Scott Laux Science requires logic in order for it to work. We use logic in our reasoning. I don't think a scientific test could be used to prove that our logic is sound.
A core idea behind science is to never have absolute certainties; to always welcome emergent ideas that can further expand knowledge. There is no bias; there is no desire to cling to traditional explanation. This is a core tenet of science that can also be found in certain Eastern religions and forms of philosophy. The recognition of the limits of the human mind; the inability to ever be certain. It is an important concept to confront as a human being, I think.
I love how many people in this comment section seem to believe they're smarter (especially on this topic) than Sam Harris whilst failing to use basic English sentence structure.
Endorphins are addictive painkillers similar to heroin. When we have a flu, our body stops producing them, so we experience exactly the same symptoms as a heroin addict - who has been replacing his endorphins with a similar chemical until he stops producing his own - which is, of course, pain. Flu viruses don't cause us joint pain, it's the addiction withdrawals.
sometimes logic can be destorted by personal ambition, however over time peer review and constant search for scientific truth tends to reveal these mistakes in the system. Unfortunately, these flaws are inevitable and sometimes can wreak havoc in societies, especially when misconstrued or missinterpreted for what these scientific princples are revealed to be. Human character is the one constant variable that alignes against or sometimes for the advancement of realistic knowledge.
Of course. That's why I said we need a basis AND reason. But saying that science answers moral questions is false. It helps answer, yes, but you will always need an irrational basis such as empathy.
I'm reading Mere Christianity right now in a Christian apologetics class, and Lewis' whole argument for the existence of God is based on human morals. If morals can be derived using science, however, Lewis' argument basically falls apart. I'm really interested in seeing how my teacher would respond to this video and the points that Harris brings up. This video was really interesting, especially because it is forcing me to look at my beliefs, criticize them, and build them back up again.
I'm glad you don't think religion should be condemned. I myself also do not hate Science. In fact, despite appearances on this forum, I actually love science and do not reject it. I think it is a wonderful thing. I only disagree with a few conclusions. Science in general is awesome!
You know what? I think we agree. For the most part. I would modify it slightly to say that you wouldn't blame it on philosophy, but to blame it on man for being Foolish enough to think Science could ever make moral determinations. Morals deals with distinctions between right and wrong, something that is rather subjective making philosophical conclusions inevitable.
If the question is what we ought to do, practically, then i think you're right that solipsism and questioning induction doesn't get us anywhere. Testing/induction is the best method we have. But Harris is making a fundamental claim about ethics. He is not (imo) saying science is the best thing we can do, but that science can tell us the truth about ethics. That claim I deny. If you want to say, "we might as well use science because we can't do better," then I think thats more defensible.
Please make the distinction between life stances or intrinsic values and derived moral judgements or opinions like "we ought to burn this person". Science can answer the following factual question: "is this presumed witch guilty of presumed witchcraft?", or "Is burning guilty people effective at maximizing well-being?". We use science to make moral judgements, but these judgements are always based on our life stance or intrinsic values as well. Science alone cannot make moral judgements.
What he's advocating is known in this field called "philosophy" as "Utilitarianism." Hardly science, I'm afraid, though it's a lovely change to hear someone advocating some kind of moral objectivity.
I kept thinking to myself throughout this entire talk, that the title should have been "Can Positive Psychology (or neuroscience) determine moral values?". No it can't. It can only tell you how to increase someone's well-being. It's also interesting he views that the "Care/harm" module is the most important while ignoring the other five : "Fairness/cheating","Liberty/oppression","Loyalty/betrayal","Authority/subversion", "Sanctity/degradation". I mean the decline in violence can be answered...
Promotion of happiness and lessening of suffering is by definition good. The "worst possible misery for everyone scenario" illustrates that nicely. If bad is to have any meaning at all, surely it applies to the worst possible misery for everyone scenario. Good would then by default be anything that avoids such a scenario. Morality deals with which actions are good and which are bad. It does follow that the goal morality is to promote happiness and to diminish suffering.
People actually think this is a good take? He essentially used extreme examples to make things seems logical while ignoring the much more nuanced middle grounds (e.g. comparing the Dali Lama and Ted Bundy, but not explaining how his theory would affect the much more common person at some point between those two extremes). He then suggested multiple times "I think we can all agree that *insert example* is not a good thing". However, he acknowledges that other people disagree with that point, basically saying that those people must be wrong. And then his final point seemed to lean a little towards the totalitarian... saying that eventually the world won't really have borders, and at that point we just won't let people do those things that we think are bad. Am I missing something? Maybe I need a more in depth explanation but none of that was convincing and he provided no proof or explanation as to why things were the way he felt they were, just that they are.
Sam Harris is making a parallel with material realism as in science. Science has to make value judgements at every turn (whether this explanation is better than that, what to study, what to publish etc.). Science struggles to construct its description of realty, but there is always the underlying assumption that there is a reality to try to understand. Sam Harris makes the case that similar assumptions can apply to ethics and that this can also be a subject for scientific investigation. The use of extreme examples is to make it clear that whilst some questions might be finely balanced and not practically resolvable, there are others that are as obvious as whether it is OK to drink cholera contaminated water. His argument is largely utilitarian but allied with neuroscience. There are some underlying assumptions such as that it is better to live than to be dead for example. He would acknowledge that although an answer is theoretically available for whether you should give your daughter a chocolate cake, and you might be in disagreement with your wife on this, very question it is impractical and futile to try to find out what the answer would be. But on whether it is OK to sell your daughter into prostitution, the factors at stake will make the answer obvious. More than this he is also saying that where the answers are obvious, there is every reason not to be afraid to say so.
well i can agree with that but as i stated in another comment, i find it rater pointles to answer the question as to whether science can help us without looking at what kind of principles science would give us. i understand that philosophy sometimes doen't need to make a solid point but in my opinion, that's what we should aim for in ethics.
Well-being is the ultimate goal, I've been clear on that, but that doesn't make the means by which it is achieved irrelevant. The path must be chosen carefully, with awareness and knowledge of what we are doing and the effects it may have. There is no dichotomy, only the conscious effort to maximize the goal with the least amount of harm possible.
Harris was trying to offer some ways of quantifying an ethic. That suffering and flourishing are part of a continuum of possible states of humanity, and that choices which trend more towards flourishing and less towards suffering is a very good place to start when talking about ethical choices. This seems pretty straightforward, not as some dogmatic unbreakable law of the universe, but rather as a guideline and a POTENTIAL way of scientifically approaching moral questions. Perfectly reasonable.
Which brings me to the point of the omnipotent being. You would need an omnipotent being, who could observe every human being for centuries, to be able to carry out the research required to give you accurate morals. So please don't be so naïve as to think the simple logic you've deduced in your mind has solved the world's philosophical problems.
First off, "peoples well being" is complex. And humans have had thousands of years of defining right and wrong, both superstitiously and based on personal emotions. Science can redefine it as what is actually best for us all based on evidence. Nobody can fool themselves in science - not if they're doing it right, and certainly not forever!
yes! However the moral cowards in academia use its man made nature to declare that it is arbitrary when it is anything but. This truth ultimately means that all cultures are far from equal, an unacceptable conclusion for sociologists, anthropologists etc
16:04 "Whenever we are talking about facts, certain opinions must be excluded."I like how he creates a barrier here, in that our moral obligation may have subjective avenues. However, at some level there is reasonable person who's opinion matters if it is at or above that level, or doesn't matter if it is below. How do we measure that? The argument circles again. It does however outline the classic contradiction of subjective thought gaining objective popularity. Things like as he mentioned, popularized theories in the scientific community, but also less scientific subjects such as classical art that also have a hierarchy of expertise to which we generally value opinions. Thank you for those thought provoking words!
2) Pain and pleasure aren't responsible for what constitutes right or wrong. The notion of responsibility doesn't make sense in a context which doesn't involve choices of conscious agents, responsibility relates to choices. The actual claim is that human well-being is what determines right and wrong, that's the definitional starting point. If you accept that's what morality is then it logically follows that science does have things to say about how to reach that.
Good point, however I can't help but acknowledge that humans have misinterpreted both potentially "transendent revelations" as well as self introspections by men/women of religious/spiritual backgrounds as well as men/women of logic through the texts of history past. But it seems to me, that in the case of how any Divine creator/obsever should have done things is not the same as how He/She/It has actually designed or desired certain aspects of life to be as the way it's actually experienced
Furthermore, sacrificing a minority's health and lives for the comfort or pleasure of the majority (ie. slavery) is immoral as pleasure and comfort are not absolutely necessary for the sustainment of the lives. In regards to your point on sexuality, It would be immoral if the person performing the sexual acts believed it to be probable that her action would result in a child that can not be taken care of or result in the transmission of disease to someone else.
1. Any argument not based on reason is inherently weak and would be no trouble to deal with. 4/6. I think you will find that many people have argued exactly that point and done so very well. Furthermore, there are, in fact, a plethora of justifications beyond human happiness. 5/7 The standard comes from the most common denominator in morality, as Harris points out at the very beginning of this talk.
How and why is it so difficult to admit there is such thing as Balance And Healthy morality Just like Health of a body? Why do we believe we need to swing two extremes of morality like good and bad
That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying moral questions can be reduced to whether something promotes "flourishing" of a human brain and by extension life experience, or is detrimental to it. What the things are that cause these effects is up for debate, but there are parameters with which to measure this. Notice how in the landscape image there were peaks and troughs of varying depths too. Presumably these ideas exist on a sliding scale but arguably balance requires the acknowledgement of two extremes in order to be achieved, otherwise what exactly are you balancing?
Another issue with this line of thinking is the presumption that morality is found in moderation, as was stated in the example of clothing extremes. Good is the absence of bad or evil. The problem is that humans have a tendency to make decisions that are selfish, vengeful, prideful or corrupt. God is man's only hope in the battle of good versus evil.
Well, a great speech, yes, but saying that everyone should have the same standard on morality is rather intuitive, and not something new or special. He obviously didn't talk ethics in a philosophical or metaphysical way. Despite he says there got to be truth in morality, there are many dilemmas that still hold many different truths and moral values. Even metaethics doesn't have a conscientious, the debate between moral realism and moral anti-realism is still a problem, then how could morality suddenly have a general truth. All ethical theories can be criticized in the same cultural context or even by its own rules, no matter it is consequentialism, cultural relativism, virtue theory, or any other..... A logical complete ethical system is impossible. His claim sounds like an elitism view about morality. And by the way, he said that analogy on chess is just can't stand. Chess has a rule, but the rule is not the single truth, there are Chinese Chess, Japanese Chess, and many other kinds of chess that have different rules. Plus, he said rules can be used differently in different situations... I mean... himself just proved moral relativism... Also having the mind that believes there is a moral truth that everyone ought to obey is more dangerous, it will create a society without cultural tolerance. Moreover, science can't explain many things, even music can't be explained. No matter how much brain scan you did, you cannot find a musical truth... Look at how different Japanese traditional music is different than Western American folk sons, you cannot say there is a truth that tells u which is more beautiful. This guy confused the nature of facts and opinions. Facts do not need to be valued, its not on the human scale, but independent things that have been proven true. While morality can be valued by humans, which is what he is doing in the talk, he is evaluating what is better for mankind, this is clearly an opinion. Therefore morality is an opinion rather than fact.
Sam Harris isn't a charlatan he is a genius on every level. He is trying to show us that science through things like, biology and neurology, is determining certain things that are objectively good and bad for us. Regardless of what tradition says. How is that 'phoney baloney'.
In another attempt to divert the attention from his faulty reasoning, he claims that questioning moral authority of (i suppose) scientific ethicists, is as ridiculous as questioning the scientific authority of string theorists. He however fails to mention that area's like physics are hard sciences, based on mathematical axioms, while branch of ethics is based on some philosophical theory.
"Demonstrate that happiness/increased well-being is objectively better than suffering" - Individuals prefer happiness to suffering. That is a provable objective fact. It should therefore be the goal of morality to promote happiness and to diminish suffering.
Taking your question to the extreme, You are essentially asking me whether I would create a world where everybody lives physically healthy and prosperous lives but take away their free will in the process. I would not sacrifice free will for safety. Given Freedom and Health are equally objective (Free Will = Health). Mathematically Free Will > Health - Pain. or Free Will + pleasure > Health.
I see the difference between scientific difference of opinion is that when talking about morality it is far harder (and could be seen as impossible currently) to say what suffering is "needless"
4/6. He addresses the value of an objective morality all through out this talk. When talking about the spectrum of human well-being, when talks about various notions of morality, how an open ended definition doesn't diminish of human well being. 5/7. I did answer why human well-being is important. As for the rest: this interpretation is more balanced and adaptable, good is what promotes most human well being and the least harm, bad is the opposite and that serves no logical purpose.
Science is two things: the first is systematic, rational exploration of the universe and the second is the body knowledge and information produced by that exploration. You cannot argue with either. The moment you type a single character to reply on your device, which is relayed to the Internet, science has already won the argument. To know what there really true is and not what we think or believe is true, science is the best way.
The difference between uncertainty and faith is much more than splitting hairs. You accept something because it is very likely to be true, and in practice it happens to be true with very high frequency. This is the principle underlying all technology. It is true because it works in practice, although it may fail in some very rare scenarios. With faith, you just don't care whether what you believe is plausible in practice.
"Generally speaking. So what?" NOT generally speaking. By the definition of happiness: (all) 'Individuals prefer happiness to suffering.' The goal of morality has been discussed by philosophers, and a concept that comes up often is: 'treat others how you want to be treated'. This is the core of human morality. If you assume this is true, your optimal "moral strategy" is to promote happiness. You won't only feel good about promoting happiness, but feel good about the happiness others bring.
You're right that science can tell us that witch-burning is a factual mistake. But that's a factual answer, not a moral one. If you have a life stance of "people which are *believed* to cause supernatural harm must die", you can't dismiss this life stance with science, can you? If you can, please do.
Avoiding war doesn't imply that pacifism is more important than well-being, it is simply the logical observation that war causes human suffering on a large scale. It therefore should be a tool of last resort where the consequences of not going to war are so high that the amount of human suffering war causes becomes acceptable.
Avoiding misery is an objective value. Individual notions of misery will be of course very subjective, however the fact that there are states of being that are preferable to others remains objective. If morality is to have any goal, it is to support such states.
With all due respect, it is just as typical for the philosophically inclined to not only reject new ideas out of hand, but to claim they've seen all this before. Especially if such ideas contradict their own personal bias. I don't deny that that Harris builds his argument on other theories but like a programmer using well known algorithms, he has crafted a new operating system that addresses the flaws of older models using the latest innovation. Morality 2.0.
What I agreed to is that there maybe more than one way to know what is true, not that science has limits. I also stated that science,logic and reason are the best ways to proceed. Philosophies, including religions, are only useful when dealing with human constructs and only then if reason and logic is applied. As one acknowledges that then you're correct.
From the article: A spokesman for the Catholic Church denied that the secret Vatican orders were part of any organized cover-up. He said: 'This document is about the Church's internal disciplinary procedures should a priest be accused of using confession to solicit sex. It does not forbid victims to report civil crimes.
4/6. I said objective morality is valuable for a number of reasons, human well-being is the most basic and universal among them. It is the totality of reasons that makes it so valuable. 5/6. What follows is part of its value. Why are things valuable? Because the opposite is avoidable suffering that serves no purpose. Why is leading a fulfilling life a good thing? It's the best use of a limited experience. My concept of good is the best that can be achieved with the least possible amount of harm.
Yes, the word "good" is generally used in a context where happiness is promoted and suffering diminished, it is it's meaning. We prefer when good things happen to us - when our well-being is promoted. That is an objective fact that can be used as an objective basis for a moral system - the system of good and bad. Is a world where everyone suffers as much as they possibly can a good world or a bad world?
"however, they cannot quantify the amount of "wrong" or "evil" of suffering itself." I think Harris might argue that under his proposed system suffering ∝ wrong/evil.
I agree with what this guy wants to accomplish, as I have similar moral views as him, and I agree that science can help us come to better moral conclusions, and there are logical reasons for maximizing well-being based on facts and scientific knowledge, but not *only* based on that. Those reasons require something like a wish for human flourishing, or our sense of empathy.
The earth was not divided or split up until about 100 years after the global flood. That is when the continents began breaking apart so the animals did have time to reach places that became isolated.
If we could intervene, the most objective course would be to refrain from taking sides and work towards a compromise and ceasefire. Unless it became apparent that one side was demonstrably wrong, then a quick end to a destructive conflict would be best. This could be achieved a number of ways and not all require violence. As for this percentage, if in all the ways we find to achieve human well-being, in the data and scientific findings some still find grounds to disagree we won't force them.
This seemed to me to be much more focused on moral objectivity vs moral relativism than it has anything much to do with scientifically reinforced values, tho I see the connection.
I didn't take it personally, but thank you just the same that is thoughtful of you. As for disobedient children... I think the punishment would be dependent on the infraction. Did they steal a piece of candy, or did they kill several other people. Is the child 5yo or 17yo. It is all relative don't you think? Science has failed us in the past as well. Biological and chemical weapons aren't here by chance, so should we blame science? Why blame religion because in the past some have misused it?
The oldest calendar is the Hindu calendar that just over 5,000 years old. Someone was saying the Assyrian calendar matches the biblical calendar of around 6,685 years. There are many mass burials in the layers of sediment and we have not even seen everything that is down there. We can only see where the layers are pushed above the surface.
Consecutive layers means little or no time between each deposition. Water rose in cycles. The sediments were basically moved and redeposited by the global flood. Floods always deposit sediments in layers.
In the beginning of this video he already makes a statement that well-being of humans and other conscious beings is important, even though many people agree, it doesn´t make is "true". The rest i understand and agree with him on, but he should have started with how he defines a value.
1. Reason is the only valid BASIS for a thought system otherwise it would be a feeling system or an imagination system. 2 & 3. Morality can only be objective and immune to social change if they originate from outside of humanity. 4 & 6 Cultural relativism is insufficient due to bias but a science based morality provides objectivity and adaptability. 5&7 Human well-being is as close to universally good as anything could be and it cannot be given but nurtured.
Having joint pain because a chemical is no longer in your body doesn't mean that's analogous to a withdrawal. You could argue that's just a side-effect from how the body normally functions. With your logic you could say not exercising and the lack of exercise having bad effects on your body is exercise-withdrawal. Or that not breathing and feeling suffocation is air-withdrawal. Or that not eating and feeling hunger is food-withdrawal.
An analogy I can give you is that of a computer program. Given inputs x and y in a computer, the output is z based on the mathematical function which the program uses. If the output is w, this can only mean that the inputs were not strictly x and y. The future being dissimilar to the past does not mean that the math is wrong, it only means that the inputs are different.
4/6. Only we've already discussed that he isn't doing that. 5/7. Human well-being is good because it is the core concern of all morality, compassion and empathy. Human well-being diminishes suffering and the need for violent conflict, enables us coexists which in turn increases the chances for longevity of the species, encourages mentally and physically healthier, more fulfilling lives. Only now with our level of technology and science we can achieve this with sustainability and more people.
Actually a lot of people have given explanation as to why it doesn't work - you just need to keep reading the comments. The comments are not a debate - they are a critique of Harris' logic. I think the alternative is believing that only a higher omnipotent being could have the "wisdom" of establishing "beneficial" morals.
1. Logic dictates what an innocent human is. If a human life is physically detrimental to our species, ie. his net influence is negative, He is a problem to the species and therefore not "innocent." 2. Biology dicates that protecting the lives and health of the majority is important because all species of life naturally strive to flourish and increase their numbers. acting in the interest of the majority sustains and improves numbers whereas the reverse reduces them.
I have a problem with terms being applied incorrectly, as you may recall from discussion on absolutes. The term faith doesn't apply to the reasonable expectation of electrical power or that such power will be reestablished given enough time and effort. There is proof of this. There is reliable, documented evidence that the chances that this will be the case are exceedingly high. That, not faith, is why one expects it will happen despite inherent uncertainty.
1) A concept is an idea. Ideas are not material things. Can you draw me a picture of an idea? Can you draw me a picture of Justice? You would draw a judge or a scale but these things you are drawing are not justice but instead material things that enact justice. 2) I know I exist because I occupy space and am made from matter. Everything outside of me occupies space and therefore it follows everything else is also matter. Matter exists. Therefore the universe exists.
It doesn't imply that. If I had said war must be avoided at all costs at all times, then and only then would I have placed pacifism above the goal of human well-being. I simply pointed out that war causes human suffering, the very condition we are trying to alleviate, like few other things and thus should be avoided.
I don't know if I'm not conscious, I don't necessarily know even if I am conscious. For all I know, I could be suffering from malnutrition, diabetes or cancer.
As a process, yes, you could say we're addicted to water :P That's not really what I was saying though. We don't *need things like love nutritionally, so the body uses the exact same chemical process as heroin addiction (using pretty much the same chemicals and receptors). In fact, hunger and thirst are signalled to us with pain/pleasure drugs, that's what makes cocaine and heroin so addictive - we're compatible biochemically.
Well I think Sam would agree with you opening statement, we should have a standard to determine morality. He offered the notion of suffering as the standard. Can we find a place in the moral landscape to minimize suffering and maximize flourishing. It seems altogether easy as well. All we need to do is think about this world and try to better it. This scares you because you're just too busy being worried about getting "left behind" in the umteenth version of the rapture that won't happen.
That's precisely what I meant. Harris suggests in a new to approach morality employing science and the scientific method. Not that this hasn't been attempted before but that Harris is suggesting using science and the scientific method in a new way when applying to morality. One based on neurology and psychology of the species and individual simultaneously applied objectively. I think we can both agree that is a novel approach.
I take morality to be a way of limiting suffering and spreading well-being. I know what it feels like to suffer, I know I would rather not suffer and I can make the reasonable assumption that I share this trait with other people. In that framework misery is bad and it is our moral duty to avoid it. How would you define morality?
A daring talk, for sure. I am of the belief that everyone is compelled by believing their actions are inherently "good". I am not sure we are at the point where we can tell other cultures they are inherently wrong. I do agree on quite a few points the speaker makes, but can not forget I may just be agreeing with him just because I grew up in the same culture.
This is a response to a poster earlier, preaching but his comment got my brain going: You expect your maker to provide your values in a language that you understand without context. You believe that one person, or group of people can accurately, and completely interpret the word of your God. Look...your neighbourhood, your family, your city, world, maybe you have a nice car, maybe you think you have nice things because you earned it, you deserve it.
I have made that distinction. And since derived moral judgments are derived from life stances my point remains. The questions here isn't whether or not science can make moral judgements but whether or not it can answer moral questions. It can. As the man says, this prompts a new more objective morality. By providing a more objective, unbiased source for those answers, science shapes values (and therefore judgments) the way a frame shapes a house, not the other way around.
Human well-being involves all of us, not just someone. He doesn't say it's a fact only that it is a fact that human well-being is single most common denominator in morality. It is the core of what we are concerned about from compassion and empathy to formal codes of conduct.
I would have loved for Sam to have tried to answer, or to even elude to an answer, a moral question through science. As it stands I found this speech unconvincing. If there are moral truths i don't feel we are any closer to discovering what they are. We are about as close to discovering time travel as we are to discovering any absolute moral truth.
The only logical conclusion is that our morality adapts with the science we would base it on. He doesn't think we should enforce morals. What he say is that not all views are valid and we shouldn't act as if they are nor are we required to respect flawed positions. He points out as we explore this we will inevitably converge on central set of core agreements. Science proves a great deal while adapting to new discoveries thus it's ideal for developing a more objective, evolving morality.
I don't think religion should be condemned, but religion is not open to change in moral values. If a religion has morals that are deemed wrong, but its followers still claim it to be the absolute truth even if it only benefits a small few or perhaps nobody at all, there is no room left for improvement. Science doesn't claim absolute truths solely on opinion or belief, but gives facts that have proof and lets us use them to better ourselves. It is up to us to determine how to use these facts.
If we assume that induction is a valid form of argument, then yes. But that might not be a good assumption. First, you have to justify why you expect the future to be similar to the past. That is, you have to justify empiricism/induction. You can't say "Well, it always has been!" because that begs the question. Using induction to justify induction would be circular.
And, I'm saying that work is required to get to the point where irrationality is minimized and that a more objective morality is part of the tool kit. People will be exposed to the idea as we oppose and move away from the monolithic institutions of irrational thinking. People will search for a more objective moral outlook. Over time, this will become more accepted. In the meantime, that won't stop this from being pursued, modified and disseminated. It will grow organically using this medium.
No it's not necessarily about religion, you're right about that; but what many seem to misunderstand about Sam's argument is that we know that opinions are not created equal, nor are the bases for having such opinions equal. Sometimes we verify an opinion with facst, and opinions supported by facts rather than by assumption or creed ought to weigh in heavier in real discussions about ethics. Societies ban slavery and murder, because we observe the pain and suffering they cause, scientifically.
Morality is to do what is right regardless of what you are told.
Religion is to do what you are told regardless of what is right.
So religion = legal system :D
And what does religion tell us to do that isnt right?
@@unhomesenzill4366 I'm asking you.
@@eduardo42897 well like a lot of stuff like killing gays...
String theory - "It doesn't resonate with me."
Well played, sir.
badum dum tshh
Sam Harris for President!!! We need to start making decisions based on logic and reason not emotion and myth
Wow. please explain how you associated logic with science. Tell me, how does science explain logic?
Scott Laux Science requires logic in order for it to work. We use logic in our reasoning. I don't think a scientific test could be used to prove that our logic is sound.
I thought that was Ben Stiller 🤔
A core idea behind science is to never have absolute certainties; to always welcome emergent ideas that can further expand knowledge. There is no bias; there is no desire to cling to traditional explanation. This is a core tenet of science that can also be found in certain Eastern religions and forms of philosophy. The recognition of the limits of the human mind; the inability to ever be certain. It is an important concept to confront as a human being, I think.
I love how many people in this comment section seem to believe they're smarter (especially on this topic) than Sam Harris whilst failing to use basic English sentence structure.
@j s k uhuh
Endorphins are addictive painkillers similar to heroin. When we have a flu, our body stops producing them, so we experience exactly the same symptoms as a heroin addict - who has been replacing his endorphins with a similar chemical until he stops producing his own - which is, of course, pain. Flu viruses don't cause us joint pain, it's the addiction withdrawals.
"I'm the Ted Bundy of String Theory." This guy is great.
sometimes logic can be destorted by personal ambition, however over time peer review and constant search for scientific truth tends to reveal these mistakes in the system. Unfortunately, these flaws are inevitable and sometimes can wreak havoc in societies, especially when misconstrued or missinterpreted for what these scientific princples are revealed to be. Human character is the one constant variable that alignes against or sometimes for the advancement of realistic knowledge.
this really made me think higher of ben stiller
😁
Of course. That's why I said we need a basis AND reason.
But saying that science answers moral questions is false. It helps answer, yes, but you will always need an irrational basis such as empathy.
I'm reading Mere Christianity right now in a Christian apologetics class, and Lewis' whole argument for the existence of God is based on human morals. If morals can be derived using science, however, Lewis' argument basically falls apart. I'm really interested in seeing how my teacher would respond to this video and the points that Harris brings up. This video was really interesting, especially because it is forcing me to look at my beliefs, criticize them, and build them back up again.
I'm glad you don't think religion should be condemned. I myself also do not hate Science. In fact, despite appearances on this forum, I actually love science and do not reject it. I think it is a wonderful thing. I only disagree with a few conclusions. Science in general is awesome!
Well deserved standing ovation. Thank you Ted for exposing minds like these.
Bunch of Godless commenters here
@@fredarroyo7429haha
You know what?
I think we agree. For the most part.
I would modify it slightly to say that you wouldn't blame it on philosophy, but to blame it on man for being Foolish enough to think Science could ever make moral determinations.
Morals deals with distinctions between right and wrong, something that is rather subjective making philosophical conclusions inevitable.
One of the best talks ever, even though it's a re-upload.
If the question is what we ought to do, practically, then i think you're right that solipsism and questioning induction doesn't get us anywhere. Testing/induction is the best method we have. But Harris is making a fundamental claim about ethics. He is not (imo) saying science is the best thing we can do, but that science can tell us the truth about ethics. That claim I deny. If you want to say, "we might as well use science because we can't do better," then I think thats more defensible.
The fact this doesn't have more than a million views in 9 years makes me question everything about humanity and if we're fit to survive.
Because it’s is self-refuting?
Please make the distinction between life stances or intrinsic values and derived moral judgements or opinions like "we ought to burn this person".
Science can answer the following factual question: "is this presumed witch guilty of presumed witchcraft?", or "Is burning guilty people effective at maximizing well-being?". We use science to make moral judgements, but these judgements are always based on our life stance or intrinsic values as well. Science alone cannot make moral judgements.
Somebody give this man an award.
What he's advocating is known in this field called "philosophy" as "Utilitarianism." Hardly science, I'm afraid, though it's a lovely change to hear someone advocating some kind of moral objectivity.
I kept thinking to myself throughout this entire talk, that the title should have been "Can Positive Psychology (or neuroscience) determine moral values?". No it can't. It can only tell you how to increase someone's well-being. It's also interesting he views that the "Care/harm" module is the most important while ignoring the other five : "Fairness/cheating","Liberty/oppression","Loyalty/betrayal","Authority/subversion", "Sanctity/degradation".
I mean the decline in violence can be answered...
Promotion of happiness and lessening of suffering is by definition good. The "worst possible misery for everyone scenario" illustrates that nicely. If bad is to have any meaning at all, surely it applies to the worst possible misery for everyone scenario. Good would then by default be anything that avoids such a scenario. Morality deals with which actions are good and which are bad. It does follow that the goal morality is to promote happiness and to diminish suffering.
Can you tell me scientifically that lessening of suffuring is right!!?
People actually think this is a good take? He essentially used extreme examples to make things seems logical while ignoring the much more nuanced middle grounds (e.g. comparing the Dali Lama and Ted Bundy, but not explaining how his theory would affect the much more common person at some point between those two extremes). He then suggested multiple times "I think we can all agree that *insert example* is not a good thing". However, he acknowledges that other people disagree with that point, basically saying that those people must be wrong. And then his final point seemed to lean a little towards the totalitarian... saying that eventually the world won't really have borders, and at that point we just won't let people do those things that we think are bad.
Am I missing something? Maybe I need a more in depth explanation but none of that was convincing and he provided no proof or explanation as to why things were the way he felt they were, just that they are.
Sam Harris is making a parallel with material realism as in science. Science has to make value judgements at every turn (whether this explanation is better than that, what to study, what to publish etc.). Science struggles to construct its description of realty, but there is always the underlying assumption that there is a reality to try to understand. Sam Harris makes the case that similar assumptions can apply to ethics and that this can also be a subject for scientific investigation. The use of extreme examples is to make it clear that whilst some questions might be finely balanced and not practically resolvable, there are others that are as obvious as whether it is OK to drink cholera contaminated water. His argument is largely utilitarian but allied with neuroscience.
There are some underlying assumptions such as that it is better to live than to be dead for example. He would acknowledge that although an answer is theoretically available for whether you should give your daughter a chocolate cake, and you might be in disagreement with your wife on this, very question it is impractical and futile to try to find out what the answer would be. But on whether it is OK to sell your daughter into prostitution, the factors at stake will make the answer obvious. More than this he is also saying that where the answers are obvious, there is every reason not to be afraid to say so.
well i can agree with that but as i stated in another comment, i find it rater pointles to answer the question as to whether science can help us without looking at what kind of principles science would give us. i understand that philosophy sometimes doen't need to make a solid point but in my opinion, that's what we should aim for in ethics.
He deserved every bit of that standing ovation
lol
Well-being is the ultimate goal, I've been clear on that, but that doesn't make the means by which it is achieved irrelevant. The path must be chosen carefully, with awareness and knowledge of what we are doing and the effects it may have. There is no dichotomy, only the conscious effort to maximize the goal with the least amount of harm possible.
Sam Harris knows what he's talking about. It's refreshing to hear some logic in morality.
Not really morality. Just redefining morality
Harris was trying to offer some ways of quantifying an ethic. That suffering and flourishing are part of a continuum of possible states of humanity, and that choices which trend more towards flourishing and less towards suffering is a very good place to start when talking about ethical choices.
This seems pretty straightforward, not as some dogmatic unbreakable law of the universe, but rather as a guideline and a POTENTIAL way of scientifically approaching moral questions. Perfectly reasonable.
FINALLY someone talking truth and fact THANK YOU !
Which brings me to the point of the omnipotent being. You would need an omnipotent being, who could observe every human being for centuries, to be able to carry out the research required to give you accurate morals. So please don't be so naïve as to think the simple logic you've deduced in your mind has solved the world's philosophical problems.
19:30 "...male lust is not to be trusted"
If it's really that bad, why don't all Muslim men just wear blindfolds?
First off, "peoples well being" is complex. And humans have had thousands of years of defining right and wrong, both superstitiously and based on personal emotions. Science can redefine it as what is actually best for us all based on evidence. Nobody can fool themselves in science - not if they're doing it right, and certainly not forever!
Morality is mankind creation for surviving and continuity of existence, it gets better with time, Evolution of Morals ✨💕
yes! However the moral cowards in academia use its man made nature to declare that it is arbitrary when it is anything but. This truth ultimately means that all cultures are far from equal, an unacceptable conclusion for sociologists, anthropologists etc
Absolute nonsense
yees
16:04 "Whenever we are talking about facts, certain opinions must be excluded."I like how he creates a barrier here, in that our moral obligation may have subjective avenues. However, at some level there is reasonable person who's opinion matters if it is at or above that level, or doesn't matter if it is below. How do we measure that? The argument circles again. It does however outline the classic contradiction of subjective thought gaining objective popularity. Things like as he mentioned, popularized theories in the scientific community, but also less scientific subjects such as classical art that also have a hierarchy of expertise to which we generally value opinions. Thank you for those thought provoking words!
Yup, thank you for the conversation. It really made me think.
2) Pain and pleasure aren't responsible for what constitutes right or wrong. The notion of responsibility doesn't make sense in a context which doesn't involve choices of conscious agents, responsibility relates to choices. The actual claim is that human well-being is what determines right and wrong, that's the definitional starting point. If you accept that's what morality is then it logically follows that science does have things to say about how to reach that.
"...Limitless WITHIN IT'S SCOPE.." I perfectly agree then. :)
Good point, however I can't help but acknowledge that humans have misinterpreted both potentially "transendent revelations" as well as self introspections by men/women of religious/spiritual backgrounds as well as men/women of logic through the texts of history past. But it seems to me, that in the case of how any Divine creator/obsever should have done things is not the same as how He/She/It has actually designed or desired certain aspects of life to be as the way it's actually experienced
Science can help* answer moral questions. Fixed that for him.
Furthermore, sacrificing a minority's health and lives for the comfort or pleasure of the majority (ie. slavery) is immoral as pleasure and comfort are not absolutely necessary for the sustainment of the lives. In regards to your point on sexuality, It would be immoral if the person performing the sexual acts believed it to be probable that her action would result in a child that can not be taken care of or result in the transmission of disease to someone else.
16:00 im liking where hes going
1. Any argument not based on reason is inherently weak and would be no trouble to deal with. 4/6. I think you will find that many people have argued exactly that point and done so very well. Furthermore, there are, in fact, a plethora of justifications beyond human happiness. 5/7 The standard comes from the most common denominator in morality, as Harris points out at the very beginning of this talk.
How and why is it so difficult to admit there is such thing as Balance And Healthy morality Just like Health of a body? Why do we believe we need to swing two extremes of morality like good and bad
That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying moral questions can be reduced to whether something promotes "flourishing" of a human brain and by extension life experience, or is detrimental to it. What the things are that cause these effects is up for debate, but there are parameters with which to measure this. Notice how in the landscape image there were peaks and troughs of varying depths too. Presumably these ideas exist on a sliding scale but arguably balance requires the acknowledgement of two extremes in order to be achieved, otherwise what exactly are you balancing?
Another issue with this line of thinking is the presumption that morality is found in moderation, as was stated in the example of clothing extremes. Good is the absence of bad or evil. The problem is that humans have a tendency to make decisions that are selfish, vengeful, prideful or corrupt. God is man's only hope in the battle of good versus evil.
Well, a great speech, yes, but saying that everyone should have the same standard on morality is rather intuitive, and not something new or special. He obviously didn't talk ethics in a philosophical or metaphysical way. Despite he says there got to be truth in morality, there are many dilemmas that still hold many different truths and moral values. Even metaethics doesn't have a conscientious, the debate between moral realism and moral anti-realism is still a problem, then how could morality suddenly have a general truth. All ethical theories can be criticized in the same cultural context or even by its own rules, no matter it is consequentialism, cultural relativism, virtue theory, or any other..... A logical complete ethical system is impossible. His claim sounds like an elitism view about morality. And by the way, he said that analogy on chess is just can't stand. Chess has a rule, but the rule is not the single truth, there are Chinese Chess, Japanese Chess, and many other kinds of chess that have different rules. Plus, he said rules can be used differently in different situations... I mean... himself just proved moral relativism... Also having the mind that believes there is a moral truth that everyone ought to obey is more dangerous, it will create a society without cultural tolerance. Moreover, science can't explain many things, even music can't be explained. No matter how much brain scan you did, you cannot find a musical truth... Look at how different Japanese traditional music is different than Western American folk sons, you cannot say there is a truth that tells u which is more beautiful. This guy confused the nature of facts and opinions. Facts do not need to be valued, its not on the human scale, but independent things that have been proven true. While morality can be valued by humans, which is what he is doing in the talk, he is evaluating what is better for mankind, this is clearly an opinion. Therefore morality is an opinion rather than fact.
Sam Harris isn't a charlatan he is a genius on every level. He is trying to show us that science through things like, biology and neurology, is determining certain things that are objectively good and bad for us. Regardless of what tradition says. How is that 'phoney baloney'.
In another attempt to divert the attention from his faulty reasoning, he claims that questioning moral authority of (i suppose) scientific ethicists, is as ridiculous as questioning the scientific authority of string theorists. He however fails to mention that area's like physics are hard sciences, based on mathematical axioms, while branch of ethics is based on some philosophical theory.
"Demonstrate that happiness/increased well-being is objectively better than suffering" - Individuals prefer happiness to suffering. That is a provable objective fact. It should therefore be the goal of morality to promote happiness and to diminish suffering.
Taking your question to the extreme, You are essentially asking me whether I would create a world where everybody lives physically healthy and prosperous lives but take away their free will in the process. I would not sacrifice free will for safety. Given Freedom and Health are equally objective (Free Will = Health). Mathematically Free Will > Health - Pain. or Free Will + pleasure > Health.
I see the difference between scientific difference of opinion is that when talking about morality it is far harder (and could be seen as impossible currently) to say what suffering is "needless"
My man starts out with denying the is-ought gap, What a legend
Yeah he says its just a language game
That someone has words for these thoughts is restoring some of my faith in humanity.
4/6. He addresses the value of an objective morality all through out this talk. When talking about the spectrum of human well-being, when talks about various notions of morality, how an open ended definition doesn't diminish of human well being. 5/7. I did answer why human well-being is important. As for the rest: this interpretation is more balanced and adaptable, good is what promotes most human well being and the least harm, bad is the opposite and that serves no logical purpose.
Science is two things: the first is systematic, rational exploration of the universe and the second is the body knowledge and information produced by that exploration. You cannot argue with either. The moment you type a single character to reply on your device, which is relayed to the Internet, science has already won the argument. To know what there really true is and not what we think or believe is true, science is the best way.
The difference between uncertainty and faith is much more than splitting hairs. You accept something because it is very likely to be true, and in practice it happens to be true with very high frequency.
This is the principle underlying all technology. It is true because it works in practice, although it may fail in some very rare scenarios.
With faith, you just don't care whether what you believe is plausible in practice.
"Generally speaking. So what?"
NOT generally speaking. By the definition of happiness: (all) 'Individuals prefer happiness to suffering.'
The goal of morality has been discussed by philosophers, and a concept that comes up often is: 'treat others how you want to be treated'. This is the core of human morality. If you assume this is true, your optimal "moral strategy" is to promote happiness. You won't only feel good about promoting happiness, but feel good about the happiness others bring.
You're right that science can tell us that witch-burning is a factual mistake. But that's a factual answer, not a moral one.
If you have a life stance of "people which are *believed* to cause supernatural harm must die", you can't dismiss this life stance with science, can you? If you can, please do.
Avoiding war doesn't imply that pacifism is more important than well-being, it is simply the logical observation that war causes human suffering on a large scale. It therefore should be a tool of last resort where the consequences of not going to war are so high that the amount of human suffering war causes becomes acceptable.
Avoiding misery is an objective value. Individual notions of misery will be of course very subjective, however the fact that there are states of being that are preferable to others remains objective. If morality is to have any goal, it is to support such states.
With all due respect, it is just as typical for the philosophically inclined to not only reject new ideas out of hand, but to claim they've seen all this before. Especially if such ideas contradict their own personal bias.
I don't deny that that Harris builds his argument on other theories but like a programmer using well known algorithms, he has crafted a new operating system that addresses the flaws of older models using the latest innovation. Morality 2.0.
What I agreed to is that there maybe more than one way to know what is true, not that science has limits. I also stated that science,logic and reason are the best ways to proceed. Philosophies, including religions, are only useful when dealing with human constructs and only then if reason and logic is applied. As one acknowledges that then you're correct.
From the article:
A spokesman for the Catholic Church denied that the secret Vatican orders were part of any organized cover-up.
He said: 'This document is about the Church's internal disciplinary procedures should a priest be accused of using confession to solicit sex. It does not forbid victims to report civil crimes.
4/6. I said objective morality is valuable for a number of reasons, human well-being is the most basic and universal among them. It is the totality of reasons that makes it so valuable. 5/6. What follows is part of its value. Why are things valuable? Because the opposite is avoidable suffering that serves no purpose. Why is leading a fulfilling life a good thing? It's the best use of a limited experience. My concept of good is the best that can be achieved with the least possible amount of harm.
Yes, the word "good" is generally used in a context where happiness is promoted and suffering diminished, it is it's meaning. We prefer when good things happen to us - when our well-being is promoted. That is an objective fact that can be used as an objective basis for a moral system - the system of good and bad. Is a world where everyone suffers as much as they possibly can a good world or a bad world?
"however, they cannot quantify the amount of "wrong" or "evil" of suffering itself."
I think Harris might argue that under his proposed system suffering ∝ wrong/evil.
”It is always easier to break things than to fix them!”
Sam Harris
I agree with what this guy wants to accomplish, as I have similar moral views as him, and I agree that science can help us come to better moral conclusions, and there are logical reasons for maximizing well-being based on facts and scientific knowledge, but not *only* based on that. Those reasons require something like a wish for human flourishing, or our sense of empathy.
The earth was not divided or split up until about 100 years after the global flood.
That is when the continents began breaking apart so the animals did have time to reach places that became isolated.
If we could intervene, the most objective course would be to refrain from taking sides and work towards a compromise and ceasefire. Unless it became apparent that one side was demonstrably wrong, then a quick end to a destructive conflict would be best. This could be achieved a number of ways and not all require violence. As for this percentage, if in all the ways we find to achieve human well-being, in the data and scientific findings some still find grounds to disagree we won't force them.
This seemed to me to be much more focused on moral objectivity vs moral relativism than it has anything much to do with scientifically reinforced values, tho I see the connection.
I didn't take it personally, but thank you just the same that is thoughtful of you.
As for disobedient children... I think the punishment would be dependent on the infraction.
Did they steal a piece of candy, or did they kill several other people. Is the child 5yo or 17yo. It is all relative don't you think?
Science has failed us in the past as well. Biological and chemical weapons aren't here by chance, so should we blame science?
Why blame religion because in the past some have misused it?
The oldest calendar is the Hindu calendar that just over 5,000 years old. Someone was saying the Assyrian calendar matches the biblical calendar of around 6,685 years.
There are many mass burials in the layers of sediment and we have not even seen everything that is down there. We can only see where the layers are pushed above the surface.
Consecutive layers means little or no time between each deposition.
Water rose in cycles.
The sediments were basically moved and redeposited by the global flood.
Floods always deposit sediments in layers.
In the beginning of this video he already makes a statement that well-being of humans and other conscious beings is important, even though many people agree, it doesn´t make is "true". The rest i understand and agree with him on, but he should have started with how he defines a value.
1. Reason is the only valid BASIS for a thought system otherwise it would be a feeling system or an imagination system. 2 & 3. Morality can only be objective and immune to social change if they originate from outside of humanity. 4 & 6 Cultural relativism is insufficient due to bias but a science based morality provides objectivity and adaptability. 5&7 Human well-being is as close to universally good as anything could be and it cannot be given but nurtured.
Having joint pain because a chemical is no longer in your body doesn't mean that's analogous to a withdrawal. You could argue that's just a side-effect from how the body normally functions. With your logic you could say not exercising and the lack of exercise having bad effects on your body is exercise-withdrawal. Or that not breathing and feeling suffocation is air-withdrawal. Or that not eating and feeling hunger is food-withdrawal.
An analogy I can give you is that of a computer program. Given inputs x and y in a computer, the output is z based on the mathematical function which the program uses. If the output is w, this can only mean that the inputs were not strictly x and y. The future being dissimilar to the past does not mean that the math is wrong, it only means that the inputs are different.
4/6. Only we've already discussed that he isn't doing that. 5/7. Human well-being is good because it is the core concern of all morality, compassion and empathy. Human well-being diminishes suffering and the need for violent conflict, enables us coexists which in turn increases the chances for longevity of the species, encourages mentally and physically healthier, more fulfilling lives. Only now with our level of technology and science we can achieve this with sustainability and more people.
That makes as much sense as saying reason should be abandoned because it has no grounds in religion.
Actually a lot of people have given explanation as to why it doesn't work - you just need to keep reading the comments. The comments are not a debate - they are a critique of Harris' logic. I think the alternative is believing that only a higher omnipotent being could have the "wisdom" of establishing "beneficial" morals.
1. Logic dictates what an innocent human is. If a human life is physically detrimental to our species, ie. his net influence is negative, He is a problem to the species and therefore not "innocent."
2. Biology dicates that protecting the lives and health of the majority is important because all species of life naturally strive to flourish and increase their numbers. acting in the interest of the majority sustains and improves numbers whereas the reverse reduces them.
I have a problem with terms being applied incorrectly, as you may recall from discussion on absolutes. The term faith doesn't apply to the reasonable expectation of electrical power or that such power will be reestablished given enough time and effort. There is proof of this. There is reliable, documented evidence that the chances that this will be the case are exceedingly high. That, not faith, is why one expects it will happen despite inherent uncertainty.
1) A concept is an idea. Ideas are not material things. Can you draw me a picture of an idea? Can you draw me a picture of Justice? You would draw a judge or a scale but these things you are drawing are not justice but instead material things that enact justice.
2) I know I exist because I occupy space and am made from matter. Everything outside of me occupies space and therefore it follows everything else is also matter. Matter exists. Therefore the universe exists.
One could also argue that addiction mimics the body's normal functioning, not that the body mimics addiction.
It doesn't imply that. If I had said war must be avoided at all costs at all times, then and only then would I have placed pacifism above the goal of human well-being. I simply pointed out that war causes human suffering, the very condition we are trying to alleviate, like few other things and thus should be avoided.
I don't know if I'm not conscious, I don't necessarily know even if I am conscious. For all I know, I could be suffering from malnutrition, diabetes or cancer.
As a process, yes, you could say we're addicted to water :P
That's not really what I was saying though. We don't *need things like love nutritionally, so the body uses the exact same chemical process as heroin addiction (using pretty much the same chemicals and receptors).
In fact, hunger and thirst are signalled to us with pain/pleasure drugs, that's what makes cocaine and heroin so addictive - we're compatible biochemically.
Well I think Sam would agree with you opening statement, we should have a standard to determine morality. He offered the notion of suffering as the standard. Can we find a place in the moral landscape to minimize suffering and maximize flourishing. It seems altogether easy as well. All we need to do is think about this world and try to better it. This scares you because you're just too busy being worried about getting "left behind" in the umteenth version of the rapture that won't happen.
That's precisely what I meant. Harris suggests in a new to approach morality employing science and the scientific method. Not that this hasn't been attempted before but that Harris is suggesting using science and the scientific method in a new way when applying to morality. One based on neurology and psychology of the species and individual simultaneously applied objectively. I think we can both agree that is a novel approach.
I take morality to be a way of limiting suffering and spreading well-being. I know what it feels like to suffer, I know I would rather not suffer and I can make the reasonable assumption that I share this trait with other people. In that framework misery is bad and it is our moral duty to avoid it. How would you define morality?
A daring talk, for sure. I am of the belief that everyone is compelled by believing their actions are inherently "good". I am not sure we are at the point where we can tell other cultures they are inherently wrong. I do agree on quite a few points the speaker makes, but can not forget I may just be agreeing with him just because I grew up in the same culture.
This is a response to a poster earlier, preaching but his comment got my brain going:
You expect your maker to provide your values in a language that you understand without context. You believe that one person, or group of people can accurately, and completely interpret the word of your God.
Look...your neighbourhood, your family, your city, world, maybe you have a nice car, maybe you think you have nice things because you earned it, you deserve it.
I have made that distinction. And since derived moral judgments are derived from life stances my point remains. The questions here isn't whether or not science can make moral judgements but whether or not it can answer moral questions. It can. As the man says, this prompts a new more objective morality. By providing a more objective, unbiased source for those answers, science shapes values (and therefore judgments) the way a frame shapes a house, not the other way around.
Human well-being involves all of us, not just someone. He doesn't say it's a fact only that it is a fact that human well-being is single most common denominator in morality. It is the core of what we are concerned about from compassion and empathy to formal codes of conduct.
I would have loved for Sam to have tried to answer, or to even elude to an answer, a moral question through science. As it stands I found this speech unconvincing. If there are moral truths i don't feel we are any closer to discovering what they are. We are about as close to discovering time travel as we are to discovering any absolute moral truth.
The only logical conclusion is that our morality adapts with the science we would base it on. He doesn't think we should enforce morals. What he say is that not all views are valid and we shouldn't act as if they are nor are we required to respect flawed positions. He points out as we explore this we will inevitably converge on central set of core agreements. Science proves a great deal while adapting to new discoveries thus it's ideal for developing a more objective, evolving morality.
I don't think religion should be condemned, but religion is not open to change in moral values. If a religion has morals that are deemed wrong, but its followers still claim it to be the absolute truth even if it only benefits a small few or perhaps nobody at all, there is no room left for improvement. Science doesn't claim absolute truths solely on opinion or belief, but gives facts that have proof and lets us use them to better ourselves. It is up to us to determine how to use these facts.
If we assume that induction is a valid form of argument, then yes. But that might not be a good assumption. First, you have to justify why you expect the future to be similar to the past. That is, you have to justify empiricism/induction. You can't say "Well, it always has been!" because that begs the question. Using induction to justify induction would be circular.
And, I'm saying that work is required to get to the point where irrationality is minimized and that a more objective morality is part of the tool kit. People will be exposed to the idea as we oppose and move away from the monolithic institutions of irrational thinking. People will search for a more objective moral outlook. Over time, this will become more accepted. In the meantime, that won't stop this from being pursued, modified and disseminated. It will grow organically using this medium.
No it's not necessarily about religion, you're right about that; but what many seem to misunderstand about Sam's argument is that we know that opinions are not created equal, nor are the bases for having such opinions equal. Sometimes we verify an opinion with facst, and opinions supported by facts rather than by assumption or creed ought to weigh in heavier in real discussions about ethics. Societies ban slavery and murder, because we observe the pain and suffering they cause, scientifically.