Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky corresponds (ouch)

[LovePrevails]

Hey this was pretty painful, has anyone seen it yet?

 

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

 

I am sad that Chomsky declined the opportunity to a public discussion with Sam Harris - I think having these two popular intellectuals have a discussion would be of cultural significance and interest to everyone interested in "thinky things."

 

At first I was confused as to why Chomsky was being so choleric but eventually it clicked#

 

I figure that Chomsky's view was "fuck you, you wrote a book 10 years ago slagging me off and making accusations about me - you went to print. Tens of thousands of people read it. And now you want to email being all nice to me asking me to have a public conversation with you and expect me to act like it never happened. I see no reason to be nice to you." 

 

Chomsky is pretty old school (85 I believe) he came up through a time where intellectual discourse was quite exclusive (in the 60s I believe only 10% of people went to uni) and I think in that time going to print criticising another intellectual might have been "declaring war" ---- he did not interpret Harris analysis in the spirit it was intended - which was dialectical: "Left-wingers believe this, but in actual fact the truth is closer to that" rather  than a personal critique of his character or scholarship.

 

I have emailed Sam Harris offering my condolences.

the problem with intellectuals is they are often overly convoluted. Sam Harris argument is simple:

Al Quaeda want to kill people deliberately and without remorse, whereas when the US government kills people abroad it does so as a biproduct of following positive aims

 

I think it's a naive position but when you put it simply it's easy to follow

[labmath2]

The problems with that argument are 1. How do you measure intentions 2. Does good inentions absolve you of your crime. I think these were Chomsky's points. On the first question, if we take the US governments word for it, should we also take everyone else's word for it? As Chomsky ppointed out, the Japanese claimed they wanted to create paradise on earth, which meant attacking the chinese. On the second question, even if we take their word for it, does that absolve them from the murders they committed? None of us would claim a bomber in the name of Allah should be forgiven because he had good inentions when killing apostates.

[WasatchMan]

 I find Sam Harris's perspective on "intentions" that he was trying to have a discussion about on one hand true, and simplistic on the other.

 

 

"Imagine your neighbors house burns down and yours with it.  What the hell happened?  What happened has a lot to do with your neighbors intentions.  If he had a cooking fire that got out of control, that's one thing.  If he tried to burn his own house to collect the insurance payment, that's another.  If he tried to burn down the whole neighborhood because he just hates everyone, that's another.  Intentions matter because it contains all of the information about what your neighbor is likely to do next.  There is a spectrum of culpability here, and intention is its very substance.  Chomsky seems to think he has made a great moral discovery in this area and that not intending to harm can sometimes be morally worse than intending one....

 

The united states and the west generally has a history of colonialism, slavery, and of collusion with dictators, and of imposing its will on people all around the world.  I have never denied this.  But I am hearing from people who say things like "of course Isis and Al Qaeda are terrible but we are just as bad, worse even, because we created them, literally.  Through our selfishness and ineptitude we created millions of other victims who sympathize with them for obvious reasons.  We are in every moral relevant sense getting exactly what we deserved. Well this kind of masochism and misreading of both ourselves and our enemies has become a religious precept on the left.  I don't think an inability to distinguish George Bush or Bill from Saddam Hussein or Hitler is philosophically or politically interesting, much less wise.  Many people, most even, who are this morally confused look at Chomsky as their patriarch." - Final Thoughts on Chomsky, Sam Harris

 

It is true because of course someone who intends to hurt someone is evil, whereas someone who accidentally hurts someone is not evil.  Very basic stuff, and the left seems to not understand this as it applies to Islam. People who use the teaching of Islam to hurt and kill other people are evil, and in my mind 100% morally responsible.

 

I also get his point that Islam tells people to go and harm non-believers, which is evil, whereas the U.S. governments intention are not to kill people over their beliefs (if you believe that the U.S. intentions are to try to stabilize the world and make it more peaceful - not much evidence of this but it is their stated "intention").  However, even taking for granted that the US intentions are good or neutral, intentions are not the only factor when determining the "right" or "wrong" (aka morality) of a situation. 

 

Western common law has had a long tradition of "criminal negligence".  If I have a large pit-bull who I know has a terrible temperament, and I just release it into my neighborhood so "it can get some fresh air", my intentions are not evil. However when it starts mauling people in my neighborhood, would anyone say "well he didn't intend to hurt anyone, so all is well."  Of course not.  They would say "what the hell were you thinking, anyone could look at that dog and know it cannot be trusted to be loose in a neighborhood, and you are the owner, didn't you know this was a possibility?"

 

Well when the US government unleashes the dogs of war on whole region, with the intention of stabilizing and bring peace to it, shouldn't people say "Wait a minute.  Did you not know what this will likely lead to?  Hasn't history demonstrated this mistake time and time again?  How did you expect your goals to be achieved with this methodology?".  It would be like trying to justify putting out an apartment fire with a tsunami. 

 

While the intention of murder is worse than murder by negligence, criminally, I would put forward there is a point were the magnitude of the negligence becomes a morally worse than a lesser magnitude crime by intention.  Compare a stick-up man robbing 7-11s for the money in the cash register to a scientist who is building a nuclear reactor in his basement who knows there is a 50/50 chance that he won't be able to contain the reactor from blowing up the whole city and everyone in it.  While I would want both in jail, I would consider the scientist much worse even though his intentions were not evil while the stick-up mans  intentions were evil.  To me this is like Isis and the US government.  Sure Isis is evil, and their intentions are evil.  However, the scope at which US has unleashed the dogs of war on the world, expecting good results, is morally worse in my mind due to the shear magnitude of the destruction that resulted.  Destruction which should have been easily predicted.

[aaaaa11]

Stef should debate Sam publicly instead  

[Donnadogsoth]

 I find Sam Harris's perspective on "intentions" that he was trying to have a discussion about on one hand true, and simplistic on the other.

 

 

It is true because of course someone who intends to hurt someone is evil, whereas someone who accidentally hurts someone is not evil.  Very basic stuff, and the left seems to not understand this as it applies to Islam. People who use the teaching of Islam to hurt and kill other people are evil, and in my mind 100% morally responsible.

 

I also get his point that Islam tells people to go and harm non-believers, which is evil, whereas the U.S. governments intention are not to kill people over their beliefs (if you believe that the U.S. intentions are to try to stabilize the world and make it more peaceful - not much evidence of this but it is their stated "intention").  However, even taking for granted that the US intentions are good or neutral, intentions are not the only factor when determining the "right" or "wrong" (aka morality) of a situation. 

 

Western common law has had a long tradition of "criminal negligence".  If I have a large pit-bull who I know has a terrible temperament, and I just release it into my neighborhood so "it can get some fresh air", my intentions are not evil. However when it starts mauling people in my neighborhood, would anyone say "well he didn't intend to hurt anyone, so all is well."  Of course not.  They would say "what the hell were you thinking, anyone could look at that dog and know it cannot be trusted to be loose in a neighborhood, and you are the owner, didn't you know this was a possibility?"

 

Well when the US government unleashes the dogs of war on whole region, with the intention of stabilizing and bring peace to it, shouldn't people say "Wait a minute.  Did you not know what this will likely lead to?  Hasn't history demonstrated this mistake time and time again?  How did you expect your goals to be achieved with this methodology?".  It would be like trying to justify putting out an apartment fire with a tsunami. 

 

While the intention of murder is worse than murder by negligence, criminally, I would put forward there is a point were the magnitude of the negligence becomes a morally worse than a lesser magnitude crime by intention.  Compare a stick-up man robbing 7-11s for the money in the cash register to a scientist who is building a nuclear reactor in his basement who knows there is a 50/50 chance that he won't be able to contain the reactor from blowing up the whole city and everyone in it.  While I would want both in jail, I would consider the scientist much worse even though his intentions were not evil while the stick-up mans  intentions were evil.  To me this is like Isis and the US government.  Sure Isis is evil, and their intentions are evil.  However, the scope at which US has unleashed the dogs of war on the world, expecting good results, is morally worse in my mind due to the shear magnitude of the destruction that resulted.  Destruction which should have been easily predicted.

 

Would you agree, though, that a full-on American (et al) military offensive for the purposes of eradicating ISIS is justified, even though it may lead to "collateral damage"?  How much collateral damage is worth it to eradicate ISIS?

[WasatchMan]

Would you agree, though, that a full-on American (et al) military offensive for the purposes of eradicating ISIS is justified, even though it may lead to "collateral damage"?  How much collateral damage is worth it to eradicate ISIS?

 

No, I do not agree that a full-on military offensive is justified against ISIS by a state on the other side of the world.  This is not an American problem to deal with and Americans cannot solve it.

 

This can only be solved by the people who have to live with ISIS in their back yard. If they do not have the fortitude to stop this insanity themselves how are they going to sustain it after the Americans leave and the next rats nest of Islamist develop?

[Better Future]

None of us would claim a bomber in the name of Allah should be forgiven because he had good intentions when killing apostates.

 

Would you forgive an indoctrinated child bomber? Are the adults more responsible because they can contemplate the consequences of their actions in a rational manner?

[labmath2]

Would you forgive an indoctrinated child bomber? Are the adults more responsible because they can contemplate the consequences of their actions in a rational manner?

Children are a different matter. The argument was about intent as it partains to adults.

[Better Future]

Children are a different matter. The argument was about intent as it partains to adults.

 

Ok, so you forgive extremist children. At what age does your forgiveness cut off?

[labmath2]

Ok, so you forgive extremist children. At what age does your forgiveness cut off?

I'm not sure what your intent is with this line of reasoning (neither does it matter), but i hope you are not arguing for children to be held to the same standards as adults. The question with children is not about intention, but ability to reason. There is a reason why we have legal guardians make so many decisons on behalf of the child.

[Jer]

No, I do not agree that a full-on military offensive is justified against ISIS by a state on the other side of the world.  This is not an American problem to deal with and Americans cannot solve it.

 

This can only be solved by the people who have to live with ISIS in their back yard. If they do not have the fortitude to stop this insanity themselves how are they going to sustain it after the Americans leave and the next rats nest of Islamist develop?

I agree that a military offensive against ISIS is not justified, but it sort of is an American problem imo insofar as John Mccain and his buddies armed them.

[Carl Green]

...Sam Harris argument is simple:

Al Quaeda want to kill people deliberately and without remorse, whereas when the US government kills people abroad it does so as a biproduct of following positive aims"

 

(this is to Harris, not you, Antony)

 

Who. gives. a. shit!

Take your good intentions and shove them up your ass.

[LovePrevails]

(this is to Harris, not you, Antony)

 

Who. gives. a. shit!

Take your good intentions and shove them up your ass.

 

I agree!

[Better Future]

I'm not sure what your intent is with this line of reasoning

 

You said that you would not forgive an extremist who kills in the name of Allah.

 

I asked you if you would forgive a child extremist.

 

You said that children are a different matter.

 

I then asked at what point your forgiveness cuts off. At what point do extremist children become adults that can be held accountable because of their reasoning ability?

 

i hope you are not arguing for children to be held to the same standards as adults

 

I don't hold anyone to any standard. Should I blame a Muslim extremist for not supporting marriage equality? Of course not, he can only act in accordance with his pre-existing brain structure.

 

Please note that I am not excusing acts of terror. I am only stating that blame and punishment are irrational, immoral and often counter-productive.

 

There is a reason why we have legal guardians make so many decisons on behalf of the child.

 

90% of parents hit their children. Not a very good decision I think.

[green banana]

Harris' argument can be proven wrong. LIke Carl Bartelt said, intentions don't matter. No group acts with a bad premeditation. All of them want to improve something. Even the Commies wanted to improve the world while killing millions of people.

[WasatchMan]

Harris' argument can be proven wrong. LIke Carl Bartelt said, intentions don't matter. No group acts with a bad premeditation. All of them want to improve something. Even the Commies wanted to improve the world while killing millions of people.

 

To play devils advocate here, I think that Sam would say you are making an argument from moral relativism. 

 

Sure, ISIS thinks it is doing Allah's work and that what they do is therefore right, however their actual actions result in them intending to initiate of force against others.  Initiating force against other is objectively evil (even though I am guessing though that Sam doesn't take the NAP as true - but it is the language we know, he has some variant of utilitarian moral framework).

 

On the the other hand, the US is intending to defend itself against people who intend to initiate force against us and other secular nations (This would be Sam's premise on US intentions, not sure I accept it, but it is where he is coming from).  Self defense is not evil.

 

Furthermore, his claim isn't intentions make something good or evil necessarily, but that intentions contain all of the information on what someones future behavior is likely to be.

[labmath2]

Wasatchman, did you redefine self defense while we werent looking?

On the topic of intent, imagine everyone knows i want my neighboor dead. One night i walk up to his house (still on sidewalk) and start tanting him. At first he tries to ignore it, but then i said something that really hit a nerve. He comes to me and swings, hitting me. I take out my gun and shoot him in self defense. Does my intention matter?

The best predictor of future actions is most likely past actions. Unless you are professor X who can actually hear people's thoughts.

[WasatchMan]

Wasatchman, did you redefine self defense while we werent looking?

On the topic of intent, imagine everyone knows i want my neighboor dead. One night i walk up to his house (still on sidewalk) and start tanting him. At first he tries to ignore it, but then i said something that really hit a nerve. He comes to me and swings, hitting me. I take out my gun and shoot him in self defense. Does my intention matter?

The best predictor of future actions is most likely past actions. Unless you are professor X who can actually hear people's thoughts.

 

I made it pretty clear that I was taking for granted that the US intent was self defense, since this is Sam's premise and I was trying to represent his position.  Whether or not the US was acting in self defense (I agree, they are likely not) is a separate issue from attacking Sam's actual argument on intent.

[fractional slacker]

Chomsky is to great intellectuals what Bruce Springsteen is to great performers.  It's painful just listening to the guy independent of content.
For more insights into the fraudulent anarchist: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html

[Nathan Metric]

You don't judge nation-states the same way you judge individuals. Governments are just as criminal in nature as the terrorists they are fighting.

[Djoop]

Waste of time, Hitchens refuted these silly viewpoints long time ago.

 

Every day roughly 3000 slave girls experience the difference in intention. There's worse than dying. The comparison Chomsky makes is rather dangerous as it blurs the lines between wrong and downright evil.  And one ought to question why someone who asserts that "authority, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate, and that the burden of proof is on those in authority" also believes that "we should be getting together with Iran". He has this blind spot for Islam, which may explain Harris's fascination for Chomsky. 

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/05/chomskys_follies.html

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/noam-chomsky-islamic-state-one-main-effects-us-invasion-iraq

[LovePrevails]

Chomsky has blindspots for Islam as Sam Harris has blindspots for US foreign policy. Both have a naivety.