fall asleep to it.I'm hoping he's not going to fall into Bill Maher camp of people who annoy me that they call themselves libertarian.

 

Frankly I don`t see anything wrong with his approach. If human is part of the observable universe. It is making perfect sens to suggest we could also observe what constitute or what bring human to come up with values to follows.

 

Maybe the flaw it is that he need to explain what constitute a human. Why a sociopath or psychopath can`t be part of the human experience? Isn`t that the same as the majority make the rules? Why having a wider spectrum of emotion depth, empathy is better then less?

I think everyone here has really great points. Thanks for even humoring me about this. It helps me to think on it. I think I'm going to experience peaks and troughs of excitement about this. Since I do like Sam Harris, I'll probably read the book as well to finally get into it.

[Mike Fleming]

Harris is some one I want to like.  He is generally intelligent, thoughtful, calm and rational.

 

Unfortunately, he also comes across as a bit of a neocon statist.   Many times I've heard him say things which seem to claim that Islam is worse than Christianity.  And he blames 911 on religion?  No Sam, it's your wonderful government that I've heard you praise many times.  As long as the right party is in of course.

 

His idea's around morality, about achieving the best possible things for the most people are all too reminiscent of welfare to me.  And no doubt government has a large role in his ideas.   Not unusual for his type.

 

btw, I listened to the podcast and it was pretty much the same I've always heard from him, that confirms the above mostly, imo.

[Mister Mister]

well if someone is going to write it, I would want to stress the fundamental problem with utilitarianism, or morality based on effects as opposed to morality based on principles.  Aside from the somewhat subjective nature of pleasure/suffering, the main problem as I see, is that it is impossible to calculate all the effects of an action.  And those effects continue to have ripples into the future, so there is no point where we can stop time and measure ALL the effects of something with respect to the pleasure and suffering in all the lives affected.  Morality from effects kind of requires a huge amount of "expertise", which is of course convenient for central planners and politicians, but not for the average person.  Furthermore, it makes morality a backward-looking discipline, where we can only determine the effects after-the-fact.  When facing a moral decision, one can only speculate at the effects that might result from it.  Morality from principles, by contrast, can actually guide our decision making in a real way, which people of any intelligence can understand and benefit from.  

[MarkIX]

As someone who has read both UPB and The Moral Landscape. I don't see that they are a refutation of each other. My current  position is a synthesis of ideas from both authors. 

 

My belief is that Sam Harris is, strangely enough given his statements on the word,  a fearful atheist. IMO the reason he supports the US State is that he fears the effects of extremist religion and believes that Statism is the natural enemy of those forces. 

[Mike Fleming]

 

 

My belief is that Sam Harris is, strangely enough given his statements on the word,  a fearful atheist. IMO the reason he supports the US State is that he fears the effects of extremist religion and believes that Statism is the natural enemy of those forces. 

 

I think you are probably correct on that.   Although it is obviously an irrational fear.   After all, it is quite clear there is far more to fear from the state.  That it has vastly more power than religion.  

 

Sam seems to be a victim of propaganda in that sense.  He doesn't want to apply skepticism to the state.