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
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
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.
@@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.
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.
I don't find the humor in the action of his right eyebrow. Is it that the two are not symetrical? Does the humor lie in its abnormality? Please explain - I want to laugh too.
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. 🤣
@@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.
"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.
@@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..."
0:00: 💬 Discussion on objective morality, worst possible misery, and subjective vs. objective truths. 0:00: Sam Harris discusses proving objective morality using worst possible misery concept. 4:04: Objective morality based on minimizing suffering and moving towards better states. 9:05: Distinguishing between epistemological and ontological aspects of subjective and objective truths. 11:34: Acknowledgment of objective truths about subjective experiences. 13:37: 💬 Discussion on the foundation of moral truth, the double standard in ethics, and the disjunction between facts and values. 13:37: Sam Harris highlights the double standard in treating ethics compared to other branches of science. 19:00: He challenges the idea of a radical disjunction between facts and values proposed by Hume. 23:11: Harris argues that discussions of facts presuppose underlying values that are often overlooked. 25:03: He is willing to dispense with the notion of 'ought' and 'is' in moral truth, questioning the necessity of a motivational component. 26:08: 💬 Exploring the concept of morality as it relates to human well-being and the possibility of diverse moral landscapes. 26:08: Morality can be viewed as a space of possible experiences with peaks and valleys based on well-being. 27:01: The concept of moral truth can coexist with the need for motivation and persuasion in decision-making. 31:06: Challenges arise when defining morality solely based on well-being, blurring the lines between descriptive and ethical statements. 33:02: The discussion delves into the limitations of human experiences and the potential for varied moral perspectives based on individual minds. 35:02: Imagining scenarios where moral values and experiences could drastically differ based on altered perceptions and values. 36:52: The exploration of a world without duty or should, focusing on descriptive observations of human behaviors and values. 37:04: Highlighting the significance of valuing well-being and avoiding negative experiences in a hypothetical descriptive world. 37:33: 💬 Discussion on defining well-being in relation to moral subjectivity and objectivity. 37:33: Sam Harris challenges the concept of well-being as a subjective preference. 46:03: Comparison made to the Atlantis fallacy in defining Free Will. 46:48: Critique of Dan Dennett's view on Free Will and the Atlantis fallacy. 48:13: Harris argues for a focus on what individuals value when discussing Ethics. 49:43: 💬 Discussion on subjective preference, well-being, ethics, and the possibility of changing preferences. 49:43: Subjective preference for well-being discussed 49:49: Different perspectives on what constitutes good or evil 50:05: Various moral perspectives presented, including emotivism and Aristotelian views 50:17: Ethical statements viewed as expressions of emotions rather than truth claims 52:03: Discussion on the landscape of possible experiences and subjective preferences 59:03: Exploration of the concept of changing preferences through scientific analysis 1:01:06: Consideration of potentially unknown experiences and outcomes based on different choices 1:02:00: Objective facts about conscious systems and subjective values distinguished 1:02:50: 💬 Discussing the concept of morality and objective moral truth in human decision-making. 1:02:50: Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of human experience with no concrete evidence in the brain. 1:03:14: Human actions are driven by preferences and the pursuit of maximizing well-being. 1:04:02: Objective moral values exist in the world, influencing human decisions and interactions. 1:08:29: Moral considerations arise when preferences significantly impact well-being and surpass other concerns. 1:09:26: The concept of 'should' in morality is akin to logical or mathematical duties, indicating an objective standard. 1:11:06: Declining to act in a way that maximizes overall well-being can be seen as morally reprehensible. 1:14:03: Evil is characterized by a deliberate choice to perpetuate suffering and prioritize personal pleasure over the well-being of others. 1:14:59: 💬 Discussion on the nature of consciousness and preference in moral landscapes. 1:14:59: Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality that cannot be an illusion. 1:15:37: There are objective claims about conscious minds regardless of personal desires. 1:16:16: Acknowledging preferences is crucial in ethical considerations. 1:17:27: Sam Harris emphasizes the importance of empathy and moral responsibility. 1:19:13: The term 'preference' does not diminish the significance of expressing desires. 1:22:19: The discussion challenges the dichotomy between objective and subjective moral values. 1:25:01: The concept of preference extends beyond personal happiness to include empathy and ethical considerations. 1:26:01: Analogies are used to illustrate the complexity of moral decision-making and value systems. 1:27:02: Reflecting on intense preferences can reveal underlying ethical principles and moral convictions. 1:27:28: 💡 Exploration of the objectivity of ethics, the concept of bad, and the role of emotions in moral judgment. 1:27:28: Ethics can be objectively judged based on human well-being and shared preferences.
1:36:01: Subjective views on ethics do not negate the possibility of objective ethical standards. 1:37:14: Global emotivism suggests that emotions play a significant role in moral judgments. 1:39:11: 💬 Discussion on morality, truth claims, pragmatism, and caring for others' well-being in society. 1:39:11: Truth claims are made in a space without concrete foundations, but coherence can still exist. 1:39:51: Pragmatism questions the absolute truth of beliefs, emphasizing practicality and societal navigation. 1:42:23: Improving global well-being can involve trade-offs, but most individuals benefit from a more peaceful world. 1:44:17: Caring for others' well-being is intrinsic to human nature due to social interactions and shared experiences. 1:48:23: Individuals with divergent moral views may be considered immoral from a broader perspective or limited in their own understanding. 1:49:47: Moral judgments can be made based on impact on all conscious beings and the individual's potential for well-being. 1:50:08: Technology could potentially alter individuals' preferences and lead to greater well-being for everyone. 1:51:00: A complete science of the mind may offer solutions to individuals with harmful preferences or limited perspectives. 1:57:05: 💬 Discussion on the potential benefits of religious belief and the limits of knowledge in moral decision-making. 1:57:05: Religious communities may perform better in certain metrics, but it is debatable if belief in religion is the best way to achieve moral high ground. 1:58:38: Being intellectually honest and open to changing evidence is crucial in ethical discussions. 1:59:29: The evolutionary origins of religious belief may not necessarily imply its current utility. 2:01:20: There could be circumstances where believing in an untrue concept leads to a higher moral outcome. 2:02:03: Some knowledge, like weaponizing smallpox or certain technologies, may be too dangerous to be widely disseminated. 2:03:54: 💭 Exploration of the benefits of secular alternatives to religious belief and the practice of mindfulness meditation. 2:03:54: Well-being can be served by religious belief, but it may not be intrinsic to religious belief itself. 2:04:03: Community plays a significant role in religious belief, providing a space for collective reflection and appreciation. 2:04:42: Secular alternatives to religious gatherings could offer similar benefits without divisive beliefs. 2:05:03: Atheists lack the same level of motivation to gather for collective reflection compared to religious believers. 2:06:05: The transcendent experience in meditation can provide a sense of profound connection beyond self. 2:11:44: Meditation involves paying close attention to one's experiences, starting with focusing on the breath. 2:14:07: The wandering nature of thoughts during meditation can be likened to a form of psychosis without awareness. 2:16:04: Returning to the breath after being carried away by thoughts is a key practice in mindfulness meditation. 2:16:44: 🧘 Exploration of consciousness through meditation reveals the nature of self and reality. 2:16:44: Meditation allows for a closer examination of consciousness beyond the changing content. 2:16:49: Initial difficulty in meditation is due to constant distraction by thoughts and images. 2:17:05: Breath is used as a focal point to develop concentration and distinguish between thought and attention. 2:17:43: Through meditation, one can observe thoughts as appearances in consciousness without identification. 2:18:01: The experience of 'I' as a subject is just another appearance in consciousness, not a separate entity. 2:18:43: Paying attention to consciousness reveals the illusory nature of free will and the self. 2:26:09: Psychedelics provide temporary shifts in consciousness, but meditation offers a deeper understanding of reality. 2:28:02: Meditation shows that true psychological freedom is found within ordinary consciousness, not altered states. 2:29:45: 🧠 Exploration of selflessness and consciousness through meditation leads to psychological freedom and tranquility. 2:29:45: Consciousness can be free of self, leading to extraordinary experiences even in ordinary moments. 2:30:12: Recognition of selflessness in meditation can alleviate psychological suffering and provide a sense of equanimity. 2:31:32: The sense of self is a contraction born out of constant reactions to experiences and a perceived subject-object divide. 2:32:00: Through meditation, the illusion of a fixed self can collapse, leading to a more expansive and impersonal view of Consciousness. 2:39:08: Consciousness is viewed as deeply impersonal and transcendent, encompassing all experiences without a separate center. 2:39:20: The feeling of being a subject arises from a perpetual mode of reacting to experiences, creating a sense of separateness. 2:41:26: Exploring selflessness through meditation is akin to opening a clenched fist to realize there was nothing there all along. 2:42:01: Doubt about the benefits of selflessness is a barrier to experiencing the psychological freedom and tranquility it can offer. 2:43:00: 🧠 Exploring the intersection of meditation, psychedelics, and self-awareness in intellectual discourse. 2:43:00: Skepticism towards meditation gradually diminishing, leading to a willingness to give it a proper try. 2:43:00: Discussion on meditation as a tool for self-reflection and exploration of consciousness. 2:43:07: Highlighting the challenge of introducing meditation to intellectually skeptical individuals like Richard Dawkins. 2:43:42: Suggesting that self-awareness and consciousness are not solely defined by the feeling of 'I' or 'me'. 2:46:09: Reflecting on the potential transformative power of psychedelic experiences like MDMA. 2:51:18: Acknowledging the difficulty in publicly demonstrating the effects of meditation and psychedelics. 2:53:30: Drawing parallels between musical aptitude and the capacity for deep appreciation of experiences like meditation. 2:54:09: Acknowledging the subjective nature of personal preferences in relation to music and altered states of consciousness. 2:54:25: Recognizing the potential for profound changes in perception and experience through different forms of stimuli like music and psychedelics. 2:55:02: Acknowledging the potential for personal growth and expanded consciousness through exploration beyond one's current limitations. 2:55:22: 🎤 Exploring the challenges of meditation, self-discovery, and skepticism in philosophical discussions. 2:55:22: Meditation and self-discovery require patience and practice. 2:55:31: Initial skepticism does not indicate lack of potential in an activity. 2:56:04: Skills like meditation can be developed over time, not necessarily innate. 2:56:31: Encouraging listeners to try out meditation despite initial doubts. 2:56:44: Transitioning from abstract concepts to personal experience is key in self-discovery. 2:56:56: Excitement towards experiencing self-dissipation and separation from experiences. 2:57:09: Expressing gratitude for the insightful conversation and looking forward to future discussions. Recap by Tammy AI
@@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
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.
@@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."
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
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?
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
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.
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
@@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
It almost brings a tear to my eye listening to 2 intelligent people discuss a difficult topic in good faith. Almost every time I see or participate in a debate, I think of all this time and mental energy that could be spent on real philosophy instead of arguing about our imaginary friends.
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 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.
@@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.
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.
It seems more there are pointless semantics being discussed simply because Alex appears to have a strange compulsion to avoid the words should and ought. There is no reason to change "should" into "I prefer". It serves no purpose and belittles the subject being discussed. In fact it just makes the definition of the word less useful. As Sam rightly pointed out, you wouldn't tell your kidnappers that "you prefer" your family wasn't tortured in the room next door. It's linguistically not a sound way to communicate because a "preference" is something of low significance. I feel like it was made obvious when Sam explained how one 'should' press the button if it reduced everyone's suffering by 50% with no drawbacks. Whether you 'prefer' that doesn't matter. You should do it because it is objectively better for everyone. We as humans invented these words. They serve our purposes of communication. If "good" doesn't translate to "increased well being", then your usage of these words is simply impractical.
@@asukaknightmare8904 This I believe, is the genesis of my aversion to engaging with philosophy. In its attempts fully probe everything, it often over-extends into seemingly needless word games. The scientific enterprise seeks utility in explaining and predicting new phenomenon - and is not necessarily primarily concerned that absolutely everything along the way originates in some necessary and self-evident first principle.
@@asukaknightmare8904 Bruh. I waited for that "press the button" example for so long. I'm glad he mentioned it. But he could've went one step deeper. Sure, one can 'prefer' to press the button but SHOULD they prefer to do it - SHOULD that be their preference as opposed to not. I think that would've been the defining moment.
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
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?😂😂😂😂😂.
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
the meditation discussion was so interesting. It is the first meditation discussion that actually held me interested to hear and learn more. Excellent. thank you
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.
@@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.
More and more astounded as of late by podcasts. Alex is terrific. And Sam Harris has profoundly impacted the ways in which I deal with stress and make sense of the world and myself. So grateful.
@@Mistery7777 in this life everything is made unprofitable by death. But Christ offered up himself in substitution of our death that we may hereafter have life eternal.
One should understand death is real and be aware .there is no such thing as overcome death you will die eventually ,i dont assume the great green monkey which has 3 eyes and is invisable can help me through it as much as a person or a label. thinking some high divine power is helping you in tough times is great to overcome many things but wanting it for another being and saying ita the only way? Stupidity has no end @@billwalton4571
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! 🙏🏻
@@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?
@@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.
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?
funny how Sam and Alex can split hairs on the definition and meaning of words for 3 hours and people love it, but if Peterson does it in a 30 second youtube short people spew hellfire through every orifice of their body.
I think because these two are asking for clarity earnestly - it seems like when Peterson asks about the meaning of a word it’s either a “gotcha” or does very little to make his point more clear. I’d say it also helps that Alex and Sam use language in a similar and more literal way, where Peterson speaks more metaphorically or symbolically I haven’t listened to Peterson recently though so maybe his style has changed, my comment is just based on when I used to listen to him more a few years ago
@@JulioNicoletti I think youre half right, people dont tolerate that of Peterson because they think hes being purposefully obtuse, i think it comes down to politics, they dont like him and presupose the worst. To me, i disagree with Peterson on politics ALOT, but after some thought i understand what he means, and im convinced hes honest when talking about meaning and the bibble and such. Harris on the other hand... Hes not strictly lying, but hes dogmatically oposed to any idea of spirituality, even abandoning the term after starting to use it seemingly to return to his comfort zone. He will split hairs for hours only to come to the conclusion that ''what sucks is bad and what rocks is good'', and its like, okay, youre physics PDH has granted you the ability to be the most basic form of a moral emotivist. You havnt even proved why killing babies is bad... To put it in scientific terms its like seeing a mathmatician try to explain biology. Sure, maths is upstream of physics and then chemestry and then biology, but you dont have the brainpower to explain the smallest animal with maths, same here with morality... Hes unwilling to use intuition or faith or metaphor and hes getting nowhere
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
@@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?
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.
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”
@@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.
@@RobertWarrenGilmore No, if that were the case, Sam would constantly move in a counter clockwise circle. My guess is Hebbian plasticity. BTW, I just noticed that the image of Sam is reversed.
Sam is a brilliant mind. So is Alex, but Sam is on another level. 1:27, he dissects Alex's preference analogy so well and doesn't claim victory. Marvelous!!
Agreed but Alex is a boy. Let's not call him brilliant when he can't decide if humans have more value than animals. He's got a lot of growing up to do.
@@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."
Very engaging discussion. The part where they discuss whether morality is just preference (starting around 1:20) reminded me of Robert Pirsig's discussion of what he called "quality." One of the objections that bothered him was that quality could be defined as "just what you like." Eventually he concluded the issue he had with thay objection was the word "just" because what you like (i.e. preference) is the main driving factor in your decisions.
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.
This episode touches on important themes in philosophy, particularly the nature of language, human identity, and the dangers of abstraction in moral and political discourse. 1. The Absurdity and Limitation of Language (Hobbes) Hobbes' Rationalism and Language. Hobbes believed that human language could be rationalized and made precise through clear definitions, but he later acknowledged the limitations of language. He noted that many words-like "free will," "immaterial substances," or "round quadrangles"-are, in his view, nonsensical because they are abstractions that don't correspond to anything concrete. When people talk about "free will" as an absolute freedom that is unrestrained by any external force, Hobbes would argue that this is an absurd concept because in reality, human action is always subject to some form of external influence or constraint. The abstraction of absolute free will doesn’t have any real meaning because it doesn't exist in our material world. Relation to Our Discussion on Free Will and Determinism. In Islamic tradition, free will is understood within the framework of divine omniscience and determinism. Free will is contingent, not absolute. This mirrors Hobbes' argument that absolute free will, as a concept, is abstract and divorced from reality. Islamic theology resolves this tension by acknowledging that human choice exists, but it operates within the limits set by God's will (as regarding contingent vs. necessary will). 2. Humanity as a Category Mistake. Hobbes and Spinoza on 'Humanity'. Both Hobbes and Spinoza critique the use of abstract concepts like "Humanity" to refer to a generalized, idealized version of the human being. Spinoza, in particular, argued that there is no such thing as an ideal human nature; there are only individual humans with their particularities. When people speak of "Humanity" in moral or political terms, such as “Humanity must fight climate change,” they often conflate individual humans with an idealized, collective agent that doesn't exist in any concrete sense. According to Spinoza and Hobbes, this is a category mistake. There is no single, unified entity called "Humanity" acting in the world; only individuals act. Discussion on Secular Humanism and Moral Objectivism. This critique of abstract "Humanity" relates to the discussion on Sam Harris and secular humanism. Harris, and many secular humanists, invoke "human flourishing" as a moral standard for guiding human actions. However, as Hobbes and Spinoza point out, invoking abstract entities like "Humanity" or "Flourishing" risks creating moral and metaphysical confusion. Without a clear metaphysical foundation (such as God in religious traditions), these abstractions may be arbitrary or inconsistent. 3. The Danger of Abstractions in Moral Discourse. Humanity as a Dangerous Fiction (Spinoza) Spinoza warns that the idea of “Humanity” can become dangerous because it allows people to classify some individuals as “less human” than others. When humans are treated as less than fully human, it becomes easier to justify their exploitation or even elimination. Throughout history, regimes that have sought to "purify" or "improve" humanity have often committed atrocities. The Nazis, for example, dehumanized certain groups (Jews, Roma, disabled individuals) to justify their elimination in the name of an idealized "Aryan" humanity. Relation to Secular Humanism and the Idea of "The Good"This also ties into our discussion about the metaphysical problems within secular humanism. When secular thinkers like Harris define moral standards around abstract ideas like "human flourishing," they risk falling into the same trap of abstraction. Without a solid foundation, who decides what constitutes "flourishing"? What happens when certain people or groups are deemed to not contribute to this flourishing? 4. Metaphysical Borrowing (Human Flourishing as a Surrogate Deity). Borrowing from Teleology. In our previous discussion, we talked about how Sam Harris borrows from teleological (purpose-driven) thinking by using “human flourishing” as a moral standard. This teleology is grounded in an abstraction-similar to how "Humanity" is used in political and moral discussions. Harris implicitly borrows the religious notion of purpose but redefines it in secular terms. Harris may argue that moral actions should aim at maximizing human flourishing. But just as Hobbes and Spinoza critique "Humanity" as an abstraction, the concept of flourishing also risks being arbitrary or ambiguous without a clear definition. What happens when different individuals or cultures have conflicting ideas of what flourishing looks like? Relation to Divine Purpose in Religious Thought. Religious frameworks, such as Islam, avoid this arbitrariness because moral purpose is tied to divine will. In Islam, "flourishing" is not an abstract concept left to human interpretation, but something that is defined through God's revelation and commands. This eliminates the ambiguity and inconsistency that secular humanism faces when it tries to define moral purposes without a metaphysical grounding. 5. The Privilege of Absurdity: Making Sense of Life Through Nonsense. Hobbes and the Absurd. Hobbes acknowledges that some words are simply absurd or nonsensical because they don't correspond to reality. However, there’s also the idea that absurdity can help make sense of life-through paradox or nonsensical concepts, we can sometimes grasp deeper truths. The notion of free will can be seen as an absurdity if taken in the absolute sense, but when framed within the context of divine will (as in Islamic theology), it begins to make sense. Humans have a contingent form of free will that exists within God’s ultimate determination. Relation to Quantum Interpretations. As we discussed in relation to quantum mechanics, some phenomena seem absurd or nonsensical (e.g., the observer effect or the concept of many worlds). Yet, these ideas help us make sense of deeper realities about the nature of existence, much like how paradoxical or seemingly absurd concepts can illuminate the relationship between divine will and human action. 6. Hobbes’ Rationalism. led him to believe that humans could escape the confusion of language by creating precise definitions. But, as we’ve seen, language and abstractions can lead to confusion and absurdity, especially when we deal with metaphysical or moral concepts like "Humanity" or "flourishing." Spinoza’s Warning. about the danger of abstractions reminds us that identifying "Humanity" as an actor in the world is a dangerous fiction. This critique applies to secular moral systems that rely on abstract concepts without metaphysical foundations. Sam Harris and Secular Humanism. show how modern thinkers continue to rely on abstractions like "human flourishing" without grounding them in anything beyond human reason and experience. This leaves these moral systems vulnerable to the same problems Hobbes and Spinoza identified: confusion, arbitrariness, and potential harm. In conclusion, while secular thinkers like Harris attempt to provide a rational basis for ethics by appealing to concepts like human flourishing, these concepts often operate as abstractions similar to how "Humanity" was critiqued by Hobbes and Spinoza. Without a metaphysical foundation, these abstractions lack coherence and can lead to dangerous moral consequences. Religious traditions, by contrast, provide a clear metaphysical grounding that ties moral purpose directly to the will of God, avoiding many of the pitfalls of abstraction.
Why does it have to be an idealised human collective? Isn't humanity just the collection of all humans? It's abstract in the sense their would be a 'median' quality but it would be useless, but concrete in that it is a quantifiable number of people.
“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
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!
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.
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
People in the comments here keep referring to Sam being open minded. I'm not at all clear that this is what you are actually observing. I what we are observing is his patience with his host, his host's questions and hyperbolic extreme scenarios, his unwavering calm and even amused confidence and capacity to cut thru confusion. The questions and hyperbolic scenarios Alex is presenting are far from new to Sam. Lacking patience, willingness and a graceful, creative ability to respond Sam might just walk out of the room.
Ironic to what I said, Sam came up with the most hyperbolic for-instance of all. Getting into heaven believing something that's false. There is no rational or sane way to pursue such a goal. It's not possible to knowingly know something that's not true. Or is there? Circles don't equal squares. When circles equal squares they collapse into one thing and the distinction required between circles and squares doesn't exist to falsely believe they are the same.
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.
I enjoyed this discussion more than I have any other for years. And it reminded me why I fell in love many years ago to listening to how Sam thinks and explains things. - Thank you, gentlemen.
Im really happy that Alex got such a big guest, and i genuenly think Sam is a good person. However... Am i the only one feeling like in this conversation, Sam is what people acuse Peterson of being? Hes splitting hairs constantly to make the smallest claims, hes coming to pretty much no conclusions yet half the comments regard what he says as smart (without clarifying any point he makes) based on his reputation and emotion. And personally, when i listen to Peterson i can see why people get lost, but i can also see what hes trying to get at, politics aside, when he talks about meaning he is 100% honest and open. Sam tho... hes not dishonest, but hes clearly dogmatically married to the idea of spirituality not being a thing at any level, to a point were hell deny any sort of morality not even on a scientific basis, but on a sciency aesthetic basis. Hes a very smart guy yet when it comes to morals hes making the arguments i made when i was 7, and even then i could intuit the idea of some objective morality that had to be discovered but existed in theory at least. Hearing him speak is the equivalent of hearing the most simple christian apologist answer ''what if god didnt exist?'' with ''wdym he does exist'', its not stupidity its ideology and close mindedness
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”.
His description of the benefits of meditation are spot on! Ive always struggled to explain this non-identification with thoughts and sensations but he did it thoroughly and excellently
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.
@@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.
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
@@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
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!
maybe i missed it but i didn't see alex's explanation of why "the worst possible misery for everyone" isn't bad, considering he said himself that's the one thing one would need to grant for sam's argument to work.
@@BattousaiHBr the arguement (Which Sam agrees with) is that in order to build the moral landscape you must assert that "the worst possible misery for everyone is bad". This is something all humans except for very very few agree with, so we just believe it on faith despite not being able to fundementally demonstrate its factuality. It is simply a preference. Sam says that whilst this is true, it is also true of the seamingly inherent laws of the universe, and that even logical laws rely on presuppositions (unproven claims). That we just happen to all agree on, so them being unproven doesn't matter. Similiarly, basically everyone agrees that everyone maximally suffering is bad, so we simply assert that is true, and then can build a set of objective morals, as we have objective logic claims, that can all be built from this one subjective law (that everyone agrees with.)
@@TheUntamedNetwork "This is something all humans except for very very few agree with" this is not the case and i don't think sam would agree with this. if some people don't agree with it, then that's not the worst possible. you could envision each individual human being strapped in a VR headset and being shown their worst possible scenario imaginable as if it was real, which in aggregate would be the worst for all humans. i would like to see alex's view on why this is not bad, and if it is then he'd be agreeing with the conclusion.
@@BattousaiHBr the worst possible suffering is very hard to quantify, especially if my view of suffering for example was everyone else being happier then me. I as the observer would say that everyone is maximally suffering is the point, since I can't trusted the stated or enacted views of others as to their own suffering. You can imagine a crazy person that believes the world as it is is maximla suffering, but whatever.you believe that state is, you must oppose maximally. That is the base assumption from which he builds the moral landscape
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.
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 ?
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
@@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
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.
@@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.
Thank you very much for this dialogue. Funnily enough I'm literally just reading "the moral landscape" by Sam Harris, the swedish translation. This really helps comprehending the book!
Pure gold. The respect, and complete interest of eachothers viewpoints is incredible to see. Gives me something to aim for. Easily the best episode I've seen from you so far.
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...
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.
Thank you so much for this wonderful lession in our earths geology. You are an excellent teacher. Understanding geology depends on visual explantions and you are so good at providing them.
As I listen to this discussion I think about how social media, by adding another layer to the ‘self’, but a virtual self, in a virtual world, explains a lot about the way the suffering of many people has been multiplied exponentially.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
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?
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.
@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
For all criticism about Sam Harris one could have him being bad faith is not usually one.
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
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
I find it truly humorous that Sam's right eyebrow has become higher and more taut as he gains more experience in philosophy over the years
What do we really mean when we say "right"?
/s
🤨
It reminds me of Ancelotti
Oh goodness now I can’t not see it.
I don't find the humor in the action of his right eyebrow. Is it that the two are not symetrical? Does the humor lie in its abnormality? Please explain - I want to laugh too.
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.
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.
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 :)
0:00: 💬 Discussion on objective morality, worst possible misery, and subjective vs. objective truths.
0:00: Sam Harris discusses proving objective morality using worst possible misery concept.
4:04: Objective morality based on minimizing suffering and moving towards better states.
9:05: Distinguishing between epistemological and ontological aspects of subjective and objective truths.
11:34: Acknowledgment of objective truths about subjective experiences.
13:37: 💬 Discussion on the foundation of moral truth, the double standard in ethics, and the disjunction between facts and values.
13:37: Sam Harris highlights the double standard in treating ethics compared to other branches of science.
19:00: He challenges the idea of a radical disjunction between facts and values proposed by Hume.
23:11: Harris argues that discussions of facts presuppose underlying values that are often overlooked.
25:03: He is willing to dispense with the notion of 'ought' and 'is' in moral truth, questioning the necessity of a motivational component.
26:08: 💬 Exploring the concept of morality as it relates to human well-being and the possibility of diverse moral landscapes.
26:08: Morality can be viewed as a space of possible experiences with peaks and valleys based on well-being.
27:01: The concept of moral truth can coexist with the need for motivation and persuasion in decision-making.
31:06: Challenges arise when defining morality solely based on well-being, blurring the lines between descriptive and ethical statements.
33:02: The discussion delves into the limitations of human experiences and the potential for varied moral perspectives based on individual minds.
35:02: Imagining scenarios where moral values and experiences could drastically differ based on altered perceptions and values.
36:52: The exploration of a world without duty or should, focusing on descriptive observations of human behaviors and values.
37:04: Highlighting the significance of valuing well-being and avoiding negative experiences in a hypothetical descriptive world.
37:33: 💬 Discussion on defining well-being in relation to moral subjectivity and objectivity.
37:33: Sam Harris challenges the concept of well-being as a subjective preference.
46:03: Comparison made to the Atlantis fallacy in defining Free Will.
46:48: Critique of Dan Dennett's view on Free Will and the Atlantis fallacy.
48:13: Harris argues for a focus on what individuals value when discussing Ethics.
49:43: 💬 Discussion on subjective preference, well-being, ethics, and the possibility of changing preferences.
49:43: Subjective preference for well-being discussed
49:49: Different perspectives on what constitutes good or evil
50:05: Various moral perspectives presented, including emotivism and Aristotelian views
50:17: Ethical statements viewed as expressions of emotions rather than truth claims
52:03: Discussion on the landscape of possible experiences and subjective preferences
59:03: Exploration of the concept of changing preferences through scientific analysis
1:01:06: Consideration of potentially unknown experiences and outcomes based on different choices
1:02:00: Objective facts about conscious systems and subjective values distinguished
1:02:50: 💬 Discussing the concept of morality and objective moral truth in human decision-making.
1:02:50: Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of human experience with no concrete evidence in the brain.
1:03:14: Human actions are driven by preferences and the pursuit of maximizing well-being.
1:04:02: Objective moral values exist in the world, influencing human decisions and interactions.
1:08:29: Moral considerations arise when preferences significantly impact well-being and surpass other concerns.
1:09:26: The concept of 'should' in morality is akin to logical or mathematical duties, indicating an objective standard.
1:11:06: Declining to act in a way that maximizes overall well-being can be seen as morally reprehensible.
1:14:03: Evil is characterized by a deliberate choice to perpetuate suffering and prioritize personal pleasure over the well-being of others.
1:14:59: 💬 Discussion on the nature of consciousness and preference in moral landscapes.
1:14:59: Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality that cannot be an illusion.
1:15:37: There are objective claims about conscious minds regardless of personal desires.
1:16:16: Acknowledging preferences is crucial in ethical considerations.
1:17:27: Sam Harris emphasizes the importance of empathy and moral responsibility.
1:19:13: The term 'preference' does not diminish the significance of expressing desires.
1:22:19: The discussion challenges the dichotomy between objective and subjective moral values.
1:25:01: The concept of preference extends beyond personal happiness to include empathy and ethical considerations.
1:26:01: Analogies are used to illustrate the complexity of moral decision-making and value systems.
1:27:02: Reflecting on intense preferences can reveal underlying ethical principles and moral convictions.
1:27:28: 💡 Exploration of the objectivity of ethics, the concept of bad, and the role of emotions in moral judgment.
1:27:28: Ethics can be objectively judged based on human well-being and shared preferences.
1:36:01: Subjective views on ethics do not negate the possibility of objective ethical standards.
1:37:14: Global emotivism suggests that emotions play a significant role in moral judgments.
1:39:11: 💬 Discussion on morality, truth claims, pragmatism, and caring for others' well-being in society.
1:39:11: Truth claims are made in a space without concrete foundations, but coherence can still exist.
1:39:51: Pragmatism questions the absolute truth of beliefs, emphasizing practicality and societal navigation.
1:42:23: Improving global well-being can involve trade-offs, but most individuals benefit from a more peaceful world.
1:44:17: Caring for others' well-being is intrinsic to human nature due to social interactions and shared experiences.
1:48:23: Individuals with divergent moral views may be considered immoral from a broader perspective or limited in their own understanding.
1:49:47: Moral judgments can be made based on impact on all conscious beings and the individual's potential for well-being.
1:50:08: Technology could potentially alter individuals' preferences and lead to greater well-being for everyone.
1:51:00: A complete science of the mind may offer solutions to individuals with harmful preferences or limited perspectives.
1:57:05: 💬 Discussion on the potential benefits of religious belief and the limits of knowledge in moral decision-making.
1:57:05: Religious communities may perform better in certain metrics, but it is debatable if belief in religion is the best way to achieve moral high ground.
1:58:38: Being intellectually honest and open to changing evidence is crucial in ethical discussions.
1:59:29: The evolutionary origins of religious belief may not necessarily imply its current utility.
2:01:20: There could be circumstances where believing in an untrue concept leads to a higher moral outcome.
2:02:03: Some knowledge, like weaponizing smallpox or certain technologies, may be too dangerous to be widely disseminated.
2:03:54: 💭 Exploration of the benefits of secular alternatives to religious belief and the practice of mindfulness meditation.
2:03:54: Well-being can be served by religious belief, but it may not be intrinsic to religious belief itself.
2:04:03: Community plays a significant role in religious belief, providing a space for collective reflection and appreciation.
2:04:42: Secular alternatives to religious gatherings could offer similar benefits without divisive beliefs.
2:05:03: Atheists lack the same level of motivation to gather for collective reflection compared to religious believers.
2:06:05: The transcendent experience in meditation can provide a sense of profound connection beyond self.
2:11:44: Meditation involves paying close attention to one's experiences, starting with focusing on the breath.
2:14:07: The wandering nature of thoughts during meditation can be likened to a form of psychosis without awareness.
2:16:04: Returning to the breath after being carried away by thoughts is a key practice in mindfulness meditation.
2:16:44: 🧘 Exploration of consciousness through meditation reveals the nature of self and reality.
2:16:44: Meditation allows for a closer examination of consciousness beyond the changing content.
2:16:49: Initial difficulty in meditation is due to constant distraction by thoughts and images.
2:17:05: Breath is used as a focal point to develop concentration and distinguish between thought and attention.
2:17:43: Through meditation, one can observe thoughts as appearances in consciousness without identification.
2:18:01: The experience of 'I' as a subject is just another appearance in consciousness, not a separate entity.
2:18:43: Paying attention to consciousness reveals the illusory nature of free will and the self.
2:26:09: Psychedelics provide temporary shifts in consciousness, but meditation offers a deeper understanding of reality.
2:28:02: Meditation shows that true psychological freedom is found within ordinary consciousness, not altered states.
2:29:45: 🧠 Exploration of selflessness and consciousness through meditation leads to psychological freedom and tranquility.
2:29:45: Consciousness can be free of self, leading to extraordinary experiences even in ordinary moments.
2:30:12: Recognition of selflessness in meditation can alleviate psychological suffering and provide a sense of equanimity.
2:31:32: The sense of self is a contraction born out of constant reactions to experiences and a perceived subject-object divide.
2:32:00: Through meditation, the illusion of a fixed self can collapse, leading to a more expansive and impersonal view of Consciousness.
2:39:08: Consciousness is viewed as deeply impersonal and transcendent, encompassing all experiences without a separate center.
2:39:20: The feeling of being a subject arises from a perpetual mode of reacting to experiences, creating a sense of separateness.
2:41:26: Exploring selflessness through meditation is akin to opening a clenched fist to realize there was nothing there all along.
2:42:01: Doubt about the benefits of selflessness is a barrier to experiencing the psychological freedom and tranquility it can offer.
2:43:00: 🧠 Exploring the intersection of meditation, psychedelics, and self-awareness in intellectual discourse.
2:43:00: Skepticism towards meditation gradually diminishing, leading to a willingness to give it a proper try.
2:43:00: Discussion on meditation as a tool for self-reflection and exploration of consciousness.
2:43:07: Highlighting the challenge of introducing meditation to intellectually skeptical individuals like Richard Dawkins.
2:43:42: Suggesting that self-awareness and consciousness are not solely defined by the feeling of 'I' or 'me'.
2:46:09: Reflecting on the potential transformative power of psychedelic experiences like MDMA.
2:51:18: Acknowledging the difficulty in publicly demonstrating the effects of meditation and psychedelics.
2:53:30: Drawing parallels between musical aptitude and the capacity for deep appreciation of experiences like meditation.
2:54:09: Acknowledging the subjective nature of personal preferences in relation to music and altered states of consciousness.
2:54:25: Recognizing the potential for profound changes in perception and experience through different forms of stimuli like music and psychedelics.
2:55:02: Acknowledging the potential for personal growth and expanded consciousness through exploration beyond one's current limitations.
2:55:22: 🎤 Exploring the challenges of meditation, self-discovery, and skepticism in philosophical discussions.
2:55:22: Meditation and self-discovery require patience and practice.
2:55:31: Initial skepticism does not indicate lack of potential in an activity.
2:56:04: Skills like meditation can be developed over time, not necessarily innate.
2:56:31: Encouraging listeners to try out meditation despite initial doubts.
2:56:44: Transitioning from abstract concepts to personal experience is key in self-discovery.
2:56:56: Excitement towards experiencing self-dissipation and separation from experiences.
2:57:09: Expressing gratitude for the insightful conversation and looking forward to future discussions.
Recap by Tammy AI
You don't have nothing to do? Paint your house maybe?
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
"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
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
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.
Yeah unlike piers Morgan.
I both prefer it, and find it morally right
@@nickbowd Read my mind lad! Piers does make a sh1tsh0w out of everything, for the outrage views
I AM SO SICK OF THESE COMMENTS.
Mate get out more. People be respectfully agreeing ALL the time. Not a big deal AT ALL.
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
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.
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.
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*
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 has been blowing up so far this year! Keep it up young man!
It almost brings a tear to my eye listening to 2 intelligent people discuss a difficult topic in good faith. Almost every time I see or participate in a debate, I think of all this time and mental energy that could be spent on real philosophy instead of arguing about our imaginary friends.
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 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 agree, a captivating discussion for sure
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.
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.
It seems more there are pointless semantics being discussed simply because Alex appears to have a strange compulsion to avoid the words should and ought. There is no reason to change "should" into "I prefer". It serves no purpose and belittles the subject being discussed. In fact it just makes the definition of the word less useful.
As Sam rightly pointed out, you wouldn't tell your kidnappers that "you prefer" your family wasn't tortured in the room next door. It's linguistically not a sound way to communicate because a "preference" is something of low significance. I feel like it was made obvious when Sam explained how one 'should' press the button if it reduced everyone's suffering by 50% with no drawbacks. Whether you 'prefer' that doesn't matter. You should do it because it is objectively better for everyone. We as humans invented these words. They serve our purposes of communication. If "good" doesn't translate to "increased well being", then your usage of these words is simply impractical.
@@asukaknightmare8904 This I believe, is the genesis of my aversion to engaging with philosophy. In its attempts fully probe everything, it often over-extends into seemingly needless word games. The scientific enterprise seeks utility in explaining and predicting new phenomenon - and is not necessarily primarily concerned that absolutely everything along the way originates in some necessary and self-evident first principle.
@@asukaknightmare8904 Bruh. I waited for that "press the button" example for so long. I'm glad he mentioned it. But he could've went one step deeper. Sure, one can 'prefer' to press the button but SHOULD they prefer to do it - SHOULD that be their preference as opposed to not. I think that would've been the defining moment.
💯
@@asukaknightmare8904 I couldnt have summed up my views as well as you did in this reply if I was given 100 years.
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?😂😂😂😂😂.
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
the meditation discussion was so interesting. It is the first meditation discussion that actually held me interested to hear and learn more. Excellent. thank you
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!
You've really gotten far since when I first started watching your videos as cosmicskeptic, love that you're still going strong.
haven’t watched the video yet but it’s actually insane to watch alex grow this much
The glow up is insane
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.
How big are we talking? Is it objectively immoral?
More and more astounded as of late by podcasts. Alex is terrific. And Sam Harris has profoundly impacted the ways in which I deal with stress and make sense of the world and myself. So grateful.
so he help you with stress but helped you not overcome death
Sam Harris is a charlatan.
@@Mistery7777 These intellectuals can not help you, Jesus can.
@@Mistery7777 in this life everything is made unprofitable by death. But Christ offered up himself in substitution of our death that we may hereafter have life eternal.
One should understand death is real and be aware .there is no such thing as overcome death you will die eventually ,i dont assume the great green monkey which has 3 eyes and is invisable can help me through it as much as a person or a label. thinking some high divine power is helping you in tough times is great to overcome many things but wanting it for another being and saying ita the only way? Stupidity has no end @@billwalton4571
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?
Alex. I haven't thanked you enough for having such clear and thoughtful metaphors and examples in order to communicate your ideas.
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.
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
funny how Sam and Alex can split hairs on the definition and meaning of words for 3 hours and people love it, but if Peterson does it in a 30 second youtube short people spew hellfire through every orifice of their body.
I think because these two are asking for clarity earnestly - it seems like when Peterson asks about the meaning of a word it’s either a “gotcha” or does very little to make his point more clear. I’d say it also helps that Alex and Sam use language in a similar and more literal way, where Peterson speaks more metaphorically or symbolically
I haven’t listened to Peterson recently though so maybe his style has changed, my comment is just based on when I used to listen to him more a few years ago
@@JulioNicoletti I think youre half right, people dont tolerate that of Peterson because they think hes being purposefully obtuse, i think it comes down to politics, they dont like him and presupose the worst.
To me, i disagree with Peterson on politics ALOT, but after some thought i understand what he means, and im convinced hes honest when talking about meaning and the bibble and such.
Harris on the other hand... Hes not strictly lying, but hes dogmatically oposed to any idea of spirituality, even abandoning the term after starting to use it seemingly to return to his comfort zone. He will split hairs for hours only to come to the conclusion that ''what sucks is bad and what rocks is good'', and its like, okay, youre physics PDH has granted you the ability to be the most basic form of a moral emotivist. You havnt even proved why killing babies is bad...
To put it in scientific terms its like seeing a mathmatician try to explain biology. Sure, maths is upstream of physics and then chemestry and then biology, but you dont have the brainpower to explain the smallest animal with maths, same here with morality... Hes unwilling to use intuition or faith or metaphor and hes getting nowhere
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?
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”
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.
I adored this convo! Thank you Sam and Alex! ❤
I think they are saying smart stuff, but I'm just distracted by the precision of Sam lifting only one eyebrow. He is really good at that.
Haha I think it's probably involuntary. Both I and my two-year-old do that. It's always the same eyebrow too. Lopsided motor control maybe.
@@RobertWarrenGilmore No, if that were the case, Sam would constantly move in a counter clockwise circle. My guess is Hebbian plasticity. BTW, I just noticed that the image of Sam is reversed.
This is the best conversation on the Moral Landscape ever recorded! Congrats!
The best interview on Alex’s channel!
Sam is a brilliant mind. So is Alex, but Sam is on another level.
1:27, he dissects Alex's preference analogy so well and doesn't claim victory. Marvelous!!
Agreed but Alex is a boy. Let's not call him brilliant when he can't decide if humans have more value than animals. He's got a lot of growing up to 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!
Long time coming, this. Loved every second.
loved?
do you mean you “preferred to have that preference.”
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue What do you mean by prefer though.
@@aaron4820 its hard to explain to a materialist
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"
Very engaging discussion.
The part where they discuss whether morality is just preference (starting around 1:20) reminded me of Robert Pirsig's discussion of what he called "quality." One of the objections that bothered him was that quality could be defined as "just what you like." Eventually he concluded the issue he had with thay objection was the word "just" because what you like (i.e. preference) is the main driving factor in your decisions.
Oh booooy I have been waiting for this since like 2018
What a beauty of a podcast. This is one of the best I have heard in a while
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.
This episode touches on important themes in philosophy, particularly the nature of language, human identity, and the dangers of abstraction in moral and political discourse.
1. The Absurdity and Limitation of Language (Hobbes)
Hobbes' Rationalism and Language. Hobbes believed that human language could be rationalized and made precise through clear definitions, but he later acknowledged the limitations of language. He noted that many words-like "free will," "immaterial substances," or "round quadrangles"-are, in his view, nonsensical because they are abstractions that don't correspond to anything concrete.
When people talk about "free will" as an absolute freedom that is unrestrained by any external force, Hobbes would argue that this is an absurd concept because in reality, human action is always subject to some form of external influence or constraint. The abstraction of absolute free will doesn’t have any real meaning because it doesn't exist in our material world.
Relation to Our Discussion on Free Will and Determinism. In Islamic tradition, free will is understood within the framework of divine omniscience and determinism. Free will is contingent, not absolute. This mirrors Hobbes' argument that absolute free will, as a concept, is abstract and divorced from reality. Islamic theology resolves this tension by acknowledging that human choice exists, but it operates within the limits set by God's will (as regarding contingent vs. necessary will).
2. Humanity as a Category Mistake.
Hobbes and Spinoza on 'Humanity'. Both Hobbes and Spinoza critique the use of abstract concepts like "Humanity" to refer to a generalized, idealized version of the human being. Spinoza, in particular, argued that there is no such thing as an ideal human nature; there are only individual humans with their particularities.
When people speak of "Humanity" in moral or political terms, such as “Humanity must fight climate change,” they often conflate individual humans with an idealized, collective agent that doesn't exist in any concrete sense. According to Spinoza and Hobbes, this is a category mistake. There is no single, unified entity called "Humanity" acting in the world; only individuals act.
Discussion on Secular Humanism and Moral Objectivism. This critique of abstract "Humanity" relates to the discussion on Sam Harris and secular humanism. Harris, and many secular humanists, invoke "human flourishing" as a moral standard for guiding human actions. However, as Hobbes and Spinoza point out, invoking abstract entities like "Humanity" or "Flourishing" risks creating moral and metaphysical confusion. Without a clear metaphysical foundation (such as God in religious traditions), these abstractions may be arbitrary or inconsistent.
3. The Danger of Abstractions in Moral Discourse.
Humanity as a Dangerous Fiction (Spinoza) Spinoza warns that the idea of “Humanity” can become dangerous because it allows people to classify some individuals as “less human” than others. When humans are treated as less than fully human, it becomes easier to justify their exploitation or even elimination.
Throughout history, regimes that have sought to "purify" or "improve" humanity have often committed atrocities. The Nazis, for example, dehumanized certain groups (Jews, Roma, disabled individuals) to justify their elimination in the name of an idealized "Aryan" humanity.
Relation to Secular Humanism and the Idea of "The Good"This also ties into our discussion about the metaphysical problems within secular humanism. When secular thinkers like Harris define moral standards around abstract ideas like "human flourishing," they risk falling into the same trap of abstraction. Without a solid foundation, who decides what constitutes "flourishing"? What happens when certain people or groups are deemed to not contribute to this flourishing?
4. Metaphysical Borrowing (Human Flourishing as a Surrogate Deity).
Borrowing from Teleology. In our previous discussion, we talked about how Sam Harris borrows from teleological (purpose-driven) thinking by using “human flourishing” as a moral standard. This teleology is grounded in an abstraction-similar to how "Humanity" is used in political and moral discussions. Harris implicitly borrows the religious notion of purpose but redefines it in secular terms.
Harris may argue that moral actions should aim at maximizing human flourishing. But just as Hobbes and Spinoza critique "Humanity" as an abstraction, the concept of flourishing also risks being arbitrary or ambiguous without a clear definition. What happens when different individuals or cultures have conflicting ideas of what flourishing looks like?
Relation to Divine Purpose in Religious Thought. Religious frameworks, such as Islam, avoid this arbitrariness because moral purpose is tied to divine will. In Islam, "flourishing" is not an abstract concept left to human interpretation, but something that is defined through God's revelation and commands. This eliminates the ambiguity and inconsistency that secular humanism faces when it tries to define moral purposes without a metaphysical grounding.
5. The Privilege of Absurdity: Making Sense of Life Through Nonsense.
Hobbes and the Absurd. Hobbes acknowledges that some words are simply absurd or nonsensical because they don't correspond to reality. However, there’s also the idea that absurdity can help make sense of life-through paradox or nonsensical concepts, we can sometimes grasp deeper truths.
The notion of free will can be seen as an absurdity if taken in the absolute sense, but when framed within the context of divine will (as in Islamic theology), it begins to make sense. Humans have a contingent form of free will that exists within God’s ultimate determination.
Relation to Quantum Interpretations. As we discussed in relation to quantum mechanics, some phenomena seem absurd or nonsensical (e.g., the observer effect or the concept of many worlds). Yet, these ideas help us make sense of deeper realities about the nature of existence, much like how paradoxical or seemingly absurd concepts can illuminate the relationship between divine will and human action.
6. Hobbes’ Rationalism. led him to believe that humans could escape the confusion of language by creating precise definitions. But, as we’ve seen, language and abstractions can lead to confusion and absurdity, especially when we deal with metaphysical or moral concepts like "Humanity" or "flourishing."
Spinoza’s Warning. about the danger of abstractions reminds us that identifying "Humanity" as an actor in the world is a dangerous fiction. This critique applies to secular moral systems that rely on abstract concepts without metaphysical foundations.
Sam Harris and Secular Humanism. show how modern thinkers continue to rely on abstractions like "human flourishing" without grounding them in anything beyond human reason and experience. This leaves these moral systems vulnerable to the same problems Hobbes and Spinoza identified: confusion, arbitrariness, and potential harm.
In conclusion, while secular thinkers like Harris attempt to provide a rational basis for ethics by appealing to concepts like human flourishing, these concepts often operate as abstractions similar to how "Humanity" was critiqued by Hobbes and Spinoza. Without a metaphysical foundation, these abstractions lack coherence and can lead to dangerous moral consequences. Religious traditions, by contrast, provide a clear metaphysical grounding that ties moral purpose directly to the will of God, avoiding many of the pitfalls of abstraction.
Why does it have to be an idealised human collective? Isn't humanity just the collection of all humans? It's abstract in the sense their would be a 'median' quality but it would be useless, but concrete in that it is a quantifiable number of people.
Great conversation. I remember when young Cosmic Skeptic was reading Sam Harris. Now, here you are. 👍💙💙💙🥰✌
“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
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!
Every time I hear Sam Harris talk I learn a few new words and improve my vocabulary ..
Effete 😅
I’d recommend looking into the integrity of BetterHelp as a sponsor and company.
This will make the rest of my day very pleasant, thanks for releasing it!
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.
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
People in the comments here keep referring to Sam being open minded. I'm not at all clear that this is what you are actually observing. I what we are observing is his patience with his host, his host's questions and hyperbolic extreme scenarios, his unwavering calm and even amused confidence and capacity to cut thru confusion. The questions and hyperbolic scenarios Alex is presenting are far from new to Sam. Lacking patience, willingness and a graceful, creative ability to respond Sam might just walk out of the room.
Ironic to what I said, Sam came up with the most hyperbolic for-instance of all. Getting into heaven believing something that's false. There is no rational or sane way to pursue such a goal. It's not possible to knowingly know something that's not true. Or is there? Circles don't equal squares. When circles equal squares they collapse into one thing and the distinction required between circles and squares doesn't exist to falsely believe they are the same.
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.
We gonna need like 5-6 podcasts at least with Sam. Thank you
I was waiting for this!
Very interesting conversation. I learn a couple of new words every time I listen to Sam Harris.
My favorite author and favorite youtuber
Same bro
It's just a "Preference"😂😂
I enjoyed this discussion more than I have any other for years. And it reminded me why I fell in love many years ago to listening to how Sam thinks and explains things.
- Thank you, gentlemen.
I’ve been waiting for this collab for years
Im really happy that Alex got such a big guest, and i genuenly think Sam is a good person.
However... Am i the only one feeling like in this conversation, Sam is what people acuse Peterson of being? Hes splitting hairs constantly to make the smallest claims, hes coming to pretty much no conclusions yet half the comments regard what he says as smart (without clarifying any point he makes) based on his reputation and emotion.
And personally, when i listen to Peterson i can see why people get lost, but i can also see what hes trying to get at, politics aside, when he talks about meaning he is 100% honest and open. Sam tho... hes not dishonest, but hes clearly dogmatically married to the idea of spirituality not being a thing at any level, to a point were hell deny any sort of morality not even on a scientific basis, but on a sciency aesthetic basis. Hes a very smart guy yet when it comes to morals hes making the arguments i made when i was 7, and even then i could intuit the idea of some objective morality that had to be discovered but existed in theory at least.
Hearing him speak is the equivalent of hearing the most simple christian apologist answer ''what if god didnt exist?'' with ''wdym he does exist'', its not stupidity its ideology and close mindedness
Fantastic conversation! Thank you Alex and Sam
I think this is my favorite 1-to-1 so far for me. Thanks for organizing these!
Check out the Sam Harris /Jordan Peterson conversations and report back!
Finally this was uploaded! Thanks Alex, Sam.
The honesty is too much. The best of Sam Harris brought out by Alex’ good way of asking.❤❤❤
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”.
Thank you, Alex for this!
I'm only 13 minutes in and I can see the palpable excitement on Alex's face to *finally* ask these questions directly to Sam. What a treat this is.
His description of the benefits of meditation are spot on! Ive always struggled to explain this non-identification with thoughts and sensations but he did it thoroughly and excellently
Nice treat thanks Alex and Sam.
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 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.
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!
maybe i missed it but i didn't see alex's explanation of why "the worst possible misery for everyone" isn't bad, considering he said himself that's the one thing one would need to grant for sam's argument to work.
Totally. Whether they agreed or disagreed, I always felt they didn't meet at the crux of his ideas. This conversation is very different!
@@BattousaiHBr the arguement (Which Sam agrees with) is that in order to build the moral landscape you must assert that "the worst possible misery for everyone is bad". This is something all humans except for very very few agree with, so we just believe it on faith despite not being able to fundementally demonstrate its factuality. It is simply a preference.
Sam says that whilst this is true, it is also true of the seamingly inherent laws of the universe, and that even logical laws rely on presuppositions (unproven claims). That we just happen to all agree on, so them being unproven doesn't matter.
Similiarly, basically everyone agrees that everyone maximally suffering is bad, so we simply assert that is true, and then can build a set of objective morals, as we have objective logic claims, that can all be built from this one subjective law (that everyone agrees with.)
@@TheUntamedNetwork "This is something all humans except for very very few agree with"
this is not the case and i don't think sam would agree with this.
if some people don't agree with it, then that's not the worst possible.
you could envision each individual human being strapped in a VR headset and being shown their worst possible scenario imaginable as if it was real, which in aggregate would be the worst for all humans.
i would like to see alex's view on why this is not bad, and if it is then he'd be agreeing with the conclusion.
@@BattousaiHBr the worst possible suffering is very hard to quantify, especially if my view of suffering for example was everyone else being happier then me.
I as the observer would say that everyone is maximally suffering is the point, since I can't trusted the stated or enacted views of others as to their own suffering.
You can imagine a crazy person that believes the world as it is is maximla suffering, but whatever.you believe that state is, you must oppose maximally. That is the base assumption from which he builds the moral landscape
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 ?
SUCC
"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.
Great convo Alex and Sam 👍
This was such an enjoyable conversation. Will definitely listen to it again.
More of this please :)
Best conversation I’ve ever heard tbh
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.
This is amazing. Thank you, lads.
Thank you very much for this dialogue. Funnily enough I'm literally just reading "the moral landscape" by Sam Harris, the swedish translation. This really helps comprehending the book!
Pure gold. The respect, and complete interest of eachothers viewpoints is incredible to see. Gives me something to aim for. Easily the best episode I've seen from you so far.
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...
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.
Thank you so much for this wonderful lession in our earths geology. You are an excellent teacher. Understanding geology depends on visual explantions and you are so good at providing them.
Ive been waiting for this for years
Been fan of both of you in a long time
Glad to finally see this episode!
As I listen to this discussion I think about how social media, by adding another layer to the ‘self’, but a virtual self, in a virtual world, explains a lot about the way the suffering of many people has been multiplied exponentially.
An interesting thought.
And I Love you Alex, you have done such noble work. A contributor to our History.
Fantastic stuff. Great conversation.
I like how Sam just drops words like “orthogonal” in conversations
The one we've all been waiting for. Congrats Alex!