Debating The Moral Landscape With Sam Harris
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ค. 2024
- This episode contains a paid partnership with BetterHelp. Get 10% off your first month: www.betterhelp.com/alexoconnor
For early, ad-free access to videos, support the channel at / alexoc
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- VIDEO NOTES
Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, philosopher, New York Times best-selling author, host of Making Sense, and creator of Waking Up.
- LINKS
Buy The Moral Landscape: amzn.to/3xih2Tp
- TIMESTAMPS
00:00 Introduction
01:05 Are We Beyond New Atheism?
04:11 Experiences That Objectively ‘Suck’
11:32 Objectivity and Subjectivity
17:19 Defining "Bad"
27:11 The Established Perspectives on Ethics
36:40 Our Human Sense of ‘Should’
45:32 Trying to Define Wellbeing
54:10 Alex's Emotivism vs Sam's Moral Landscape
1:15:49 Are We Just Talking About Preferences?
1:30:30 Is Sam’s Argument Circular?
1:35:18 Is The Worst Possible Misery For Everyone Objectively Bad?
1:41:51 Why Should I Care About Someone Else’s Wellbeing?
1:57:06 Role of Religion in the Moral Landscape
2:09:51 Scepticism of Meditation & Prayer
2:22:47 Psychedelics and Ego Death
2:37:10 The Self is an Illusion
2:47:37 Trying to get Richard Dawkins to Meditate
2:56:29 Conclusion
- SPECIAL THANKS
A special thanks to Tom Rindell for his support on Patreon.
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
TikTok: @CosmicSkeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
If you want to support my work, help grow the channel, and get early access to videos, ad-free, please consider signing up on Patreon! www.patreon.com/alexoc
Will def watch! The moral landscape is one of the few areas I'm not fully aligned with Sam Harris on.
Money is too tight at moment for me Alex but I really love your work and am so appreciative of you and your sharing to the world. Once the finances improve I’ll definitely get on the Patreon support.. meanwhile you just have my positive energy flowing your way.. I realise it doesn’t buy you doughnuts but it might help put a smile on your face! Big love buddy
Alex, your lack of proper grammar disturbs me . Since when is it permissible to have a singular pronoun with a plural noun?
Please could you interview Rupert sheldrake
No Trump rant?
I liked it when Sam Harris said "I am the moral landscape" and moral landscaped everywhere
Wtf 😂
Personally, I found that part quite distasteful
Oh please! Jesus landscapes morally.
Jesús is my gardener. He's good at what he does.
Alex: This has been a long time coming.
Sam: Are you threatening me?
Alex: The Moral Landscape will decide your fate.
Sam: I am the Moral Landscape.
Alex: Not yet.
Sam: Lets reason then.
Moral landscaping is the real manscaping
Parents: Don’t put your hand on the stove.
Philosophers: …Hear me out…
''What do you mean by 'stove'?''
@@RandomAussieGuy87 Nah, you're going down a metaphysical route. The methaethicist would say, "I need you to establish a first principle which shows why the moral status of the act has variance potential prior to my serious consideration of that instruction."
Audibly laughed
😂
@@RandomAussieGuy87 JP when told to heat up leftovers... :-P
My new life motto is "fewer boos, more yums."
A friend always says "don't yuck someone else's yum". (Edit: spelling)
This should be a t-shirt
@@riseofdarkleela lol, which word was misspelled?
@@adamfstewart81 Millennial: "You're supporting a totalitarian regime of militant religious fundamentalist hard-right, anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-women's rights, islamofascists who use mass R* as weapon and have a call for genocide in their official charter."
Zoomer: "Don't yuck my yum."
you misspelled "yams"
I love how Sam explains a concept and then immediately presents an example to make it more understandable!
He’s the undisputed king of analogy
Yeah he'd be good in teaching. Relaying information in the best possible way for someone to digest.
@@DaneRobinsonMusic He is absolutely horrendous at analogies.
If it objectively sucks, to be harmed, is it objectively immoral to risk your life for someone else? If it objectively sucks, to be harmed, is it objectively immoral for Sam to eat meat?
They're both incredible at analogy
The real Moral Landscape is the friends we made along the way.
Or every sentient being we directly or indirectly cooperate with in some form during our journey through life.
😂 lol. Yep.
Meaning the people we walk all over in our search for personal fulfillment?
@@ASimoneaulol?
@@ASimoneauJesus lol
Must be amazing for Alex to go from his bedroom making videos in response to Sam Haris' morality to discussing it with him in person. Huge props to Sam for being very open minded, patient and good faith. A discussion like this is what us nerds live for.
Whoop 🙌🏼 a geno supporter 😍😍😍
@@Ceasarsalate??
So what? Did you find him insincere to begin?
@@adabsurdum3314 No, but I don't watch a lot of Sam Haris. It's not uncommon for people with his credentials to be unreceptive to criticism or for people in general to engage in bad faith tactics. I think it's worth appreciating when a discussion or debate doesn't devolve into a screaming match. Even though it seems like the bare minimum, it's becoming exceedingly rare it seems.
Sam Harris overrated
Both are immeasurably smarter than I, but by gosh does O’Connor put him through his paces in a way I don’t think I’ve ever seen. What an extraordinary interview. Well done Alex.
I think Alex was just arguing something pointless for hours. Nothing he said really challenged Sams view. It just made Sam have to explain the same thing over and over again.
Possibly. Though the spirit of the conversation suggests Sam respected and appreciated the challenge. He defo has the ability to shut down pointless conversations, and that’s not what we seen here.
@@Samson484in my opinion alex actually does successfully undermine sam's view. He on multiple occasions points out that while admittedly you do subjectively consider having your hand on the stove to be "bad", and you might even say thay you should take it off, under further analysis the only objective thing that's happening is that in order for you to to achieve your subjective interest of getting your hand off the stove, you "should", indeed, take it off. But that's only as far as to achieve that subjective interest. There's no universal should outside of that.
Sam had to explain his stances in 5 different ways before Alex even attempts changing the subject.
I don’t know why Sam’s position is remotely controversial. Alex is a very smart individual but good god does he like to make people repeat themselves a hundred times.
Sam’s point is IF there is a bad then the moral obligation of science is to minimize it as much as possible.
Alex says that you can’t prove IF….and Sam has to spend 10 min explaining why everything we know and study and learned starts with an IF.
But Alex goes well Blue is not bad! Then Sam has to spend 20 min explaining how aesthetics is a harmless preference and is unconcerned with tomato and tomahto until we discover that liking blue brings some measured benefit
And then Alex cuts him off and says well your just adding value to blue in which Sam has to explain AGAIN that blue has to be good or bad on some level for the color blue to be a factor in morality in which case the color blue as far as human society can tell doesnt hinder anyone’s level of well being.
And on and on, Sam had to explain ad nauseam the same damn thing over and over again.
There’s being thorough and then there’s being thick headed or stubborn.
He will ask what about blue? Then ask about red, then green, then orange until time runs out or the guest gives up like Peter Hitchens.
Alex is extremely smart, witty, patient and cordial but he is beyond stubborn and he needs to learn when to move on to another subject.
@@tinyf666To me it seemed like Alex made the same mistake he did with the Hitchens interview which is a refusal to ever let his desired rabbit hole end, don't get me wrong, Hitchens behaved like a colossal spoiled baby.
I think it's fair to say that the point remains that in nearly every possible metric, having your hand burned is simply bad. Perhaps exploring the philosophical miasma of what every word can mean is simply not worth it, which Harris expressed at least 5 times with extreme patience. I would also note that this is a feature of Jordan Peterson which people are very quick to rightly point out and shame.
I really enjoyed the back and forth but it did drag on (or maybe we should examine what I mean by did in this particular context in all 77 possible philosophical landscapes??).
Still a massive fan.
This is so refreshing to hear people that don't agree on everything but really listen and try to the best abilities understand each other. If only all people be able to discuss ideas like this.
Without attacking each other, without ridiculing, without constantly interrupting each other actually listening. A bit boring after a while.
Not nearly as entertaining as a shitshow circus of unhinged people going nuts with bad faith discussion/debate, spewing obvious fallacies every few seconds.
I love how Sam's audio quality is superior even when he's the guest
He is a pro.
Hahahaha
Hilarious observation. Can’t stop noticing now.
Brilliant
That's not the audio quality, it's just how his voice sounds. If you look carefully, there's a tiny "Sennheiser" logo on his throat.
Always nice to see Ben Stiller continue to branch out
🤣
This will never not be funny 😂
I can't believe how well General Zod has aged
I did hear Sam once acknowledge his resemblance to Ben Stiller
I wish Alex asked him how he feels about his appearance in P Diddy's music video.. oh well
I can definitely agree with Sam here when he challenges Alex on the use of the word "prefer." Alex's insistence on this word seems incredibly strange. It seems like he's just arguing to argue during this section at different points in the discussion.
Absolutely. I get the feeling Alex thinks he is more clever than he actually is.
@@PeteQuad It seems baffling to me that he thinks saying he "prefers" not to have his hand on a hot stove is somehow a salient point.
I think Alex was trying to argue that since every judgement of good or bad is ultimately an individual’s preference, there can’t be such a thing as objective morality. However he seems to concede this point in the section around 1:35:30 - 1:40:00 when Sam tells him that even when talking in Alex’s terms of subjective preferences you still can arrive at the same conclusion that there is such a thing as objective morality.
So yeah, I’d agree that Alex probably spent too much energy trying to defend this point, but I’d at least give him credit that he eventually let it rest.
well I agree, however, in philosophy every detail like that means something and it's neutral. Philosophical conversations are floating all the ideas "what if we said preference here, isn't that the most accurate' , like they are doing math proofs. It's neutral. But when we disagree it stands out like he's a nut. lol. I did enjoy when Sam asked him if he feels like a psychopath saying that LMAO. hahahahahahaha. But in philosophy, everything is explored and put up for challenge or confirmation in a neutral sense. This is where we hash out everything. He's basically saying it's not been proven that it's objectively "bad" and that's his way.
But god botherers (and yes, he is, even if he id's as an atheist) cannot understand objective meanings because they have god stuck in the brain. Listening to him talk to someone else, I can see that he thinks that the concept of god has earned its place as a default position and does not fully realize that the god concept should not be granted king of the hill default status until proven otherwise. I say this because he seems to think that once one thing is *not* convincing to him, that then we default to a god. I know that normies think like that, and this last snippet of a conversation that I saw with more god botherers demonstrated that. They were so happy to have a nice atheist there. lol. Yeah a nice atheist that capitulates to, if not Y then ok you can speculate about G. I reject this. The god concept has not earned its place just because it's common.
this is maybe my favorite episode of WR that i’ve watched so far. Im listening on a 15 hour car ride and, even though it’s much longer than normal, ive been engaged the entire time. Truly one of the great conversations.
I adore the irony of a Better Help sponsorship on a three hour discussion of morality.
also the subject of Free will . haha
yea and did you notice the recognition of that irony when Alex was doing the ad read and he had that slight pause and quizzical look when saying "well being", giving a little nod to Sam's concept. 🤣
I dont think that's what irony means
@@10sodotwhat does better help have to do with free will?
@@olaf3140 Some psychologists argue that free will is an illusion and insist that our behaviour is in fact environmentally determined, even if we are unable (or unwilling) to admit it.
4:51 "what do you mean by suck"
It's the delivery😂 Quote of the day...
It’s a valid question 🤣
I can’t help but think it’s been maybe a chat-up line of Alex’s in the past. Impeccable.
Thats what she said
This is where philosophy fails us 🤦♂️
@@Alex-mj5dv haha 😂 before I saw your comment, I was also kind of imagining a new dad-joke type thing about this… “what did the moral philosopher say to the street walker?” … Or something, don’t hold me to that, haha, I openly admit someone with more talent needs to write the joke.
Could you please revisit your video "Sam Harris is Wrong About Morality (It Can't Be Objective)" and make an updated one? I would be curious if your opinion is different after this detailed debate with Sam. I really couldn't find a flaw in Sam's argument and logic on this topic, I now understand his view even more clearly, and I have to say that I agree with his view. That was a great conversation that the two of you had. Thank you.
Funny how people can draw different conclusions from the same data. To me this video clearly showed how Harris is NOT a philosopher and is not capable of truly rigorous reasoning on the topic of morality.
Yeah I was not really convinced by Sam Harris on that one but would love to hear a follow-up breakdown from Alex!
@@hanscastorp1945 I was so frustrated that he could not seem to understand what Alex was asking. To me it seemed like Sam just kept assuming his conclusion and couldn't even see that he was doing it.
"Let's assume there is something called absolute bad..."
"Let's assume that you should care about everyone else's preferences..."
@@MaaronK42 That's exactly what he's doing because that assumption is baked into his moral frame. He thinks it's self-evident to maximize well-being and that we should essentially ignore the is/ought gap because the meta-ethical discussion somehow undermines his moral project in the real world. It's not philosophy, it's activism.
@@Naberius359 which is well and good, but then just skip the meta-ethics part and go directly to activism like many other people do.
This was brilliant, Alex. Great conversation and extremely educational, but most importantly it was very fun to listen to. Thanks to you and Sam!
"Sam Harris, welcome to within reason" is pure music to my ears. Glad the day has finally come.
And it’s an immediate contradiction to mine. Let’s see how this goes…
Wow sam sounds exactly like the soviets, he is literally saying its ok to lock someone up who disagrees with the rest.
@@realistic_delinquentHow exactly can welcoming someone to a show be contradictory? If you mean because you dissociate Sam Harris from reason, I don't think there are many people who would subscribe to the idea that Sam Harris is an unreasonable human being.
@@elmoninjaking94 I agree with your conclusion but your reasoning is flawed. You make the logical fallacy of appealing to majority. Instead, you should have challenged challenger to prove how the statement is a contradiction
@@flagra7908 I'm not arguing that he shouldn't hold the position because it's not a popular one, I was just making an observation that the philosophical world generally holds Sam in high regard, even if many of his conclusions are disputed
Who else is thinking “finally! After all this time he *finally* has Sam Harris on the podcast”
I would have 10 years ago before Sam went off the deep end. This channel is going downhill.
Elaborate @@Bc232klm
No kidding. I remember hoping waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when, when Alex, Rationality Rules, and others first came up, that it would be great to someday see these guys connect with Sam. And, about a decade later, here we are. :D
@Bc232klm What do you mean? When people make vague criticisms of Sam Harris I have no idea if they are criticising him from the Left or Right.
@@RandomAussieGuy87they don’t either. It’s whatever flavor they’ve been swayed to this year. I believe most of us, an overwhelming amount, occupy what would be called “center” but the (admittedly genius) political consultants over the years have convinced us that we have to pick a side; and this is the world we get
Alex, I'm a Catholic and I disagree with you about many, many things, but I keep coming back to listen to these interviews because you are a deeply intelligent and shrewd interlocutor. Thank you for sharing your thinking with us!
I was actually a Roman Catholic turned atheist just like Sam Harris and a determinist like Robert Sapolsky, when I was the age of 15, but was not out of my own volition and was years before I even encountered all these atheist intellectuals. It was incipiently very depressing and painful having come from a devoutly Catholic and conservative family, but have learned to accept it and how conversely consider myself privileged being such an enlightened liberated individual.
Respect for confronting yourself with opinions contrary to your own! Very few people do this in my experience, whatever their background.
@@sylviaowega3839Sam Harris was never a roman catholic.
@@brazenatheist1676It was the Jewish sect of the Roman Catholic church.
@@brazenatheist1676I didn’t say that Sam Harris was a Roman Catholic. Lol I am well aware that he is part Jewish.
Long time coming, this. Loved every second.
i loved when he said "its over alex, i am the moral landscape"
"You underestimate my ability to split hairs."
I loved that part too, but it was truly sad when Alex was like “I don’t feel so good Mr. Harris” then died
When did it start?
timestamp
He wrote The Moral Landscape
When you've been playing a videogame for a long time, and then at long last get to the final boss battle.
😂
Boss battle would be Harris and Peterson(that already happened). This is more of a duo that takes a few friendly fire shots for a laugh.
@@DavidUrulski-wq9de in videogames, a boss is a really strong NPC. A boss battle is not a battle between two bosses, it's when the player of the videogame finally faces such an NPC.
I'm referencing how Alex has been for years trying to debunk Sam Harris’s views on morality (on which they definitely didn't agree prior to the conversation - I've not finished watching it yet, so I don't know the result), and how he finally has the opportunity to debate this with the man himself.
The final boss is Christopher Hitchens, a man who has gone a step further than his brother and refuses to ever set foot on the podcast.
@jamesdettmann94 as much as I agree, that boss is dead.
Listening to you two talk about 'preferences,' 'oughts,' and maximizing pleasure, especially by *changing* your preferences, made me realize one component of ought that really matters a lot. If I could change myself to prefer a painful thing that I can't escape in my life, I would naturally start making choices that lean into this new preference. This one choice to prefer something I didn't before could change the shape of my life forever. So I suppose the question is: if you could choose to change your preferences, what changes would you make? How would you maximize your future?
And potentially most important: where should you place others in this choice? I think a lot of morality ends up being trying to convince others to make choices that help ourselves and those we love, and then balancing that with how much they would need to sacrifice of themselves to make the choices we want them to make. If this is the case, you can compute an ought: whichever solution negotiates the least sacrifice from all potential sacrificers for the most payout in all potential receivers. But if you could change your desires, that changes the whole game. How do you choose to solve a puzzle with infinite solutions?
Admittedly, you aren't starting from nowhere. You have an initial state, so you could at least narrow down your infinite solutions by pruning paths you don't prefer. You'd just have to keep doing that forever or do things the old fashioned way and use your current preferences.
I also like Harris' argument that "preference" tuned up in intensity gains the moral imperative, but also loses the intuitive definition of preference. It does seem the word is deceptive in how it reframes desires from imperatives to trivialities, even if the actual nature of them is unchanged.
The bedrock disagreement which Alex and Sam seem to be dancing around is that Sam basically believes there is no such thing as “morality” in the abstract without consciousness. Just like there is no chemistry without physics, for Sam you need conscious beings to then derive morality from their existence. Whereas Alex is searching for morality in the abstract, even in a universe without consciousness. For him morality pre-exists consciousness.
Like a divine moral landscape?? If you don't mean that, what you say makes no sense.
@@glloyd561 I wouldn't say divine, especially given that Alex is an atheist. But maybe one could use the term "philosophical moral landscape", that argues morality from non-human first principles.
Btw. I tend to side with Sam here. I think morality only exists in the context of advanced consciousness.
@The-Rest-of-Us Hmm, I think though the discussion concerns stripping back as much as possible to find out if it is possible to extract objective morals from human existence and consciousness wirhout the aid of such things as religious or philosophical frameworks or structures. It was a very interesting and enjoyable discussion.
precise formulated
Sam also basically argues that if everyone agrees that suffering is bad. Suffering is bad and we can work up from there.
Of course, the problem is that suffering isn't necessarily bad. Hence his arguments get problematic when he gets to frame people he believe are "evil" because they increase suffering.
Wow these two actually listen and reply to eachother, how refreshing.
"You know what? I am completely bored of this topic. You said we would talk about philosophy but you are obsessed with the notion of preferences." -"I'm fine to talk about something else." "No, you are obsessed. You have brought me here on false pretenses and you don't have my permission to release that footage." would be a surprise from Sam indeed.
@@tobynsaunders Sam Hitchens
It is mostly Alex listening to Sam
@@johnjameson6751 "Welcome to Within Reason. This is Sam Harris. Okay. Today I'm talking with Alex O'Connor. Alex is a student of philosophy at Oxford University. We're going to talk about issues including the moral landscape and whether..." -"Sam, could I just stop you there?" "Yeah, what's the..." -"Okay, if I could just introduce the conversation." "If you'll just pay attention to your breathing though." -"Okay?" "You'll notice, in this moment, that we have no fucking idea what is happening, in any given moment. And, we don't know what thought is arising next. And when was the last time you thought about death?" -"Again, Sam, if I could just..." "And have you heard Trump's eagerness to dissimulate a phantasmagoric panopticon of vituperative..." -"Sam..."
@@tobynsaunders Good to see that the art of parody is thriving on youtube comments :)
All I have to say, even before finishing this conversation, is that I want more. Please invite Sam back. These two intellectuals, putting it plainly, really is a breath of fresh air. Love you both
"Intellectuals" 😂😂
You see! This comment makes my point exactly. He thinks this is a breath of fresh air. I do not concur. Most people would agree the old adage of "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" So why, in Sam's magic football helmet world, is He the one that uses the helmet on others, instead of US using it on HIM?
@@thelot9880Thank you. This way I don't have to say it.
@@thelot9880I guess naval gazing makes you an intellectual.
"Religious Nonsense" I.E., I can't understand religion, therefore, it can not be true.
Alex surpassed the four horsemen years ago.
Sam's refusal to define precisely why should/ought are logically necessary and accurate terms to use, speaks to an ideological blindspot. Until you can argue for an objective 'ought', you are not justified in skipping ahead to the rest of the argument.
He reminds me of Daniel Dennets extreme bias on the topic of free will, a subject he argues very incompetently despite his incredible knowledge and intellectual capacity. Ideology is the death of truth.
Bravo Alex.
Yep, like Harris a lot--but this is a blind spot in his thinking.
Alex: What do you mean by should?
Sam: Things would generally be better... given what it is to have a mind.
His should is an is.
Trying to summarize Sam's Moral Landscape as best as I can.
Our conscious experience is the most fundamental "truth" we can arrive at. Conscious beings experience peaks and valleys, but actually defining what is "good" and "bad" is a challenge. Sam says we actually can determine what's "good and bad", but it's often an undiscovered truth, like a real number of stars in the galaxy, but the actual number which is unknown to us. We can therefore create a logical syllogism:
• If the worst possible misery for every conscious being" is "bad",
• Then it is "good" for conscious beings to do that which avoids the worst possible misery for every conscious being.
I think this works well with examples that clearly trend closer to the greatest possible misery, but for the cases where it's not so clear what best avoids the worst possible misery, all Sam has to do is say that there is "some" true answer, but it might not be possible to know.
I could see Alex's frustration at times in the interview because there really isn't any way to show that this framework actually identifies what is good and bad for all the cases that aren't extremely obvious to us. If all he's doing is claiming that there is a good and bad, but not yet known to us, it seems functionally identical to the stance that good and bad don't exist after all...
Well said!
Yeah. Like, I can buy in “the ultimate suffering is bad”. Easy peasy. But, where do we go from there?
Been looking forward to this conversation for 5+ years
same
It’s good it waited though for Alex to refine his thoughts on these subjects. It was a pleasure to hear what they had to say.
Same
@@EternalGaze8I absolutely agree.
Ben*
This clarified Sam Harris's Moral Landscape for me beyond anything else I've read or heard from him, all thanks to Alex's incisive and thoughtful questions
Anything...thoughts? Questions?
Incisive does not equal wise
I still find a big gap in Sam's explanation of better or best. at no point did they define the purpose of life. I can't see how you can have morality without defining what the purpose of life is since morality would just be the behavior that moved you forward toward the purpose of life. Sam seems to be saying that the purpose of life is to avoid pain or gain pleasure. not necessarily in some heat and mystic way, but in some overall quality of comfort way. but is that the purpose of life and if so, you kind of need to stated because you can't have a hierarchy of choices until you understand what the goal is.
@@spikeontheroad2560 He is just saying we can make decisions that are better or worse in relation to the worst outcome possible, analogous to a landscape taking steps towards a peak but aware there are always more valleys, you seem to be single minded and low IQ a terrible mix really 😂
Actually sams comments, help me to understand why atheist govts are dangerous. Sam said its ok to put someone who disagrees with the rest, in a room. He is essentially bringing back the gulags for those who disagree on what he thinks is best for humanity.
I might just be missing something, but I can't help but to be impressed with Harris' use of language and his ability to get an idea across.
First time? You should follow Sam's podcast.
Compare Sam with Jordan Peterson and you can actually see jordan for the moron that he is. When you truly understand a subject, you should be able to explain it with clarity like Sam does. Unlike Jordan who uses a word salad to try to confuse people/seem like he's way more intelligent than he actually is
Your pfp is 🔥
11:10 “In his last hour of life, Winston Churchill was not thinking consciously about how much he wishes he could get Taylor Swift tickets”
Had this on in the background but this legit made me lol.
The only debate to ever lower my blood pressure…
Thanks chaps 🙏
Underrated comment
So true 😢
If you ever feel like raising it then give jordan peterson a listen😂
Wow that's a good point, we need a term for that, debates that every second make the audience feel better and more at peace, a clear showcase of love for the truth of this universe
@@marvelsandals4228 love your words here
1:53:13 "whoa whoa, I'm not gettin' on this plane until you start talking differently... " Sam's wit is underappreciated :)
Was that wit? Sounded like a stunted vocabulary to me.
@@scaryperi3051he must have come up with 20 good analogies to clarify his points during the interview. He did it organically on the spot. I think that analogy of the guy who can't add logically really cut to the chase: We know that he's wrong and if he'd only known better, he would also agree that he is wrong; so it goes for some people on moral issues.
@@MrSidney9 But that agreement is still subjective, and Hume's Guillotine prevents that--you cannot get an is from an ought. I'm just surprised someone as intelligent as Harris can't understand it. It's a bad analogy because math is objective (absolute even), while morality is simply not, and o amount of rationalization or beating around the bush will alter that fact. Even if a god existed, morality would still be subjective, because said god would then be the moral agent subjectively dictating morality for the rest.
@@MrSidney9 Nope--see Hume's Guillotine.
I think if Sam dedicated energy to creating a stand up routine it would be something to admire.
57:08 Alex! You do realize that your experience changes you, right? As in, changes your subjectivity! Your subjectivity isn't static, Alex! It's dynamic!!!
59:59 Alex! You don't have to take a pill to change your subjectivity! It changes all the time! You can even change it yourself through your experience! Through your actions! Through your "will," even!
I think this is my favorite 1-to-1 so far for me. Thanks for organizing these!
3 minutes and I’ve had to go to the dictionary three times. One of my favorite things about listening to Sam Harris is the secondary benefit of vocabulary lessons
Can someone please explain to my peasant mind what he means when he keeps saying "deflationary"? I'm like, huh, what, economics??
lol same
ORTHOGONAL.
Quixotic
Orthogonal
Sheeshineedagoogledat
Yeah. Hate that about philosophers.. why can't they assume people might not get these big words and just simply give at least some form of axiomatic definition in short about what they mean when they say it?😂😂😂😂😂.
it's so trippy to think that I was with you in your early days of youtube. you were so young as i was then. I'm so happy to hear you talk to these brilliant people and see them being challenged.
It’s interesting that he was the only one of the TH-cam atheist group to really break out into the mainstream.
wonderful conversation thanks! :)
Sam freaking Harris! He is here and saying, "Good to meet you finally" because yes, finally is the word! I supported you on patreon before you moved to a new patreon page and I hope to support your work there, soon. In any case, I am thrilled to see you actually got Dr. Sam Harris! I am who I am in no small part because of Sam Harris. I might not be an atheist if it wasn't for Sam, I certainly started meditating as a result of his passionate and articulate way of describing it, I use the Waking Up app and it has helped me on my journey to being a regular meditator, touched me deeply and improved my life. Sam is one of the most well-rounded people in our time, a philosopher neuroscientist meditator and doting husband and father who also hits the gym, it may in part be my fanboy talking but truly the man is goals. I always smile at the accusation so often raised on Christian channels and whatnot that you bring up early in the interview, that the new atheists try to tear down religion but leave nothing in its place. Hitchens gave us debates and outstanding books and journalism, Dennett gives us philosophy, Dawkins gives us the wonder of science, Harris gives us direction and a deeper connection to ourselves, our minds, and the world through meditation. What else does one need, really? Cheers.
👍👍👍👍👍
👎👎👎👎👎
The Moral Landscape put philosophy back about 400 years
completely agree !
How sad…you will not be thanking sam when you’re standing before God at your, day in court!
Alex has been blowing up so far this year! Keep it up young man!
I really appreciate Sam, but you managed to confront him on several of his most stubborn points and blind spots. It was a very healthy conversation. Love your work, Alex.
This conversation was helpful in so far as you got Harris to clarify that he's not pitching the moral landscape in terms of ontological objectivity.
I dont think anyone can think that something like morality can ever be ontologically objective. No take on morality can be that. It is made up by humans after all. Its a construct, based on the golden rule and other things that are specific to conscious systems. Rocks dont care if you brake them or melt them.
To me there is nothing better than going on a long walk in the sun, knowing you have three hours of stimulating discussion ahead from two people you admire and respect.
Thank you so much for making this happen! 🙏🏻
And knowing you can let others do your thinking for you, while you smugly think youve done your due philosophical diligence.
Pffff .
@@adabsurdum3314 what do you want them to do? go apply for a university and get a master's degree in philosophy? Didn't know people gatekept philosophy but first time for everything.
@@inverrtedd wow..
No, I expect more than clearly I have right to:
That usual folks take an interest in more than just procreating and where their best meals coming from.
@@inverrtedd I've from my earliest days, had a vested interest in the Truth.
I didn't need enough to go study at university. Actually that's not the philosophy that is of any consequence anyway.
People are just naturally shallow and lame. The masses.
@@adabsurdum3314 How can someone say so much yet say so little at the same time? You said you want more people taking an interest in other things than procreating and where their meals come from (which doesn't make sense) and you're mad at this guy for watching a podcast about philosophy which does not impact daily life whatsoever. Kind of self contradictory, don't you think?
“I thought he was sexually harassing me yesterday, but now I sort of like it.”
Throughout his life, can you imagine all the absolute bangers Sam has been forced to squander to deaf ears lol. He’s so brilliant that you almost fail to notice how hilarious he is
So brilliant especially when mr Atheïst tells everyone to look away at Israeli warcrimes😂😂😂
Dude is a tribalistic Jew
@@deeznutz8320go complain to the UN, stop posting this stuff on videos that are unrelated to it
@@deeznutz8320 idk if I’ve ever seen a more obvious troll lol I was talking about jokes not politics
Thank you Alex for the great channel! ❤🙏
This is so good that I’m on my second listen-through, and already scheduling a third. Thanks so much for this content.
haven’t watched the video yet but it’s actually insane to watch alex grow this much
The glow up is insane
He is pretty tall, yeah. But aren't his ideas more important than his physical attributes? It's a little superficial on your part, no?
He's pretty much been this height since puberty
@@MystiqWisdomBecause people value looks more than intelligence now. If Alex was ugly, he wouldn’t be nearly as popular
@@bobsbobbs absolutely true hands down, but does OP mean "grow" in the literal sense? I thought that to mean growing in terms of gaining viewers and growing a larger community. But yes if Alex looked like a little danny devito he would have 20 subs and 300 views lol.
Alex channeling Jordan Peterson, "What do you mean by suck?"
Flashback 2017, lol
JP is JC reincarnative as Sam would believe Alex is like some contrite a Ī evolving sophisticated youth.
I was thinking the same 😂
In this conversation, as in that, they get to the root of the disagreement relatively quickly, and hash it out there like crazy.
lol that's a fair point "it depends what you mean by suck"
Suck it and see Arctic monkeys 🙈 🐒 what's happening in Sheffield Mr Connor? Oo a a ah say reus thow shall not kill eh new planet of the primitive ones out soon does anything have to happened to have a discourse about ?
Loved the conversation. Hope you will do a part 2 somewhere in the near future!
wonderful conversation!
They say that the higher you arch your eyebrow the wiser you are . Mine is arched so high it’s like an A frame . I’m planning on becoming even wiser so much so that my eyebrow will break through its fullest arch and just lay straight up and down , no arch whatsoever at all . Now that would be pure wizdomb
I'm with you so far. But what happens if you learn something new after achieving vertibrow?
I can tell youre a fanboy of the host.
Absolutely nothing but jokes and fun and games
@@radlibdem there’d be nothing more to learn . You’d be omniscient
@@adabsurdum3314 well you’re wrong , home slice . Not a fanboy of anybody .
Sounds like you woke up on the wrong side of the bed or it’s your time of the month again . Either chill out or get lost
@@bitofwizdomb7266 I mean, what would happen to the brow? Would it begin to arch back the other way? Or simply grow in height, advancing through the forehead region and eventually into the hairline, perhaps?
"It seems to me like 2+2 should equal 4" is a next level logical jiu jitsu move nobody anticipated.
funny enough, 2 + 2 should equal 4 only because we use 10 based system of calculation. Which, if dig to the beginning is only used because of 2 hands with 5 fingers each. So 2 + 2 = 4 is inherently subjective, but it subjective equally to every human, and not universally
@@XZaiterhow so? If I've got .. and add .. then I have ....
@@shmonn. as an example, in 3 based system of calculation 2 + 2 = 11. In 4 based system 2 + 2 = 10. Most computers use binary where 1 + 1 = 10. 2 + 2 should equal 4 only because everyone agreed on it
@@XZaiter this is nonsense. Values exist independent of counting systems. So 4 is a reference to the number that is 1+1+1+1, that we write that is 4 is a matter of choice but nobody believes the shape of the number symbols have any equivalence
@@XZaiter in a 3 based system, if I have .. and I add .. then I'm still left with .... you're just playing semantic games.
Listening to you two talking for hours was a great experience ❤
@36:13 "S&M Reward Function" would be a great name for a band 😂😂
I use Occam's Razor for the moral manscape.
I use gillette's
@@michaelanderson215tough crowd
@@frazerlaing5700 clean shave
You've really gotten far since when I first started watching your videos as cosmicskeptic, love that you're still going strong.
So satisfying to hear two brilliant people trying to understand reality rather than win an argument.
Impressive conversation. Beyond their capacity to reason, their patience for and interest in one another’s exposition and counters.
Very yum. Few boos.
I think this really well represents the fundamental differences in how a research scientist thinks vs how a philosopher thinks. Yes theres overlap... But Sam repeatedly offers the anchoring of should in empirical data gathering, quantitative and qualitative synthesis of observations... And Alex repeatedly probes these articulations with definitions and thought experiment extrapolations.
We gonna need like 5-6 podcasts at least with Sam. Thank you
This was exceptional. It is a real treat to hear two people actually identify where the heart of their disagreement lies in a very nuanced philosophical conversation. I especially liked the back and forth with the analogy of using the word _preference_ to describe one's desired outcomes in relation to math problems.
Thanks for actually making a statement of some small substance
@@adabsurdum3314If the comments section is annoying you that much, I recommend you go do a bit of what Sam suggests towards the end...
It’s sad that this comment stands out, isn’t it? All they have to do is reference a tiny detail and they are better than 99% of comments. Most people are too dumb to form an opinion so they just say “OMG I LOVE THIS YAY TWO SMART PEOPLE TALKING TYSM”
Really good convo, thanks
Just starting watching the conversation, but wanted to say thank you, Alex, for your work for the channel and for these videos with some very big names you've been uploading. Keep it up!
Oh booooy I have been waiting for this since like 2018
I like how Sam just drops words like “orthogonal” in conversations
Love this conversation. Top shelf from the both of you. Will be interesting to hear about your experiences with meditation - Sam did a truly amazing job of painting the picture - hope it helps other others become curious too
This might be one of the best conversations Alex has ever had on this podcast
No it isn't... it is literally the WORST conversation he has ever had. Compare the way he is being argumentative, challenging and just straight up adversarial with his conversation with William Lane Craig where he was conciliatory, tame, and literally just placated him without pushing back on ANYTHING
Alex is a fucking sell out who treats people differently depending on whether he thinks he can "get away" with treating them poorly
@@enigmaticaljedi6808stop crying
@@enigmaticaljedi6808 I thought Alex was too respectful of WLC given how idiotic and disgusting his positions were and that he pushed back here on SH a lot harder than I would've expected on seemingly minor questions. Funny how different we can interpret the same 2 podcasts due to our preconceived biases
@@neelsgIt’s because Alex is a covert Christian but doesn’t want to lose his soy atheist fanbase
@@neelsgY'all said the same thing. He just didn't write it very clearly.
My favorite author and favorite youtuber
Same bro
Simplicity of the argument (worst possible suffering...) makes it great ❤
We could even strengthen it a bit: The worst suffering of everyone plus an infinite number of infinitely conscious creatures forever would be the epitome of badness.
Well they would already be a part of everyone.
@@pontushermansson3072 Right. My description is hypothetical and posits something worse though.
@@tobynsaunders No, your description posits the exact same thing. There can't be more than everyone.
@@pontushermansson3072 I would think that "everyone" refers to now. My situation refers to a potentially impossible (maybe not; who knows) but theoretical situation that would be the absolute worst. I take your point though.
Been fan of both of you in a long time
Glad to finally see this episode!
I am literally on a road trip by myself with 3 hours left, AND I’ve been waiting for Sam to elaborate on this claim for a while. Never been able to wrap my mind around objective morality, but I have a feeling this will be a subjectively awesome experience.
He's extremely confused that his view is establishes stance independent moral facts. His view on well being just cited facts that every metaethical position, non cognitivists included, could agree with. That's the worst thing you could ever have in your metaethical thesis, a position where antirealists agree with the fact you cite. He hasn't satisfied the independent standard that we ought care about well being independent of stance.
No one would disagree with phenomenal facts about the mind, it doesn't ascent to the burden that there are stance independent obligations to be in accord with those phenomenal states.
Can we get an update? Do you feel like Sam has elaborated his position on objective morality for you, or are you still more or less in the same position?
@@johnchesterfield9726 I understand a little more where he’s coming from, but it just doesn’t ring true intuitively. Despite the fact that I’m thoroughly convinced 1+1=2 and Terrorism Bad … these 2 notions do not strike the same chords in my head. The former just is, and the latter ought to be. He says it’s all the same but thats unsatisfying ….. beyond that I really loved the way he described the process of meditation & how batshit it is how our just thoughts arise and take us away. 😂
In the context of philosophy; objective means that which exists independently from the mind (a rock is an object) whereas subjective means that which exists dependant on the mind (Your thoughts regarding rocks are subjects of thought)
Because moral prescriptions regarding good and bad require a conscious moral agent, then morality is not mind-independent. Therefore; morality is a subject of thought.
Ironically, Sam is opposed to God, and yet when he argues for the existence of objective morality he makes all the same arguments which theists make for the existence of god.
@@Nettamorphosiswell I think you’re making a further deduction in saying “terrorism bad”. What Sam argues is that conscious minds have preferred states and in general don’t want to suffer. Suffering bad is a tautology like 1+1=2. The deduction to “terrorism bad” comes from an analysis in an objective manner of what terrorism entails and the suffering it causes. It’s akin to a mathematical proof that from “1+1=2” we can get (with some other axioms) that maybe something like “a^2+b^2=c^2” for right angled triangles. It’s not immediately obvious but logical from the premises and just as true as “terrorism bad”.
This will make the rest of my day very pleasant, thanks for releasing it!
I think we should really appreciate the risk Sam takes by going on Alex's podcast. I mean Alex is known for picking apart bad arguments into atoms and men lesser than Sam (Wink to mr Hitchens) did not stand the pressure. A great conversation all in all. Thank you both!
This video has the best comments section on TH-cam.
Finally this was uploaded! Thanks Alex, Sam.
I was waiting for this!
The thing about Alex that makes him so refreshing is that he is absolutely not a drone. Lots of podcasters and public intellectuals swiftly become drones, repeating the same points and ultimately becoming a cliche of themselves. It’s obvious that he only cares about truth and reason, not partisan hackery.
Hopefully Alex can keep up his extraordinary acuity and broadness of mind.
This is a fantastic conversation. Huge thanks to Alex and Sam. You are both favourites of mine and so this has been a treat.
Honestly, and I don't want this to sound mean, but the kind of hair-splitting pushback Sam gets on The Moral Landscape is representative of why so many people view philosophy as a waste of time and philosophers as people who completely disappear up their own backside with nothing actually useful to say about the real world. If we can't even conclude that a world where nobody is being tortured is better than a world where everybody is being tortured, then wtf are we even doing here?
Most people would subjectively agree with the premise. Especially considering it's a tautology to say that "people don't want to experience that which they don't want to experience."
But, the claim that ethics are inherently objective is a tremendous claim that would be hugely impactful if true. So it's important to test his claim. In the end, people tend to feel their own subjective opinions on things so strongly that they want to declare them to be objectively true.
I prefer to challenge such notions, as declaring an objective morality has the potential to stamp out people's individual autonomy. I don't think that's Sam's goal with this, but it's still important to pushback on the idea that moral values are objective.
The problem is a world where either one of those is true doesn’t exist. There has never been a time where no one is being tortured or everyone is.
@@paulelago9453 This world doesn’t exist yet but if you understand the concept of heaven or hell then the question posed above is simple and relatable. Would heaven (no torture) or hell (constant torture) be better? You know the answer.
@@reenie6738 I don’t think you can use the concept of heaven/hell to defend Sam Harris.
If you are speaking of the real world, you need to reference what exists can be proven, isn’t this the reason why Sam himself rejects religion. He wants to build a moral structure based on non-existent hypothetical situations.
Also that-proves why Sam is inherently religious, a world where everybody is being tortured (hell) and a world where everyone is happy (heaven), if you act morally you get heaven if not you get hell. Sound like Christianity to me.
I disagree that the philosophers can't even agree on the basics.
Thank you, Alex for this!
Very deep and engaging debate. Loved it. Thank you.
So you will put your hand on the stove? Right sir😂
I’ve listened to hundreds if not thousands of hours of Sam Harris. I’ve always felt, and heard from other intellectuals, that his thesis is missing something. I think Alex pinpoints every aspect, and does a phenomenal job challenging Sams points. Hats off to you!
I feel like Sam is almost redefining what we mean when we say objective morality, because what I would think objective morality would be is a moral system that exists outside of life, if it needs a population then I can't see it as objective morality, the way he seems to define it is within our shared reference frame there is an objective morality.
I wonder how other forms of life play into his moral arguments, or what if majority of the population believed something to be moral that we currently believe is immoral, would he say that it is the new morality? I'm not exactly sure what he is trying to get at, since I don't see how he pulls value out of these things and make them objectively valuable.
He has to redefine it because his complete lack of an objective morality is the giant gaping hole everyone can see that renders his “philosophy” ridiculous and easily dismissed. If he can just change the definition of it and get everyone to accept it then we’ll be able to take the rest of his BS seriously.
Sam’s a sophist. Outside of the atheist bubble and his own cult following, he’s a joke.
I’d recommend looking into the integrity of BetterHelp as a sponsor and company.
Fantastic conversation! Thank you Alex and Sam
Perfect interview. Alex has surpassed his heroes. I cannot wait to see what he does in the future! We need a new generation of thinkers like Harris and Hitchens. Alex is that.
This is pure class! Just two amazing minds coming together and discussing their views 🎉🎉🎉
This is great. The moral landscape feels so much more fleshed out and tangible. I can see the utility of his way of thinking and why he chooses to conceptualize ethics this way. I understand seeing ethics epistemologically for its utility, even while admitting on a technical level that ontologically, ethics is subjective.
Nice treat thanks Alex and Sam.
I like the fact that Harris explains his philosophy in a practical way, where you can really see its a pliability, removing what it seems sometimes to be philosophical bs which can muddy the waters instead of clearing the space. Alex seems to have ways to go if his goal is to offer utility. I really enjoyed this conversation.
Alex is more interested in academic philosophy while harris is trying to reach wide audiences. The former is much more rigorous and interested in truth or whether or not premises are sound and arguments are valid, not appeal or utility.
The answer to the thumbnail on this video is easy. Ethics are NOT objective. It doesn't matter what kind of games you play with the moral landscape, they're still inherently subjective by their very nature because they're based on values that are inherently subjective. The moment you begin introducing "peaks and valley's" into the equation, you're already operating in the realm of subjectivity.
The best you can do is take a utilitarian approach and say that certain ethics are objectively better than others at serving certain values.
Great conversation. I remember when young Cosmic Skeptic was reading Sam Harris. Now, here you are. 👍💙💙💙🥰✌
The best interview on Alex’s channel!
Really enjoyed the part where Sam picked up Alex and Landscaped him morally all over the place. Good stuff.
Sam’s mental gymnastics to make the subjective, objective, is very impressive.
Ahhahah well said
I feel that this is really the only conversation worth having. Sorry for the impatience but it was a must, to watch this talk as a whole! Thank You!
When Alex described Adam and Eve planting yellow flowers because they really like yellow, and asked where the moral element is, I wonder how he'd react if Sam extended the thought experiment to include a third person who persistently kills all the yellow flowers.
Yes but that would only prove Alex's point that there is no objective morality. Adam and Eve preferred yellow, and the third person didn't. Liking or disliking yellow was never morally right or wrong.
@@stevesmith4901 That's an interesting reaction. I never said a preference for yellow was moral. I think killing (or stealing) flowers that others have planted is immoral. Consider that the third person even likes yellow, and thus he steals all the yellow flowers planted by the other 2.
@@aetherllama8398a person could theoretically hold the belief that the existence of yellow flowers is extremely immoral
@@aetherllama8398 Granted you didn't say liking or disliking yellow was objectively moral or immoral, but Alex brings up the example of liking yellow flowers to make the point liking yellow flowers is just that, a preference shared by both Adam and Eve. There was nothing inherently/objectively "good" about liking the yellow flower even if it raised their well-being.
Considering non existent humans afore a dinosaur then do existent lives ere us err aswell in hindsight we can simultaneously consider introspective and introspective ethics of morality.
1:13:03 "If there was a button we could push at no cost to ourselves that would reduce the misery of human beings by half..."
Well, this guy called Thanos gave me this really big glove...
Really great conversation. 3 hours long and I still want more.