Can someone explain to me why 1) and 2) cannot be true at the same time? Suppose I want to maximize only well-being in the world, whatever its precise definition is. It might be the case that when I solve this problem of maximizing it, the optimal solution includes valuing logical consistency, reliance on evidence, parsimony, etc. So, in contrast with what is said in the video, we might be able to say that logical consistency (among other values) leads to well-being although we do not value logical consistency in itself. Where am I wrong? Also, I think there are many claims in this video that I can argue against. I lost count after 10 minutes in.
HAHAHAHA this is perfect. "And that's a big problem!". I hate that. It's like, okay, once you attach "that's a problem" to it, it just invalidates everything you just said because you used the thing "being a problem" as your justification for having that opinion.
@@brykmann They could be lying, or they could mean well but be deeply misguided. Also, I've been following Philosophy Tube since he had like 20k subs, back then he used to craft his videos in a argument-counterargument style, and leave it open, like in real Philosophy. Good ol' days...
@@dontyoufuckinguwume8201 The Problem is that they are scientifically dishonest. They claim to be scientists and rational but they completly fail to live up to scientistic standarts. They are not about rationality they are about feelings. All what they do is to produce the feeling of rationality in contrast to real rationality and honest science. As these peolple call themself scientists these failures can not be forgiven because they harm the very concept of science and rationality.
He didn't but he should have. And in my opinion he could have if he adopted moral relativism instead. It's not moral relativism that leads to fruitless discussions in face of suffering, it's moral realism. That's what occupied Cuck Philosophy in this video. If Sam had simply said "I'm going to maximize well being and if you don't call that morality, I don't care" that would have been a much better message imo.
Its impressive how Sam Harris has been able to make a career out of performing rationality whilst failing to meet the most basic requirements of scholarship such as making arguments, reading and referencing the contemporary literature and explaining what opposing views are and why they are wrong.
- French guy here, sorry for broken English - I agree with your point, and i would extend it to the whole pack of "New Atheists" (at least whenever they try to tackle socio/political/moral issues). It seems to me like that don't put any substance or meaning in concepts like reason or science. Or even that, in comparaison to the religious believers they so despise, they merely change the name of the object of their fanaticism. Science, according to them, is not a process but rather an ever-existing, transcendant entity that defined the whole universe. Basically, a divine figure.
Nobody wants to do the reading. I'd argue that it's part of the performative culture that rewards outward signals of intellectualism that "appear" to meet contemporary standards: anti-theist (to dunk on extremists), reliance on "just so" arguments like "bio-truths," etc but I would be doing so without a comprehensive understanding of the market for these books. I bought Guns, Germs and Steel in the late 90s (because who wants to actually read texts from those fields), I bought the God Delusion, and God is not Good, in the early 00s (because who wants to actually read atheist or theological texts), and now I watch youtube videos from creators that have demonstrated a willingness to engage with stuff more thoroughly than I ever will, and thus I continue to avoid "doing the reading." The issue I guess is the same as with the alt-right "rational skeptics," if you never actually come to grips with the main body of literature on a subject and only ever rely on someone else's hot takes, you're at risk of getting snookered, falling in with a bad crowd. eg Pordan Jeterson, (((Cultural Marxism))), SJWs and so on and so forth
Douglas Mundy. That is actually a pretty good point. Never thought about that before and God knows it would have saved me a lot of trouble if I did. I had a Sargon of Akkad phase a few years ago, and I remember that what drew me in to his Anti-SJW, pseudo intelectual, nonsense was the overwhelming appearance he had of knowing something.
asiscoe That is true. Still, I believe it's possible to see if an argument has any merit if you think about it for a bit. In a way, it reminds me of the way Umberto Eco defined culture: "Not the ability to recall information, but the ability to find it". Which I think could also include the ability to tell good sources from bad sources.
A little over 6 years ago I read The Moral Landscape. I have no shame in admitting it's what spurred me to pursue a career in philosophy. Throughout it all though, it's becoming clearer and clearer how little philosophy Sam Harris actually does.
BlueSeraph89-So since youve done the research can you or someone else give me an idea as to what his work is...I understand he is a neuroscientist and an author and for some reason a debater but what about neurology does he study? What is his end goal? In my personal opinion he seems to be milking his Christianity and Islam critiques...but thats just me. EDIT: For the first schmuck who liked my comment...you are welcome to answer it😘
I know it's a late comment but just wanted to say - this is not only a fun dunking on Sam Harris, but a really good explanation of the limits of scientism/positivism and the is-ought problem as a whole.
Is ought is not a real problem. The field of medical science doesnt consider whether or not to cure a paitent once they know what the disease is. It is the whole point of having a medical field.
My goodness - when I read that from Sam I lost a lot of respect. Maybe if he wasn't so bored by moral philosophy he wouldn't make such colossal errors.
@@Tenthplanetjj86 well I never respected that "man", but yes, when I read that it was so clear to me how he is controlled by feelings and has no clue about what human will (in an ethical sense) is. Couldn't help but think about what 'A' said in Either/Or, Crop Circles. Irony is quiet a thing when it comes to sophists xD...
As Bowie said in Twin Peaks: "Now, we're not going to talk about Judy. We're going to leave her out of it!" And he was terrified as he uttered those lines...
@@Tenthplanetjj86 what did he say? well theres no such thing as moral philosophy as theres no such thing as morality. were a bunch of atoms bunched together, where does this magical entity come into place for you morality clowns? cant make errors about something that doesnt exist. what matters is creating as much valueable qualia in the universe from this point out, which starts out with getting as good of a safe AI as possible.
@@Nowhy human will is? free will? whats there to havea clue about, there is no will. and he has many times adressed ways in which punishing people for their action could be desireable despite no inherit deservedness for the punishment
'Rationality Rules' just debunked the Big Bang theory in a recent video. It was pathetic. He also once said that Sam Harris will go down in history as one of the greatest modern thinkers of all time. (not exact quote but close). I just about threw up in my mouth and unsubscribed. I don't think he would like this video much. He probably will 'debunk it'. Sigh~~~~
Rick O'Brien What RR specifically addressed are Aristotelean idea of "nothing" which some people have tried to connect to the Big Bang, who assert that "nothingness" preceded the Big Bang, in order to try to make it look like their favorite holy book. A true state of "nothingness" cannot be scientifically examined, much less falsified, so it is a useless concept. That is why RR put "(Ex Nihilo Model)" in the title, and if you are familiar with the Big Bang, you should know that "Ex Nihilo" (i.e. "From Nothing") is *NOT* a part of scientifically accepted Big Bang models. Clearly, you didn't actually watch the video, and just judged it by an incomplete understanding of the title. That's the intellectual level of Sargon of Akkad. Granted, RR's video is over 2 Sargons long, which means he wouldn't be able to sit through the whole thing, either.
@@manchesterunited9576as someone who was a teenager listening to rogan podcasts with Sam on, and reading the comments praising Harris so heavily, I’m embarrassed to say I thought the man was some kind of intellectual It was only years later when I started thinking for myself instead of passively listening to “intellectuals” ideas that I realized how bad many of his ideas were
"Public intellectuals" in general seem to make a lot of mistakes, I don't even see the term as positive any more. Public intellectuals often have a bit of knowledge in many areas but no deep understanding of any of those areas. Many people also often aren't interested in discussions on an academic level, so instead they listen to public intellectuals who either have a shallow understanding of the subject to begin with, or who have to dumb it down, so in this sense Sam really still is a public intellectual.
I have a great new theory about physics, namely that everything in the world is made of varied states of water... Though I will ignore all new developments in physics because those of only of interest to academic scientists. Wikipedia has a fantastic article.
No it's not. This kind of thinking leads to genocide. It's the Apeiron that is the basis for everything. Rise above your tribalism and stop being irrational. I know it's true, my mother bribed the the musciology department so I can get my Ph. D.
@French Frys But shouldn't we ask on those priori presuppusition ? Especially when someone already believe in a higher power wich know what is best for us ( even if it feels bad ) see it as a bitter remedy .
@French Frys Sir , first i must say i am fascinating on your answers and how you articulate it and i ll try to explain my point of view . I think the probleme is that you are not presuppose the existence of god , if killing your kids would lead them to heaven wouldn't be rationnel to do it ? I am a muslim , and i am conviced of the existence of god and the authenticity of quran and some of hadith (prophete sayings) wich construct a concept of moralities . I agree that morality is about wellbieng , but not always and since we are human we dont always know what is good for us , like i said before god is all knowing , so he know what is best when its come for wellbieng . Also you may ask were is the wellbieng in eternel hell ? That's why we must understand that we as creatures dont have any right and we are completly submitive to god's will , so if he enter us heaven or hell we have no right to contest . Ps : sorry for bad grammar .
**SUMMARY** • Harris thinks he's solved the is/ought distinction, but hasn't. • The argument he gives for its falseness is based on an invalid inference: that because you can't get an is without an ought, you therefore can get an ought from an is. • He never provides a thorough and coherent definition of "well-being", despite basing his entire "science" of morality on it. • He never bothers to engage with ethicists tackling the same problems as him, and seems to be ignorant of the entire subject of ethical philosophy and it's thinkers in general. • Thus, he ends up using arguments that have been brought up and argued against for hundreds of years, unaware that he's reinventing the wheel. • Instead of engaging with the arguments of other ethicists, he just makes up simplistic arguments like "what if a serial killer thought killing people enhanced well-being?" which are easy to refute. • And at times he just handwaves counter-arguments and entire subsets of ethics by calling them "boring" or "irrelevant". Which is downright childish.
I would just add that he can't even reinvent the wheel. It's like he can barely scratch a rock and then he calls this scratching a "scientific morality".
Morals come from people and people decide what they are. There is no other way. Besides it is just another business con trick, to make you feel guilty about not giving your money to a 3rd world charity.
That morals come from people raises some interesting 'why', 'where', and 'how' questions that pertain to more than just "con tricks" and guilt. It's slightly important that we have an idea about how we should treat others, the world, ourselves, organise societies, etc. . .
Well it is simply how we deal with each other on a daily basis, it is common sense yet again no labels needed, but it is down to each of us, not some "last word" definitive impartial unquestionable superhuman entity be it skience or gawd. The ones who bang on most about morality are those who are fastest to exploit it for one end or other and it always comes down to money: charities, government terrorism taxation etc. all moral associated garbage. Why is it OK for gov to kill people yet it is bad if you or me or whoever else does it? It is nothing other than what you use to justify your actions to yourself, but on a larger scale, and a control measurefor the rulers over the rules, in order that the rulers protect themselves. Not a good idea to have your plebs exercised in exercising their power and indignation is it? Do we have to organise societies, or do we just allow things to naturally sort themselves out. NO one has to live according to the legal system or cities or to be a citizen slave in a State controlled and taxed prison. These are all situations that have been leading us into them by the nose slowly over time. There is no one objective impartial unquestionable godfigure to use to settle our uncertain and dynamic lives. It comes down to how we ourselves decide to act and what values we have. It does ultimately come down to common sense and judgment. It is the same bullshit about why I am forced to contribute to oversees "aid", why is it OKto strip x amount of money from me to piss away to a bunch of people that mean nothing to me> Because it's NICE?!! Or becuase "how would YOU FEEL if you were poor and blah blah"... yes but so what? I will deal with my situation and others are to deal with theirs. You make your bed and thus you will sleep in it. If you want to sponsor some brown people then be it on you, but as for me I don't give a damn nor do I have to for any reason and even less be held up to be judged badly based on that sentiment and even less than that be compelled to submit some of my blood for it. How often do you hear that banks reap insane money from public "austerity" and economical situations that people lose houses, businesses because the banks decide to raise interest rates for no reason other than to cull lunatic profit?. Do they feel bad because of this "immoral" activity? No they dont give a fuck if people starve to death as long as they get the money and wealth, and that is why they do it. Morality is a scam to deceive the scammed, so that YOU do not trigger to do anything about it. It is mental novocaine and self-policing parameters. The controllers know what they are doing.
What brought me here was the Harris and Peterson debate Pangburn put on in Vancouver. At the time I felt like Harris was making some good points. Now I feel like I just watched two idiots play chess and nobody understood the rules. Great video.
Hi 77. The critique didn't measure up when I read just some of Sam's intro. My comment is reproduced for you below. Cheers. When a critique takes their subject out of context and mis-represents them, they have not critiqued their subject but themselves. The representation at 11:47 in proper context is quoted below. _There are, for instance, twenty-one U.S. states that still allow corporal punishment in their schools. These are places where it is actually legal for a teacher to beat a child with a wooden board hard enough to raise large bruises and even to break the skin. Hundreds of thousands of children are subjected to this violence each year, almost exclusively in the South. Needless to say, the rationale for this behavior is explicitly religious: for the Creator of the Universe Himself has told us not to spare the rod, lest we spoil the child (Proverbs __13:24__, __20:30__, and __23:13__-14). However, if we are actually concerned about human well-being, and would treat children in such a way as to promote it, we might wonder whether it is generally wise to subject little boys and girls to pain, terror, and public humiliation as a means of encouraging their cognitive and emotional development. Is there any doubt that this question has an answer? Is there any doubt that it matters that we get it right? In fact, all the research indicates that corporal punishment is a disastrous practice, leading to more violence and social pathology-and, perversely, to greater support for corporal punishment. 4_ _But the deeper point is that there simply must be answers to questions of this kind, whether we know them or not._ Needing to do this can indicate that the work being critiqued actually stands up to fair investigation because there would be no need to do unfairly if fair critisism could be as effective. It seems to me Harris is making a case for basing morality on factual reality. This seems good to me as ... Real morality is being true to reality. That many oppose this puts them into the same category as religious Idealists that propose morality from imaginary realities.
@@davidfenton3910 just so my original statement doesn't get misunderstood. I actually partially agree with you. When it comes to the conversation those two guys have they definitely aren't having the same talk on equal footing. So in that sense I would definitely agree with you Harris is much closer to some idea of how we ground morality. Peterson on the other hand is just out to lunch. What I wanted to simply say was I can see problems with both sides and there is perhaps a more nuanced way 2 understand morality. Perhaps the way Harris talks about morality is simply reflective of the person he finds himself in front of.
I only partially agree with me also. I just haven't learned enough from people critical of me to get it more sorted out. Cheers and if you haven't watched their latest talks, I recommend them. I liked the extension of the Elton John's glass example by Murray.
@@davidfenton3910 The phrase "There are, for instance" suggests that we're dealing with an specific example. The core argument is stated just a couple paragraphs earlier. While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Consequently, there must be scientific truths to be known about it. A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging some to be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or less ethical. Clearly, such insights could help us to improve the quality of human life-and this is where academic debate ends and choices affecting the lives of millions of people begin. That's when we get the broad statements that are criticized later on the book. Is Harris telling us that we can use available scientific knowledge on the moral question of how can we educate children, or that science can respond on that question? If it's the former, I fully agree with him; and I will even suggest that Harris wants science based knowledge ethical stances to be more aggressively pushed in which I also agree with him. If it's the latter, and I believe it can be fairly argued given the second paragraph of the introduction that Harris explains the latter; then he should respond to the criticism of such approach to scientific truths on the larger scheme, not with an easy example (like serial killers or beating children). As noted on the video, he just responds with "But the deeper point is that there simply must be answers to questions of this kind, whether we know them or not." Within the context of the analysis of Harris' claims, I don't think is a misreading. Just providing as Harris did and as you framed, an example doesn't really mean anything if your making big claims; anyone familiar with science and rationality should understand that.
That was awesome. In my first semester of undergrad in philosophy, I read the book and felt like I didn’t read anything. Never went back to it till now, and I love that you rage read like I do. If someone writes something and it just strikes me as bad, I’m getting all in and will know every peace of meat that I can get out of it.
@@Razvanh29 I think Harris and Peterson belong in the same food group. Based on their work / degree of academic influence, I would not consider either of them particularly influential in their fields. They are, however, influential in public discourse (whether or not their ideas are correct).
The point about him being childish is something I've noticed too. In his email exchange with Chomsky he comes across that way too, and he also seemed petty. Good video, people need to respect philosophy more.
Yes he should be dismissed because he seems childish in your perspective based on an email exchange. Good to know. I will commence burning all his books.
People shouldn't respect philosophy, because philosophy shows us that most philosophy is garbage. Btw I got the opposite from Chomsky, but I might be slightly biased against him after he's failed to make a distinction between despotism and Western democracy for decades.
Great video-essays, keep it up, proud of you! It's a shame i can't support u. I'm living in a dumpster in eastern europe, but i will tell all my hobo friends about ur channel. Thx for all links in the descriptions!
I'm glad we all have Sam Harris around to make us all feel good about our argumentation skills. Afternote: To be fair, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a really good wiki to get lost in.
This guy would be killed in a debate with Harris. This argument is highly fallacious and if you think he exposed weaknesses in Harris's moral philosophy you're standing on shaky grounds as well.
Hermes Bouza it OUGHT to be had with cream garlic and cheese. Unless you can give me a nyquist chart and slope integral for this combination of ingredients.
As an economics student I can say I would mostly use him to despair at widespread misunderstanding of my field. Your hypothetical was deeply chilling ;-;
Harris' fixation on neurophysics raises the question: is the holding of correct or "morally right" beliefs in any way distinguishable in terms of brain function from the holding of incorrect or "morally wrong" beliefs?
I'd been trying to figure out for years what it is that Harris does with so much charisma that makes his points difficult to respond to on the spot, and it's absolutely the penchant for unfalsifiable claims. He just does them in a very smooth way. Thank you so much, I'd pulled my hair out at one point trying to identify it. Wish I'd seen this six years ago, even though it didn't exist yet.
The very beginning of the video addresses the Nietschiean concern of Sam's moral ground so well, that I can't help myself not leaving a like under this video! Thanks for this quick and simple acknowledgment.
I used to think Sam Harris was an example of critical thinking and rationality. I have since changed my opinion. I appreciate how you helped make it even clearer that Harris is far from an example of how to construct rational arguments. Also, I think Sham Harris is somewhere out there. I swear I have seen that man before.
Apart from the moral realism I have no problem with his book. The real problem is people having fruitless discussions while people are suffering. Either you are against that or you are not. And if you are not, you should act against it, rather than trying to persuade everyone what is and isn't "morality". If I want to maximize the ammount of paperclips in the universe, I won't spend the next thousand years at a university debating minute details before I get going.
@@MrCmon113 you might want to spend enough time researching how to make a paperclip and what is the best and most efficient method of doing so, and even spend time confiding in like minded and experienced people....you know..like at a university.
@@MrCmon113 If you get going and make thousands of things that are not, in fact, paperclips because you didn't spend a seconde trying to define "paperclips" thinking it's "self evident", you're gonna look pretty stupid. Sam Harris is not talking about paperclips, he is talking about well being and some of the ideas he actually defend in the public might very well hurt more than they help. So yeah, might be nice to think about it. Also, he's the one who claim to have establish a new science. If your argument is "no need for thinking, just act for a better world" then you are in contradiction with what Harris claim to be trying to do.
@@prierepanda2186 What well being is is self evident if you are conscious and if you are not, it is incomprehensible. >and some of the ideas he actually defend in the public might very well hurt more than they help What does "hurt" and "help" mean here?
Sam Harris has a BA in philosophy from Stanford, studied under one of the most influential philosophers of the latter half of the 20th century (Richard Rorty), studied meditation under Dilgo Khyentse (the same man who taught the current Dalai Lama), and has a PHD in neuroscience with his dissertation being an exploration of the neurological foundations of beliefs. This may be hard to accept, but there's a good chance he knows more about philosophy than you do, even if his philosophical positions are dumb.
gymnopedie sounds like argument from authority, his education does not matter, sure it could make him more knowledgeable but you don't know the credentials of those you are attempting to insult or what knowledge or experience they have, he "ought" to have more knowledge given his experience but that doesn't mean he "is" 😜
jblue1622 no, the original comment or suggested sam was not well studied, aside from listing his credentials, how else do you suggest this claim is refuted
My “appeal to authority” is not fallacious in this context since Sam’s formal education in philosophy has direct bearing on whether he has “studied the philosophical tradition” or not. I have noticed that calling out alleged informal fallacies is one of the calling cards of internet pseudo-intellectuals. It's a cheap way to *sound* smart.
You are doing a very important work. Thank you for sharing your knowledge in such detailed and well referenced way. A big contrast to a lot of other "influencers" on TH-cam.
Harris' fact/value argument is roughly equivalent to Rand saying that she solved the problem of induction, and then just using a semantic trick to make it seem like she did.
I want to listen to your videos on the side, as I focus on getting a heavily modded New Vegas to run, but I just can't because I keep clicking back on the tab with your video in it because your delivery and points are so captivating and interesting.
I wish this had been out years ago, it might have saved a lot of people a lot of time. I tried to read this book myself and "intuitively" gave up, because it seemed to have so little value to anyone seriously interested in moral questions. So glad someone took the time to point out just how useless this book is. Thank you.
I have a serious interest in moral questions, and I find the Moral Landscape the most valuable book in my persuit of these questions. I have a similiar academic background as Harris with psychology and neuroscience and find the arguments very persuasive. I think the arguments run truer to people who have studied/ have an interest in evolution as well, but I might be wrong.
@@shreddits684 I have watched a lot of Harris interviews and lectures over the years. In that time i studied psychology and comparative religion which also involves anthropology and other disciplines in the humanities. It strikes me as totally naive to think that the scientific establishment can somehow answer moral questions. Harris's point of view also seems to come out of a broader anti-religion polemic. His attacks on Islam have kind of revealed his ignorance on the subject of religion and social psychology. In the end i think that neuroscience is just a completely different ball game. I admittedly understand little about it, but i don't see what it has to say about morality. Harris has never really been able to prove anything which is kind of the scientific standard.
What I love most about this video is the clear irritation in your voice. All the videos that you have done prior have had a clam and steady voice, including your K-Pop take. You can hear the hot and speedyness in your tone, it's wonderful and I applaud you for not completely losing your cool.
Sam Harris made a companion between “well being” and physical health. Physical health is somewhat undefined on a myriad of issues. How fast should a person run? How much should they weigh? How best to maintain immune system. Etc. But we do have thriving sciences of nutrition, exercise, and immunology. It does rest on the axiomatic assumption of not wanting to be dead. And having a science of morality would rest on the axiomatic assumption of not wanting to be miserable and spreading misery.
Enjoying the critique - I found an issue in your argument tho - 9:26 It says Harris assumes (or nueuromania and thus harris) a Cartesian self - Harris explicitly denies the existence of a "self" BECAUSE of his understanding of neurology. I mean, they guy says subjectivity is also an illusion ffs. Harris does not think all causality is bottom up. Harris has pointed out the irreducibly subjective reality of consciousnesses repeatedly in his work - its one of his main beliefs.
@@yourmom9931 Oh sure, I'm not saying his argument is good by any means, I'm just saying he defiantly doesn't view the self as Cartesian, but has a very eastern/hindu view of the self as an illusion.
the entire book seems like sam saying: "cmon lets just do utilitarianism" which i personally agree with but i'm not going to act like i just solved meta ethics.
Do meta ethics even matter when the ultimate goal is utilitarianism? Meta ethics are just an endless cycle of subjective morality clashing with each other until people agree on something, when we should agree from the start that human well being should be the only thing we need to keep in mind.
I would argue that he isn't contradicting himself between point one and point two. He may have written that a little bit lazily, or you're leaving out clarifying context, but if you listen to him speak on the topic it is clear that he doesn't believe that the ONLY thing you can reasonably value is well-being. Rather, that well-being is the only value reasonable to consider when talking about morality specifically. To value logical consistency, parsimony, etc, is a value with respect to a different goal than morality. Those are values related to discovering and communicating truth, not moral behavior.
Not always. Not all science or discovery is used to increase well-being. Well-being is not contained within the notion of well being. Sometimes we discover horrible things about the world through scientific investigation.
@@Kelpexable True, but we're talking values. He isn't saying that all discoveries aid in welbeing. He is saying that valuing (seeking after) the pursuit is reasonable because it so often provides utility to that end.
@@Reepecheep Right, but while those values can promote well-being, they often don't. Or, their ability to provide well being also comes with the ability to provide great suffering, or at least ethically dubious circumstances. Take CRISPR, for example. Many of its applications are benign and very helpful. But it could also be used to gene edit and eliminate certain groups of people from the human gene pool. All bioethics courses are filled with examples just like this, as is the history of science. It's also important to recognize that scientific methods and values can't be cleanly distinguished from personal values. If someone were to identify some brain state as one that marks "Well-Being", their values of what well-being is will certainly play some role in shaping and defining that. Whom's concept of Well-Being will we be saddled with? Concepts are not created in a vacuum, divorced from our biases.
@@Kelpexable First off let me say I think we agree on quite a bit here. Certainly there is a great potential for suffering possible with regard to valuing scientific inquiry. Your point about CRISPR is perfect for pointing this out. We have to ask these kinds of hard questions of ourselves if we seek to minimize the range of suffering we can cause with our curiosity and be truly forced to balance that with the kinds of benefits we wish to see. I would be happy to argue the merits of scientific inquiry separately, but in any case, what method would you suggest for determining the risk/benefit of these values if not wellbeing? Secondly, your point about wellbeing being subjective seems true to me. It seems certainly true that different brains will have different views on what constitutes 'wellbeing.' Once again you bring up something that seems very much worth raising when discussing ethical/moral judgements. As you say, the concept of wellbeing is subjective. I find that it is therefore inappropriate to ask 'whom's concept...will we be saddled with?' because you even recognize that there is no single person or single brain state that would qualify universally. As with all things, and especially with all things that we know to be subjective, there is no magic bullet. There is only discourse. Thank you for your time and thoughts.
You earned a subscriber - thank you for the excellent critiques of these very popular intellectuals. I have watched this and the Steven Hicks critiques thus far and look forward to many more.
I read Moral Landscape. My final thoughts were, this is a beginning of a conversation. The conversation is about getting people, as much as possible, to come together and define morals for everyone that wants them. That many religions, philosophies, societies etc find agreement through reason and dialogue. This process, if it comes to pass, would be done in good faith by people dedicated to bring forth a better, safer world. I did not understand it to be a bible, of sorts. I did not think it the end of conversation in philosophy for morality. I do think it can be instructional for steps forward in morality. The rest must be done by those that hold morality important for a better world. EDIT: While late to this discussion party, it appears I have stumbled upon an exercise in philosophical discussion, pro/con, of a sort. I took Logic and Philosophy 50 yrs ago. A short version of my discovery here is, has not changed much. One thing, ‘word salad’ is a term I learned recently, like 15yrs ago, as a pejorative. Those trying the hardest to make points should understand that first. Name calling and silliness in argument accomplishes, name calling and silliness, if your lucky. Enjoy college and keep the debt low. I did and it works. Be well and safe. Peace
“Happiness is distinguished from well-being only in this, that happiness is conceived just as an immediate reality, whereas well-being is regarded as justifiable in relation to morality.” -Hegel
Excellent video. I'm a new viewer to the channel and really liked your critique of Harris. I wrote about this book in my philosophy undergrad class, making the point that it's only really a science-informed utilitarianism. While I had a view of this work similar to Rationality Rules', I've come to completely reject much of Harris's work as nothing more than amateurish and reactionary. As an aside, one of the things that drives me crazy about his books is his burying of arguments in the endnotes. He should include much of what he says in those notes into the main text, as it would improve the books (somewhat).
I might just not be understanding correctly, but 5:43 doesn't seem like a contradiction. It just looks like you used some semantic ambiguity to make it look like it. When in the first statement he talks about value he implies it's within the larger context of morality and when he talks about value in the second statement it's within the narrower more fundamental context of objective knowledge.
@TheEsotericZebra he also rambles about how sam reduces ethics to neuro chemistry, making this point reveals a massive confusion. The whole point of the book, his bedrock claim is that morality has to relate to wellbeing, wellbeing has to relate to states of the brain that can be described. Rambling about neuromania and how hes biased because hes a neuro scientist really screams out how he missed the main point of the book, also the is ought argument is addressed in the book. Very annoying
You turned Sam Harris' ramblings into an actually stimulating philosophical essay so bravo. You should know this was his plan all along because if there's one thing he has learned in this life, it is to take credit for other people's hard work. Don't you know he has a PhD!
Its stimulating cause you don't need to think anymore. Instead of believing Sam Harris, you just believe this random guy on the internet, who can't/won't even substantiate half his claims.
@@x10018ro Jonas is a Ph.D student in philosophy. He wrote his thesis on the German Revolution. So, he’s more qualified to talk about it than Harris is (his Ph.D is in neuroscience and has only an undergraduate degree in philosophy).
I remember being a fan of sam harris and then reading about this book. Luckily ive already had classes on the is/ought distinction put forth by Hume. Needles to say my admiration for him declined somewhat. I mean, it is so easy to see that his argument cannot work, even using his own hypotheticals. If a true psychopath claims that inflicting as much suffering to the people is “good” there is no emperical data that can help you prove him wrong. You can disagree with him, as most of us would. We cant tell him to jump of a building like we would to a person that denies gravity. There is a great deal of hubris involved i am afraid. Like wise his book on determinism. Eveything he writes had already been discussed by other philosophers. His works are just good for getting people interested in science and philosophy, and he should stick to that instead of make these grandious claims
I don't think his books are good for getting people into those fields. He effectively says that entire academic fields are capture by people who write pretentious, boring and harmful works and so people should ignore them and just listen to his simple solutions.
Coincedently a day before this video was released, I listened to one of the discussions between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris (the 2nd one they did on podcasts) and looked a bit into Harris' opinions about the is-ought gap afterwards. I was quite disappointed, because all I got out of it were statements and opinions that to me sounded like any materialistic reductionist view, with barely any given arguments, nevermind any new argument that hasn't been put forward by previous philosophers. Now the fact Harris states in his own book that important philosophical developments are only of interest to academic philosophers says enough in my opinion about his engagement with the existing literature. I think you were spot on on that. Something else: When Derrida was mentioned in that podcast I listened to, Peterson joked ''Well we're simply not smart enough to understand the deeper meaning of his words'' and Harris remarked ''In the course I took about Derrida, I could not understand how fellow students could listen so inspiredly to such a word-salad''. This was really ironic to me since most commenters on youtube that are Anti-Peterson comment the same remarks about Peterson, like Peterson and Harris did about Derrida; mentioning ''word-salad'' and making sarcastic remarks about how they are not smart enough to understand, though when they try to put a point across why Peterson is wrong they indeed dó not seem to understand what Peterson is actually saying, without realising it. In my first year of philosphy one of the more prominent professors of the faculty gave the following advice to everyone: If you are reading a philosophical text and you start to think ''this is just gibberish and word-play, I can't understand how anyone has deemed this meaningful in any sense'', then you should go back and read it again because you most likely do not understand the text as well as you think you do. This has been true for me every single time those thoughts occured and I'm pretty convinced by now this is true for Peterson and Harris in regards to Derrida as well. So for anyone that reads this, whether you're a youtube commenter or a professor or neurologist or whatever, try to remember this advice from my professor, because its starting to look like it's the wisest thing I have personally heard in years.
If Chomsky says that postmodern philosophy is mostly gibberish designed to impress people, then it probably is. And if you can't explain it in terms in which a junior high student can't understand it then there's probably nothing there. I tend to agree.
Kropotkin Beard Agreed, most of what the postmodernists write about could easily be conveyed in more simple terms but they choose not to do so. Reason being they like to use polysyllabic words as a shield against criticism. It’s the equivalent of someone writing out numbers in overly convoluted formats in order to appear intelligent. For example, you could write 7 as [2,228169 X 3,14159265] but it adds nothing of value. If an idea can be explained in more understandable terms, it should be. The evolutionary use of language is communication after all. Edit: Chomsky expands on this here - th-cam.com/video/O3cm0OCA4So/w-d-xo.html
The difference is that Jordan Peterson's word salad is due to his not knowing the subjects very well and trying to wing it. He also has a tendency to try and appear deeper than what he actually produces. He often says "It's deeper than that..." and then goes on to confuse the matter further. Derrida's word salad is of a different type. Chomsky has adequately dealt with most all post-modernists noting that they're mostly doing nothing more than concocting things which sound impressive, but have little or no substance. "If you can't put it in terms in which a junior high school student can't understand it there's probably not much to it." I happen to agree. Sam Harris does a good job of tolerating Peterson's babble. Peterson reminds me of freshman students, not only philosophy students, doing acid for the first time and putting all the pieces together, even the ones that aren't there.
What is so dreadfully unbearable for Sam Harris about terms like "metaethics", "deontology" or "noncognitivism"? Those are fairly simple terms. It's not quantum physics ffs. Also, you cannot write ethics off as boring, and then proceed to write an entire book about ethics. It just doesn't make any fucking sense.
Haven't finished watching the video yet, but on the note of "Experience is not reducible down to neural states." The example you provide is unconvincing, and I think the fault is the result of our inability to translate experience to and from the neural level to the extent that is likely possible. I would argue that eventually we will be able to allow a blind person experience what red is like. The technology and science isn't there yet, but it's moving in that direction.
I dont see a contradiction in statements (1) and (2) about the distinction between facts and values: In (1), he says "reasonably value", which as I understand it, translates to "using reason to derive it (the value)". Reasoning is the act of thinking or making judgements in a logical manner, therefore logical consistency is presumably assumed here. In fact, the value of logical consistency has to be already assumed (almost by definition) in order for a logical argument to be followed and for a contradiction to occur in the first place, otherwise we can only play tennis without the net. In (2), he asserts that "objective knowledge has values built into it (logical consistency, reliance on evidence, parsimony, etc.)", which is in any way in contradiction with the previous statement. It just states that science and reason rely on presuposed axioms which attain to what our primate minds need to begin to understand the world around us and to extract practical knowledge of it. Of course, to suggest that Sam could argue that logical consistency is defined in terms of well-being seems to me an absurd counterfactual indicating a substancial amount of bias. I would argue that the order in which the 3 statements appear is rather arbitrary and almost weird, I would put (2) as the first one, followed by (1). I also think that to say that "well-being is the only thing we can reasonably value" is not only to set a burden of proof right away, but to make a bald and hyperbolic statement that needs strong justification (which Sam somewhat manages to do later in the book). I am not here to defend the ideas that Sam puts forward in his book for what he is, but for what they are. I think that his book is presumptuos and, as pointed out in this video, lacking references and previous work on the subject (which is more massive than Sam seems to want his readers to know). However, though the ideas in the book are not entirely original, he has been good at making his case and it is a far better reading experience that Cuck philosophy seems to want his viewers to think. In short, and I hope I am not misrepresenting his position here (almost for Sam's own sake), he is just saying that adequate reasoning and objective knowledge can only take place once assumed the axioms of logical consistency and so forth; and that once there, the only thing we can reasonably value (at the core) is well-being, since according to his definition, it relates to the states of mind of any conscious being, and everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness in some way or another. No contradiction whatsoever, albeit a bit misleading.
the trouble with Harris's postmodernist critics is they won't accept anything that's been "tainted" by the human mind. they want all claims to be verified externally by the cosmos in some divine, immutable way. well let me just say... *fuck* the cosmos.
@@ArnoldTohtFan is Sam Harris' approach any better? He seeks to break metaphysics into components so each piece can be considered individually. Harris does not seem to understand the concept of the sum of parts. Especially when his ideas are challenged by an equal (or better) intellect.
This video has shown me the significance of philosophy, and how much it's still needed in the west. I'm going to start reading those books you recommended.
@@bodbn well, it would be a good start to know where some things have fallen apart.. How was it with the male idea that ideas came before birth and what did Plato love? One just got to love poets who exile themselves out of their utopia when one believes in owns own youth I guess.. Defianatly not a bad place to start because of Sokrates - the one that never wrote his "philosophy" down. Oh, speaking of Socrates, S. Kierkegaard wrote a book called 'On the concept of Irony' in an ironic way as his magister thesis. Sidenote: he didn't regard it as part of his authorship...
I'm less than 60 seconds in and you've already got me laughing by calling Sam Harris' values 'Christian'. Going to watch the rest, but please don't pull a Jordan Peterson on me.
@@pocnit Of course, this is one of those funny little situations. By Sam Harris being fundamentally Christian, yet denying such, he can forever be Christian yet claim not to be, by just calling this 'Jesus smuggling' or, saying something like, 'I am telling you what I think', even though the latter has no bearing at all on what values you hold, and what those values are (or where they came from). That was the whole point of mentioning Nietzsche at the beginning. Nietzsche doesn't care about your atheism or 'Jesus smuggling' notions: he's just going to tell you out-right, you're fundamentally a Christian. Ben Shapiro makes this point all the time, in fact, when he says, 'How is it that Sam Harris grew up just a few miles from me, and we share 95% of the same values, yet he claims it has nothing to do with religion?' This is also the point Jordan makes (and to the degree that Jordan has done some Jesus smuggling, he has actually admitted it beforehand -- or, he has disagreed with that notion). Fun fact: It's not an intelligent argument to say, 'I'm not listening to you anymore, because I think you are Jesus smuggling'.
it's an idea of nietzsche in the genealogy of morals where he draws a distinction between "slave morality" (christian) and "master morality" (not christian) and critiques slave morality. the argument would be to say that harris's conception of morals is fundamentally based in slave morality, which was started by and is fundamentally linked to christianity
I must say that when I first came across Sam Harris, he struck me as someone who seems to have most of his ducks lined up. I did buy his book in the hope that he would put up some compelling arguments on this topic, but when I started reading it, I couldn't believe the number of deficiencies that I thought were in the book. You've pretty well identified all of the deficiencies that I picked up. I was rather disappointed.
Very intriguing video, I agree with most of your points so far. However, I have one small problem with your "problem with utilitarianism" number 4, at least if you go with Bentham. Injecting someone with heroin does produce short-turn pleasure, but that's not the only aspect of what makes an action good from an utilitarian standpoint. The duration of the pleasure and the consequence of the action are also important factors. So, while it WOULD give him short-term pleasure, the negative effects that it would probably have on his life and the suffering it would cause, not only on him, but on people in his surroundings, outweigh the pleasure it initially produces. Edit: Just got to the part where you mention the felicific calculus. So yeah, if that didn't exist, you could argue that killing people is fine because the adrenaline rush makes you feel good for a little while.
Why do you say that his philosophy is fundamentally Christian? I Also don't think that Sam Harris would argue that the Tamil tigers are behaving religiously. He would simply say that they're operating under another pathological philosophy.
I know... I found so many issues with points brought up in this video, I'm actually shocked no-one else hasn't. I made a huge comment detailing, if you can find it.
9:26 I'd have to disagree with your first point about neuromania. Neuroscience in itself offers no distinction or separation between the states of "mind" and "body" (or alternatively the "spiritual" and the "natural") - on the contrary, it implicitly shatters any distinctions between those concepts. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it rather difficult to have a duality when only one option exists?
@@sicongli6594 Well all of your muscles are controlled by nerves, so at some point the causal chain of anything we call behavior must include the nervous system.
djivaha what ordeal voltunarily reading a book and doing a review. I had more of an odeal doing my third grade book report on Tom Sawyer. Stop being overly dramatic.
This whole thread is ridiculous. Confirmation bias/Dunning-Kruger is not limited to people you think are stupid. It’s a psychological effect in the vast majority of people. TH-cam has totally twisted this into some kind of pseudo-scientific insult and it’s cringey af.
3:30 It's called premise. "We want to reduce human suffering" + "So how do we do that". Sam doesn't push for objective morality, he is just meaning that it is possible to measure morals with a scientific perspective (as premises). I haven't read the book. Science can't answer moral questions, but instead we can use sciene as a tool to for example, calculate how to minimize human suffering. Just an input, not saying Sam is right.
Precisely. Sam's only mistake is to argue for moral realism. Realism is really the villain here and what leads to fruitless discussions like the above. Morality is just a poisonous word. You can have fantastic arguments about morality, until the *word* morality comes in and then it's all confusion.
Sam does take for granted THAT reduction of human suffering and promotion of wellbeing is the foundation of morality and no other foundation matters rationally The additional argument which would be a "naturalistic fallacy" in the eyes of logicians is we intuitively WANT to live and be happy as a people or species and therefore THIS makes it good FOR us because we want it and naturally cannot want otherwise. Anyone saying they want something other their own happiness does set up a logical contradiction of sorts I will be happy if I do what does not make me happy is by very definition an act of doublethink because it sets up contradictory premises. Does this prove that consequentialism is moral. No but it does prove it would be futile to appeal to anything other than consequentialism without resorting to self contradiction and arbitrary values. Philosophers think they can REALLY get to morality and other abstract concepts like justice goodness or other values via rationalism or pure reason as if such concepts absent of human consciousness existed like the physical world exists But the very concept of justice and morality are dependent on human consciousness in order for them to make any sense. What or whom could BE moral or just in the absence of human beings. The same cannot be said of the sun and stars and the laws of physics which work pretty well without human understanding of how "things should be" But human happiness is OF concern TO humans because we ARE humans and most importantly cannnot be otherwise Therefore its rather silly to critique Harris as not proving objective morality with reason and use of premises that are not "truly objective" since the very concept of morality outside of human awareness is meaningless. Saying a hurricane destroyed a house is not a statement on whether the hurricane SHOULD have done it since it presumably is not an intelligent agent its a force of nature. Saying a person burned a house down for insurance money can be commented on as a moral or immoral act depending on whom was affected. If burning it down was the only way to pay for medical bills it changes the outcome completely regarding whether its "moral" or not So humans to the degree we are aware of have choices and options available can learn from past behavior and change behavior to accommodate our understanding of reality That does open up an entire new can of worms about "free will" whether because we can learn and mediate on experience we therefore should do X or Y especially if free will itself as Sam also points out is an illusion Sam does box himself in with this We have no free will but with an understanding of what does vs what does not bring up happiness or suffering we can learn to choose better. Though such understanding is completely immaterial since the choices we make would be determined by what learning we are or are not exposed to WE are condemned then to philosophize about free will justice morality while knowing our choices themselves are merely neurological stimuli recording and running "programs" in our heads. To the degree reason IS a free choice itself is never completely understood given there is no other source for reason than the brain
Simply put, the IDW are political movers in philosophical clothing. They take advantage of people's lack of exposure to central philosophical literature. I'm no scholar myself, but from my limited knowledge of epistemological work in moral philosophy, the IDW tend to run headlong into a wall of scholarly precedence, and instead of acknowledging the fact that these themes have been covered by career scholars in philosophy, they retread old topics as if they are new, even if they have been deemed flawed or impractical. The conflation of is and ought is basically throwing out all of philosophy. Science cannot tell us the oughts reliably or consistently and oughts cannot be easily defined, as in many cases the ought goes counter to what may be prescribed by the is. Instead its the balance of both of these that makes moral systems difficult. Harris does what all IDW folks do, package up pop psych and present them in terms of black and white prescriptive ways to look at complex issues. From the little i have read/watched/listened, career philosophers are much more interesting, complete, and cautious. The more you learn the more you realize we have no fucking clue what makes any one moral system better than another, or even if they exist inherently. To claim otherwise is irresponsible, and a self-proclaimed scientist he lacks rigor.
> the IDW Meaningless smearword. > are political movers in philosophical clothing Sam totally admits that his goal is not to write academic philosophy, but to have meaningful discussions about moral questions. The same meaningful discussions we often have about the exact same moral questions when the word morality doesn't come up.
Great stuff. Do you have any thoughts on Steven Pinker L's Better Angel's of our nature? As I recall, it was similarly panned by academia but adored in popular press.
"I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics", "deontology" , "noncognitivism", "antirealism", "emotivism", etc, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe." Jesus christ! i still cant believe Sam Harris actually wrote that in his book. We are in dire need of real public intellectuals whether we agree with them or not, but this kind of intellectual laziness by "the leading thinkers of our time" is baffling.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe Harris is not as stupid as you assume and that "metaethics", "deontology" etc. are indeed important only to philosophers, and that it's YOU who is suffering from intellectual laziness, if not shortsightedness?
@@LukasOfTheLight That really depends on what kind of "complex idea" it is. If it's a *philosophical* complex idea, then sure, but that's only because nobody outside philosophy finds it important to explain, sort of like a complex idea from Astrology that only astrologists know how to explain. But if it's an idea from our "empirical" life, then I can't think of an example where philosophy would do a better job. Let's take, for example, a complex idea of gauge symmetry or quantum computing, or even decoherence principle that drives people insane because they don't get it. You pick philosophers that you think do a better job explaining those ideas than my pick of astrophysicists. Same can be done in any other domain of empirical knowledge.
@@trentonslovakia2693 you honestly think Harris is afraid to engage with complex subjects?? Really? You philosophers never seize to amaze me with your arrogance, especially when you start talking about humility like the guy above.
Quick thoughts in response to the critique of neuromania. 1 - Neuroscience isn't supposing there is a self that is trapped in the body in some spiritual sense, rather, the 'sense' of self is created and experienced through your neurophysiology and its interaction with the environment. Hence why Harris claims the 'self' is an illusion. 2 - Who assumes causality is bottom up? You are talking about consciousness here, right? A lot of current neuroscience values top-down quite a bit in trying to work out the function of consciousness so it'd be interesting to hear what you mean by that. 3 - Neuroscience can't explain first person intentionality - yet. No there isn't a 'guarantee' that we'll get there, but it'd be strange to claim it to be impossible. Already we have experiments where you can predict motor function before it reaches the awareness of humans. At the end of the day, this is a criticism of the current nature of the scientific field. It's like saying to a biologist a 200 years ago that you'll never understand too much about body functions because you can't observe molecular activity with your eyes. We don't know what type of technology we'll have in the future so there is value in having theoretically probable discussions. 4 - Experience is not reducible to neural states. Well, who says? What type of evidence is there for it? In the example used, you say the person "tells" the neuroscientist his experience. If you're putting it into words, you're already failing to communicate the experience. But theoretically, if you were to be able to control the input (sensory experience) lets say of the colour red for person A. Then measure the output (neural activity) of person A's reaction in it's entirety, you could then calculate the frequency that needs to be emitted to elicit the same response from the neurophysiology of person B. Or you might even be able to artificially knock out the visual, auditory & somatosensory cortex of person B and then "plug" it either digitally or god forbid, literally into person A's correlating brain parts - then you could be experiencing how that person is experiencing a stimulus on a sensory level. But this could theoretically be applied to perceptual experiences once the phenomena is worked out in the relevant regions. Basically, what we don't know about in neuroscience isn't a reason to suppose the knowledge is unknowable. And looking at the evidence which is admittedly in its infancy, there's still enough there to draw out certain inferences about the nature of humanity. As for the part directly after that list, trying to work out the ontology of the brain will undoubtedly work out what its design to do. Morality is built into us and it is a moving target because it is evolving alongside human beings. That's not to say that objective morals don't exist, it could just mean that it's incredibly hard, if not near impossible to account for that level of interrelated patterns that compose its entire existence. If the technology were there, you could essentially map the neurophysiology of the players in a basketball game, look at what activity is being rewarded as opposed to error related negativity responses - according to input data. And that's on a basic level that we're not even too far off from. Who knows, we might get to the point where we could potentially just read the rules of basket ball game from one player's brain.
I do agree with the bulk of the rest of the video in terms of his tardiness in the book. Me personally, would rather him engage all the relevant philosophy and dismantle it one by one (if it is truly possible). However, I do understand that Harris' primary focus in all of his books is to be as non-clunky, accessible books that just about anyone could pick up. Now people can speculate that this is a money-grab and who knows, maybe it is? But you could also say that it is so that the maximum amount of people will be reached and that the world will become a better place (in his view) quicker. The fact is, he's more than capable of making convoluted arguments. But on paper, as a consequentialist, you'd probably argue that the more people are able to easily understand it and increase their feeling of "wellbeing", the better it is - rather than making an academically exhaustive text. This is why barely anyone has read Critique of Pure Reason, and people have to listen to 'interpretations' by other philosophers. I don't really agree with all that ultimately though. Getting to the "truth" in terms of morality seems important enough to write two books if necessary, one for the academics and the second to reach the public.
Well, basically what Cuck Philosophy alluded to in point 4 of your comment are the problems posed by the article "What is it like to be a bat?" by Thomas Nagel. Let's reframe the problem based on the ideas of the article: We know that bats perceive the world through echolocation ("seeing" objects through sound). We cannot know "what is it like for a bat to be a bat", through our imagination, because our experience is of a fundamentally different structure. Even if we artificially plug a bat's experience in a person's brain ("transform a person to a bat", let's say), her experience would not be describable even in our most general experiential terms. I am making some of that stuff up, but Nagel's key point is that the more different from oneself is the other experiencer, the less success we should expect in the enterprise of understanding one's subjective character of experience through scienctific inquiry. While it is not true of all scientific fields, neurolophysiology, physics, etc. try to move in the direction of objectivity, reducing our dependence on individual or species-specific points of view; a thing which is highly problematic when it comes to the character of experience.
@@Demetrisx it's not a test to see if an organism is, in fact conscious. It's a thought experiment used to describe consciousness. Maybe you already know that. If so, all we need to know in order to conclude something is conscious that anything is happening from the 'inside'. When we dream, we are conscious. Even if all we perceive is a feint light, we are conscious. Maybe none of this is clarifying. Hopefully it helps.
Most of this video is pretty solid, but the "problems with utilitarianism" presented are very flimsy. - The purpose of a good moral theory is not to be maximally compatible with other moral theories. Yes, while human rights are a very useful tool to improve the world in practice, utilitarianism doesn't suppose they're inherently valuable on their own, only instrumentally valuable. This is a feature, not a bug. - Very few utilitarians claim that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences, and there are much stronger arguments against that view than the one you gave anyway - such as that depending on how you interpret it, it means moral judgment of an action must either change over time as more consequences roll in, or must be postponed indefinitely until all eventual consequences have played out (the end of time), which makes it impossible to put into practice. Most utilitarians instead claim that the *expected* consequences determine morality. - Whether we DO always think about right and wrong in terms of consequences doesn't say anything about whether we SHOULD - a basic is/ought distinction. - The other points given are less "problems with utilitarianism" and more "things different schools of utilitarian thought disagree on because 'utilitarianism' is merely a category and doesn't describe a complete moral theory on its own".
> _Most utilitarians instead claim that the _*_expected_*_ consequences determine morality._ One cannot concievably calculate all the expected consequences (that will play out until the end of time), so how does one put it into practice?
@@Ronni3no2 whether you can apply any given ethical theory doesn't say anything about whether it has merits as a theory. It certainly is a problem for the usefulness of the theory, but that is also a problem many ethical theories share. These are also some of the reasons why applied ethics is usually taught as a separate subject from ethical theories.
@@Ronni3no2 Oh, I'm not defending Harris Theory or Utilitarianism in general. I just wanted to point out the difference between the 'usefullness' of any given ethical theory (whether it is possible to apply it) and it's 'truthfullness'. I don't think one can dismiss Harris theory or utilitarianism just on that basis
The assumption is that aspect of Time, again. It's like what Pragmaticism is to Pragmatism. That's the distinguishing feature that should be sussed within a Utilitarian framework; that mark of Time, where it is so pertinent to have a View.
Nice video. You picked up on the the I noticed when I was listening to the book. Harris rarely argues for or against positions. He usually just states that a position is obviously right or obviously wrong and then moves on without any argumentation. It's quite frustrating. I remember yelling "But you never argued for that, you just assumed it!" in my car when I was listening to the audiobook of The Moral Landscape.
Hello, I'd like to take a stab at your criticisms of Utilitarianism at 19:29. * "It is incompatible with a rights-based framework" - it all depends how you sum these happinesses together. If you describe happiness as a factor between 0 and 1, then average will make it so that (sqrt(0.25) + sqrt(0.25))² / 2 is preferable to (sqrt(0.5) + sqrt(0))² / 2. That is, if you apply an exponent X before summing (you get a square root when X=1/2), you can tune how much the individual matters more than the collective. Under utilitarianism, there is *some* value of N where killing one person is worth it if it somehow improves the happiness/quality of life of N people. * "If all that matters is the sum total of happiness" - in the example above I made the number a (square-rooted) average by dividing by the number of people I summed up. You can divide by anything you want, such as sqrt(number of people). Just like the exponent, most utilitarians won't give you an exact formula, because they don't claim to know it; I'm merely providing examples of how these two issues can be addressed with mathematics. * "We often don't think about right and wrong in terms of consequences" - yes. Utilitarianism disagrees with this, and most utilitarians frame these thoughts merely as heuristics. * ""The moral luck" argument" - Utilitarianism doesn't claim that someone is or isn't ethical, it claims that some action is or isn't ethical. If an action caused good while intending to cause harm, it accidentally was an ethical action, it's just that in the general case it's definitely not recommendable to try and cause harm, because if you do try to cause harm, you're much more likely to cause harm than good. People should act to do the most good based on their knowledge, and in general people should increase their knowledge in order to more accurately be able to do good. Let's say, somehow, by trying to kill someone in cold blood, I save their life. Did my action end up being ethical ? Yes. Should I go to prison anyways ? Yes, since systematically imprisoning people who try to murder others in cold blood will create an [addtional] incentive to not murder others in cold blood, and certainly, *more* murder attempts result in death than result in accidentally saving a life. This also works in the other direction. According to utilitarianism, people should concern themselves with actually causing good, not just with intending to cause good. It's just that nobody controls everything, and sometimes, inevitably, randomness will make a well-intended action cause harm and a harm-intending action cause good. An ignorant fool causing harm because even though he wants to do good is acting unethically because he refuses to get informed enough to actually cause good. * "Can't judge whether pleasure is good or not" - just like you can squareroot-average over multiple people, you can squareroot-average over multiple instances of someone over time. I'm currently making a video game; at times it can be hard work, but I'm investing in the happiness of my future selves, who surely will be satisfied to have accomplish that. Similarly, someone doing hard drugs all day may be getting a lot of pleasure up-front, but they're probably at a high risk of significantly reducing the happiness of their future selves. * "Which people to prioritize ? Prioritize maximizing pleasure or prioritize minimizing pain ?" - it all depends on how you add together, which formulas you use to average or sum happiness, what you even define happiness to be, etcetera. My point with all this is, consequentialism is a flexible framework from which people derive a variety of ethics, of which utilitarianism is a subset where the value to maximize is some meaning of "happiness". I'm personally not entirely decided about utilitarianism, but I've found that when I evaluate my actions, I always in some form of another care about the consequence. Even things that I've always thought to be dogmatic, like "I shouldn't lie", I realized I'm doing because I want to go towards a world where people are honest, and because I want to recognize myself and be recognized as an honest person. Sorry for the wall of text, good video, nice channel, have a good day !
This might be really late, but this was an excellent breakdown of all the points I wanted to raise about his objections to utilitarianism. Better yet, the emphasis on mathematics being applied to utilitarianism, though I knew *of* it, was something I really never thought all that much about before now. 😊👍
@@thek2despot426 It's actually funny how the author fails to grasp these obvious considerations while trying so hard to undermine the whole approach of consequentialism
i really like the way you can tweak the math behind calculating happiness/suffering here. for example i would disagree with killing a person to save ten people, but killing somebody to save 1 million people i would agree with.
Regarding Neuromania, describing the neural states wouldn't help the blind person experience Red, but wouldn't mimicking those states in their brain have the approximate effect of 'experiencing red'?
Not necessarily. For one, even if you were capable make people experience red that way, they wouldn't have any context for it, as in where they can find it and what they can associate with it. This is already a diminished perception.
So dude makes a video critical of Sam Harris and his audience eagerly anticipates it. I can't imagine any confirmation bias would go on here not at all only total critical thinking ability on full display
As Alfred North Whitehead pointed out, scientists often claim to have overcome metaphysics. What they are really saying is that they don't want you to examine their own metaphysics. Same extends to those who claim to have overcome philosophy in general.
Sam knew exactly what he was doing. He sold thousands of copies of his armchair philosophy hack of a book to all the fanboys, thus making his bank account swell, leading to his maximal pleasure...A brilliant dismembering of his 'arguments', if one can be charitable enough to call them that...Subbed
I would not doubt that. Still, it's kind of sad, because science does have an important role to play in rights-based justice and fair material distribution of goods, just not the role Harris and the IDW make out. A better book selling as much could have been written without Harris compromising his morality! (But for that to have happened my guess is he'd have to not be a narcissist.)
"Simply must be" is the alternative of Peterson's "and that's a big problem."
roughly speaking
Look for his "Vast amounts of time", too.
I'm curious to know how so?
Can someone explain to me why 1) and 2) cannot be true at the same time? Suppose I want to maximize only well-being in the world, whatever its precise definition is. It might be the case that when I solve this problem of maximizing it, the optimal solution includes valuing logical consistency, reliance on evidence, parsimony, etc. So, in contrast with what is said in the video, we might be able to say that logical consistency (among other values) leads to well-being although we do not value logical consistency in itself. Where am I wrong?
Also, I think there are many claims in this video that I can argue against. I lost count after 10 minutes in.
HAHAHAHA this is perfect. "And that's a big problem!". I hate that. It's like, okay, once you attach "that's a problem" to it, it just invalidates everything you just said because you used the thing "being a problem" as your justification for having that opinion.
This video is dynamite
@@brykmann you just said this in response to _Philosophy_ _Tube_
I'm no fan of Sam Harris, but come on bro
@@brykmann They could be lying, or they could mean well but be deeply misguided. Also, I've been following Philosophy Tube since he had like 20k subs, back then he used to craft his videos in a argument-counterargument style, and leave it open, like in real Philosophy. Good ol' days...
@@dontyoufuckinguwume8201 The Problem is that they are scientifically dishonest. They claim to be scientists and rational but they completly fail to live up to scientistic standarts. They are not about rationality they are about feelings. All what they do is to produce the feeling of rationality in contrast to real rationality and honest science. As these peolple call themself scientists these failures can not be forgiven because they harm the very concept of science and rationality.
Is Sam Harris secretly an effective altruist?
@Nothing is real but pain why?
Sam Harris's claim that he has Transcended Philosophy is just an instance of him doing it very badly.
'I have transcended philosophy' - Ham Sarris
He has transcended what he is trying to root in science.
He didn't but he should have. And in my opinion he could have if he adopted moral relativism instead. It's not moral relativism that leads to fruitless discussions in face of suffering, it's moral realism. That's what occupied Cuck Philosophy in this video. If Sam had simply said "I'm going to maximize well being and if you don't call that morality, I don't care" that would have been a much better message imo.
Taxtro
Then he would have to answer who he should be maximizing well-being for and what even counts as well-being.
When did he claim that he transcended philosophy?
Its impressive how Sam Harris has been able to make a career out of performing rationality whilst failing to meet the most basic requirements of scholarship such as making arguments, reading and referencing the contemporary literature and explaining what opposing views are and why they are wrong.
- French guy here, sorry for broken English -
I agree with your point, and i would extend it to the whole pack of "New Atheists" (at least whenever they try to tackle socio/political/moral issues).
It seems to me like that don't put any substance or meaning in concepts like reason or science. Or even that, in comparaison to the religious believers they so despise, they merely change the name of the object of their fanaticism. Science, according to them, is not a process but rather an ever-existing, transcendant entity that defined the whole universe. Basically, a divine figure.
Nobody wants to do the reading.
I'd argue that it's part of the performative culture that rewards outward signals of intellectualism that "appear" to meet contemporary standards: anti-theist (to dunk on extremists), reliance on "just so" arguments like "bio-truths," etc but I would be doing so without a comprehensive understanding of the market for these books. I bought Guns, Germs and Steel in the late 90s (because who wants to actually read texts from those fields), I bought the God Delusion, and God is not Good, in the early 00s (because who wants to actually read atheist or theological texts), and now I watch youtube videos from creators that have demonstrated a willingness to engage with stuff more thoroughly than I ever will, and thus I continue to avoid "doing the reading."
The issue I guess is the same as with the alt-right "rational skeptics," if you never actually come to grips with the main body of literature on a subject and only ever rely on someone else's hot takes, you're at risk of getting snookered, falling in with a bad crowd. eg Pordan Jeterson, (((Cultural Marxism))), SJWs and so on and so forth
Douglas Mundy. That is actually a pretty good point. Never thought about that before and God knows it would have saved me a lot of trouble if I did. I had a Sargon of Akkad phase a few years ago, and I remember that what drew me in to his Anti-SJW, pseudo intelectual, nonsense was the overwhelming appearance he had of knowing something.
asiscoe
That is true. Still, I believe it's possible to see if an argument has any merit if you think about it for a bit.
In a way, it reminds me of the way Umberto Eco defined culture: "Not the ability to recall information, but the ability to find it". Which I think could also include the ability to tell good sources from bad sources.
He is pandering to 13 year old atheists.
A little over 6 years ago I read The Moral Landscape. I have no shame in admitting it's what spurred me to pursue a career in philosophy. Throughout it all though, it's becoming clearer and clearer how little philosophy Sam Harris actually does.
One can learn something from everybody ;)
@@Nowhy Go home Bill Nye. I need you to make more art.
as regards to moral philosophy, theres not much to say, its pretty straight forward. what philosophy is he lacking in?
BlueSeraph89-So since youve done the research can you or someone else give me an idea as to what his work is...I understand he is a neuroscientist and an author and for some reason a debater but what about neurology does he study? What is his end goal? In my personal opinion he seems to be milking his Christianity and Islam critiques...but thats just me.
EDIT: For the first schmuck who liked my comment...you are welcome to answer it😘
He is mostly a neuroscientist and atheist sooooo
I know it's a late comment but just wanted to say - this is not only a fun dunking on Sam Harris, but a really good explanation of the limits of scientism/positivism and the is-ought problem as a whole.
However, scientism/positivism are not definable.
Just don't ever forget how well Michael Brooks (Majority Report and TMBS) would dunk on Sam Harris, by doing impersonations of him. RIP Michael.
If he would've gone with hedonic utilitarianism, he would've possibly had some foundation.
Is ought is not a real problem. The field of medical science doesnt consider whether or not to cure a paitent once they know what the disease is. It is the whole point of having a medical field.
@@AlecWelsh-ut7ccYeah and what scientists consider a disease isn't the objective ideas that have never been wrong that you think they are.
This video decreased the amount of boredom in the universe
My goodness - when I read that from Sam I lost a lot of respect. Maybe if he wasn't so bored by moral philosophy he wouldn't make such colossal errors.
@@Tenthplanetjj86 well I never respected that "man", but yes, when I read that it was so clear to me how he is controlled by feelings and has no clue about what human will (in an ethical sense) is. Couldn't help but think about what 'A' said in Either/Or, Crop Circles. Irony is quiet a thing when it comes to sophists xD...
As Bowie said in Twin Peaks:
"Now, we're not going to talk about Judy. We're going to leave her out of it!"
And he was terrified as he uttered those lines...
@@Tenthplanetjj86 what did he say? well theres no such thing as moral philosophy as theres no such thing as morality. were a bunch of atoms bunched together, where does this magical entity come into place for you morality clowns? cant make errors about something that doesnt exist. what matters is creating as much valueable qualia in the universe from this point out, which starts out with getting as good of a safe AI as possible.
@@Nowhy human will is? free will? whats there to havea clue about, there is no will. and he has many times adressed ways in which punishing people for their action could be desireable despite no inherit deservedness for the punishment
'Rationality Rules' needs to see this.
Libertarian Socialist Rants he is a fangirl
'Rationality Rules' just debunked the Big Bang theory in a recent video. It was pathetic. He also once said that Sam Harris will go down in history as one of the greatest modern thinkers of all time. (not exact quote but close).
I just about threw up in my mouth and unsubscribed.
I don't think he would like this video much. He probably will 'debunk it'. Sigh~~~~
With click bait and he clearly is out of his area of expertise. Big surprise the general public in the US misunderstands cosmology.
Someone tweet this at him.
Rick O'Brien What RR specifically addressed are Aristotelean idea of "nothing" which some people have tried to connect to the Big Bang, who assert that "nothingness" preceded the Big Bang, in order to try to make it look like their favorite holy book. A true state of "nothingness" cannot be scientifically examined, much less falsified, so it is a useless concept. That is why RR put "(Ex Nihilo Model)" in the title, and if you are familiar with the Big Bang, you should know that "Ex Nihilo" (i.e. "From Nothing") is *NOT* a part of scientifically accepted Big Bang models.
Clearly, you didn't actually watch the video, and just judged it by an incomplete understanding of the title. That's the intellectual level of Sargon of Akkad. Granted, RR's video is over 2 Sargons long, which means he wouldn't be able to sit through the whole thing, either.
In 2004 you could be called a "public intellectual" just for being anti-religious. Hilarious.
Wow this guy doesn't believe in God! Let's hear what he has to say about US foreign policy in the Middle East!
@@manchesterunited9576as someone who was a teenager listening to rogan podcasts with Sam on, and reading the comments praising Harris so heavily, I’m embarrassed to say I thought the man was some kind of intellectual
It was only years later when I started thinking for myself instead of passively listening to “intellectuals” ideas that I realized how bad many of his ideas were
"Public intellectuals" in general seem to make a lot of mistakes, I don't even see the term as positive any more. Public intellectuals often have a bit of knowledge in many areas but no deep understanding of any of those areas. Many people also often aren't interested in discussions on an academic level, so instead they listen to public intellectuals who either have a shallow understanding of the subject to begin with, or who have to dumb it down, so in this sense Sam really still is a public intellectual.
You have to remember the first George W. Bush administration was a very stupid time.
@@CanadianSpiceKing Worse than now??? XD
24:12 Sam Harris' Last Theorem: I have discovered a proof for an objective morality but the margins are too small.
I have a great new theory about physics, namely that everything in the world is made of varied states of water...
Though I will ignore all new developments in physics because those of only of interest to academic scientists. Wikipedia has a fantastic article.
Senor Muertos
LMFAO
LMAOOOO!!!!!
Thales?!
Almost coherent comment.
No it's not. This kind of thinking leads to genocide. It's the Apeiron that is the basis for everything. Rise above your tribalism and stop being irrational. I know it's true, my mother bribed the the musciology department so I can get my Ph. D.
“Consequentialism and moral relativism are correct because they just make sense, bruh.” - Sam Harris
Realism*
keep it real, bruh!
@French Frys you cannot say the we cant escape from moral relativism then say that sam's morality is superior from religion ..
@French Frys But shouldn't we ask on those priori presuppusition ? Especially when someone already believe in a higher power wich know what is best for us ( even if it feels bad ) see it as a bitter remedy .
@French Frys Sir , first i must say i am fascinating on your answers and how you articulate it and i ll try to explain my point of view .
I think the probleme is that you are not presuppose the existence of god , if killing your kids would lead them to heaven wouldn't be rationnel to do it ?
I am a muslim , and i am conviced of the existence of god and the authenticity of quran and some of hadith (prophete sayings) wich construct a concept of moralities .
I agree that morality is about wellbieng , but not always and since we are human we dont always know what is good for us , like i said before god is all knowing , so he know what is best when its come for wellbieng .
Also you may ask were is the wellbieng in eternel hell ?
That's why we must understand that we as creatures dont have any right and we are completly submitive to god's will , so if he enter us heaven or hell we have no right to contest .
Ps : sorry for bad grammar .
**SUMMARY**
• Harris thinks he's solved the is/ought distinction, but hasn't.
• The argument he gives for its falseness is based on an invalid inference: that because you can't get an is without an ought, you therefore can get an ought from an is.
• He never provides a thorough and coherent definition of "well-being", despite basing his entire "science" of morality on it.
• He never bothers to engage with ethicists tackling the same problems as him, and seems to be ignorant of the entire subject of ethical philosophy and it's thinkers in general.
• Thus, he ends up using arguments that have been brought up and argued against for hundreds of years, unaware that he's reinventing the wheel.
• Instead of engaging with the arguments of other ethicists, he just makes up simplistic arguments like "what if a serial killer thought killing people enhanced well-being?" which are easy to refute.
• And at times he just handwaves counter-arguments and entire subsets of ethics by calling them "boring" or "irrelevant". Which is downright childish.
I would just add that he can't even reinvent the wheel. It's like he can barely scratch a rock and then he calls this scratching a "scientific morality".
nailed it
Morals come from people and people decide what they are. There is no other way. Besides it is just another business con trick, to make you feel guilty about not giving your money to a 3rd world charity.
That morals come from people raises some interesting 'why', 'where', and 'how' questions that pertain to more than just "con tricks" and guilt. It's slightly important that we have an idea about how we should treat others, the world, ourselves, organise societies, etc. . .
Well it is simply how we deal with each other on a daily basis, it is common sense yet again no labels needed, but it is down to each of us, not some "last word" definitive impartial unquestionable superhuman entity be it skience or gawd. The ones who bang on most about morality are those who are fastest to exploit it for one end or other and it always comes down to money: charities, government terrorism taxation etc. all moral associated garbage. Why is it OK for gov to kill people yet it is bad if you or me or whoever else does it? It is nothing other than what you use to justify your actions to yourself, but on a larger scale, and a control measurefor the rulers over the rules, in order that the rulers protect themselves. Not a good idea to have your plebs exercised in exercising their power and indignation is it?
Do we have to organise societies, or do we just allow things to naturally sort themselves out. NO one has to live according to the legal system or cities or to be a citizen slave in a State controlled and taxed prison. These are all situations that have been leading us into them by the nose slowly over time. There is no one objective impartial unquestionable godfigure to use to settle our uncertain and dynamic lives. It comes down to how we ourselves decide to act and what values we have. It does ultimately come down to common sense and judgment. It is the same bullshit about why I am forced to contribute to oversees "aid", why is it OKto strip x amount of money from me to piss away to a bunch of people that mean nothing to me> Because it's NICE?!! Or becuase "how would YOU FEEL if you were poor and blah blah"... yes but so what? I will deal with my situation and others are to deal with theirs. You make your bed and thus you will sleep in it.
If you want to sponsor some brown people then be it on you, but as for me I don't give a damn nor do I have to for any reason and even less be held up to be judged badly based on that sentiment and even less than that be compelled to submit some of my blood for it. How often do you hear that banks reap insane money from public "austerity" and economical situations that people lose houses, businesses because the banks decide to raise interest rates for no reason other than to cull lunatic profit?. Do they feel bad because of this "immoral" activity? No they dont give a fuck if people starve to death as long as they get the money and wealth, and that is why they do it. Morality is a scam to deceive the scammed, so that YOU do not trigger to do anything about it. It is mental novocaine and self-policing parameters. The controllers know what they are doing.
What brought me here was the Harris and Peterson debate Pangburn put on in Vancouver. At the time I felt like Harris was making some good points. Now I feel like I just watched two idiots play chess and nobody understood the rules. Great video.
Hi 77. The critique didn't measure up when I read just some of Sam's intro. My comment is reproduced for you below. Cheers.
When a critique takes their subject out of context and mis-represents them, they have not critiqued their subject but themselves.
The representation at 11:47 in proper context is quoted below.
_There are, for instance, twenty-one U.S. states that still allow corporal punishment in their schools. These are places where it is actually legal for a teacher to beat a child with a wooden board hard enough to raise large bruises and even to break the skin. Hundreds of thousands of children are subjected to this violence each year, almost exclusively in the South. Needless to say, the rationale for this behavior is explicitly religious: for the Creator of the Universe Himself has told us not to spare the rod, lest we spoil the child (Proverbs __13:24__, __20:30__, and __23:13__-14). However, if we are actually concerned about human well-being, and would treat children in such a way as to promote it, we might wonder whether it is generally wise to subject little boys and girls to pain, terror, and public humiliation as a means of encouraging their cognitive and emotional development. Is there any doubt that this question has an answer? Is there any doubt that it matters that we get it right? In fact, all the research indicates that corporal punishment is a disastrous practice, leading to more violence and social pathology-and, perversely, to greater support for corporal punishment. 4_
_But the deeper point is that there simply must be answers to questions of this kind, whether we know them or not._
Needing to do this can indicate that the work being critiqued actually stands up to fair investigation because there would be no need to do unfairly if fair critisism could be as effective.
It seems to me Harris is making a case for basing morality on factual reality. This seems good to me as ... Real morality is being true to reality.
That many oppose this puts them into the same category as religious Idealists that propose morality from imaginary realities.
@@davidfenton3910 just so my original statement doesn't get misunderstood. I actually partially agree with you. When it comes to the conversation those two guys have they definitely aren't having the same talk on equal footing. So in that sense I would definitely agree with you Harris is much closer to some idea of how we ground morality. Peterson on the other hand is just out to lunch. What I wanted to simply say was I can see problems with both sides and there is perhaps a more nuanced way 2 understand morality. Perhaps the way Harris talks about morality is simply reflective of the person he finds himself in front of.
I only partially agree with me also. I just haven't learned enough from people critical of me to get it more sorted out. Cheers and if you haven't watched their latest talks, I recommend them. I liked the extension of the Elton John's glass example by Murray.
that's precisely it!!
@@davidfenton3910 The phrase "There are, for instance" suggests that we're dealing with an specific example. The core argument is stated just a couple paragraphs earlier.
While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a
very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on
states of the human brain. Consequently, there must be scientific truths to be known
about it. A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear
distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging some to
be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or less ethical. Clearly, such
insights could help us to improve the quality of human life-and this is where academic
debate ends and choices affecting the lives of millions of people begin.
That's when we get the broad statements that are criticized later on the book. Is Harris telling us that we can use available scientific knowledge on the moral question of how can we educate children, or that science can respond on that question?
If it's the former, I fully agree with him; and I will even suggest that Harris wants science based knowledge ethical stances to be more aggressively pushed in which I also agree with him.
If it's the latter, and I believe it can be fairly argued given the second paragraph of the introduction that Harris explains the latter; then he should respond to the criticism of such approach to scientific truths on the larger scheme, not with an easy example (like serial killers or beating children). As noted on the video, he just responds with "But the deeper point is that there simply must be answers to questions of this kind, whether we know them or not."
Within the context of the analysis of Harris' claims, I don't think is a misreading. Just providing as Harris did and as you framed, an example doesn't really mean anything if your making big claims; anyone familiar with science and rationality should understand that.
Sam Harris' definition of well-being is being Sam Harris.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
OK, that made me laugh.
Thanks!
That was awesome. In my first semester of undergrad in philosophy, I read the book and felt like I didn’t read anything. Never went back to it till now, and I love that you rage read like I do. If someone writes something and it just strikes me as bad, I’m getting all in and will know every peace of meat that I can get out of it.
I'm convinced Sam writes each of his books in one sitting.
I have a hunch he's more like a popular science guy. To think some people believe he's "dismantling" Jordan Peterson in debates. Huh!
@@Razvanh29 Imagine thinking Jordan Peterson is smarter than Sam Harris...
@@Razvanh29 I think Harris and Peterson belong in the same food group.
Based on their work / degree of academic influence, I would not consider either of them particularly influential in their fields. They are, however, influential in public discourse (whether or not their ideas are correct).
Peter Enis haha a psued that’s the greatest word I’ve ever heard thank you for deigning me with that glorious insult haha
Colbadius Cox you’re welcome
Sam's argument for not facing the argument...."they waste my time and hurt my paradigm so they are not important "......totally valid
The point about him being childish is something I've noticed too. In his email exchange with Chomsky he comes across that way too, and he also seemed petty. Good video, people need to respect philosophy more.
Yes he should be dismissed because he seems childish in your perspective based on an email exchange. Good to know. I will commence burning all his books.
Ryan, Do you know what a logical entailment is?
Of course you don't.
Stephen Hawking, an anti-capitalist: "Philosophy is dead."
Respect philosophy? Hmmm...
People shouldn't respect philosophy, because philosophy shows us that most philosophy is garbage.
Btw I got the opposite from Chomsky, but I might be slightly biased against him after he's failed to make a distinction between despotism and Western democracy for decades.
Great video-essays, keep it up, proud of you! It's a shame i can't support u. I'm living in a dumpster in eastern europe, but i will tell all my hobo friends about ur channel. Thx for all links in the descriptions!
Baltazar Guattar i see myself in your comment. Only difference i am in turkey.
Diogenes is that you?
I live in a dumpster in ny. I get wifi and Obama gave me a smart phone.
Hope you guys are doing better
14:00 "just the hypothetical objection from Jeffrey Dahmer" hahahahaha
老雷！
Stumbled upon your channel only weeks ago, and it is quickly growing to one of my favourites.
I have spent most of my life studying science but you have really opened my eyes to philosophy! Thank you!🙏💙
You can't blame Harris for contradicting himself because he doesn't have free will.
Martin McGorty-I CANT😂😂😂
Now that word play is funny. Thx
Hahaha. Why we face and understand moral dilemas?! Thank God, Law doesn't take him seriously. Adolescent fashion can kills the world
@@brianjoyce9040that isn't word play....
I'm glad we all have Sam Harris around to make us all feel good about our argumentation skills.
Afternote: To be fair, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a really good wiki to get lost in.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is basically where I go to whenever I want a readable introduction to any philosophical topics
Of course it is, but that is no excuse for sloughing off the hard work of engaging with its ideas, as I'm sure you agree.
Yup,especially about free will.
This guy would be killed in a debate with Harris. This argument is highly fallacious and if you think he exposed weaknesses in Harris's moral philosophy you're standing on shaky grounds as well.
@@dirkplankchest1796 Which arguments (there are several) are fallacious, and why?
Brocooli is highly underrated
derHuckepackmann especially roasted brocolli
blanched in olive oil...........
...With cream, garlic and cheese!
*Chef kiss*
Hermes Bouza it OUGHT to be had with cream garlic and cheese. Unless you can give me a nyquist chart and slope integral for this combination of ingredients.
"Brocooli (lol) is disgusting, and if you don't agree with me then you agree with Jeffrey Dahmer."
As an economics student I can say I would mostly use him to despair at widespread misunderstanding of my field. Your hypothetical was deeply chilling ;-;
You know this is a good channel when he, as a marxist, quotes Nozick. Absolutely based
@@NoZAutonomy cope
Ah yes the fast capitalists. The true Marxists.
@@NoZAutonomy YEAHHHHHH ACCELERATIONISM BABYYYY FUCK THE WORLD UP TILL ITS UNFUCKED
Harris' fixation on neurophysics raises the question: is the holding of correct or "morally right" beliefs in any way distinguishable in terms of brain function from the holding of incorrect or "morally wrong" beliefs?
there isn't.
I'd been trying to figure out for years what it is that Harris does with so much charisma that makes his points difficult to respond to on the spot, and it's absolutely the penchant for unfalsifiable claims. He just does them in a very smooth way. Thank you so much, I'd pulled my hair out at one point trying to identify it. Wish I'd seen this six years ago, even though it didn't exist yet.
The very beginning of the video addresses the Nietschiean concern of Sam's moral ground so well, that I can't help myself not leaving a like under this video! Thanks for this quick and simple acknowledgment.
I used to think Sam Harris was an example of critical thinking and rationality. I have since changed my opinion. I appreciate how you helped make it even clearer that Harris is far from an example of how to construct rational arguments. Also, I think Sham Harris is somewhere out there. I swear I have seen that man before.
Apart from the moral realism I have no problem with his book. The real problem is people having fruitless discussions while people are suffering. Either you are against that or you are not. And if you are not, you should act against it, rather than trying to persuade everyone what is and isn't "morality".
If I want to maximize the ammount of paperclips in the universe, I won't spend the next thousand years at a university debating minute details before I get going.
did you read the book?
@@MrCmon113 you might want to spend enough time researching how to make a paperclip and what is the best and most efficient method of doing so, and even spend time confiding in like minded and experienced people....you know..like at a university.
@@MrCmon113 If you get going and make thousands of things that are not, in fact, paperclips because you didn't spend a seconde trying to define "paperclips" thinking it's "self evident", you're gonna look pretty stupid.
Sam Harris is not talking about paperclips, he is talking about well being and some of the ideas he actually defend in the public might very well hurt more than they help. So yeah, might be nice to think about it.
Also, he's the one who claim to have establish a new science. If your argument is "no need for thinking, just act for a better world" then you are in contradiction with what Harris claim to be trying to do.
@@prierepanda2186
What well being is is self evident if you are conscious and if you are not, it is incomprehensible.
>and some of the ideas he actually defend in the public might very well hurt more than they help
What does "hurt" and "help" mean here?
"Abrahamic religion."
Sam Harris would probably be a better example of secular Abrahamism in this context.
This is really interesting. Before this video my main critique of Harris was "I don't like how he talks and I don't trust him" lol
Ya this video fits right in with your level of evidence based thinking then. :)
Ben Stiller should actually study the philosophical tradition in depth or stay out of it altogether.
Argument from tradition is a logical fallacy...
Sam Harris has a BA in philosophy from Stanford, studied under one of the most influential philosophers of the latter half of the 20th century (Richard Rorty), studied meditation under Dilgo Khyentse (the same man who taught the current Dalai Lama), and has a PHD in neuroscience with his dissertation being an exploration of the neurological foundations of beliefs. This may be hard to accept, but there's a good chance he knows more about philosophy than you do, even if his philosophical positions are dumb.
gymnopedie sounds like argument from authority, his education does not matter, sure it could make him more knowledgeable but you don't know the credentials of those you are attempting to insult or what knowledge or experience they have, he "ought" to have more knowledge given his experience but that doesn't mean he "is" 😜
jblue1622 no, the original comment or suggested sam was not well studied, aside from listing his credentials, how else do you suggest this claim is refuted
My “appeal to authority” is not fallacious in this context since Sam’s formal education in philosophy has direct bearing on whether he has “studied the philosophical tradition” or not. I have noticed that calling out alleged informal fallacies is one of the calling cards of internet pseudo-intellectuals. It's a cheap way to *sound* smart.
I just came back a couple of years later to rewatch this...still as satisfying as I remember
I can't tell you how impressed I am with this channel's content. You should make a class on producing a video essay of real worth.
You are doing a very important work. Thank you for sharing your knowledge in such detailed and well referenced way. A big contrast to a lot of other "influencers" on TH-cam.
Very well done and thoughtful critique. Feels like you put a lot of work into this. Thank you. You got a sub.
imagine this happening in any other field , Fermat:"I have found this marvelous proof that is too long to fit in the margins of the book" hhhhhhh
Harris' fact/value argument is roughly equivalent to Rand saying that she solved the problem of induction, and then just using a semantic trick to make it seem like she did.
I want to listen to your videos on the side, as I focus on getting a heavily modded New Vegas to run, but I just can't because I keep clicking back on the tab with your video in it because your delivery and points are so captivating and interesting.
That transition from sincere philosophical engagement to reading out Patreon names was hilarious.
I wish this had been out years ago, it might have saved a lot of people a lot of time. I tried to read this book myself and "intuitively" gave up, because it seemed to have so little value to anyone seriously interested in moral questions. So glad someone took the time to point out just how useless this book is. Thank you.
What books would you recommend for a noob? Inb4 Jordan Kermit Peterson
@@Fishoilification the recommendations given in the description are pretty good.
I have a serious interest in moral questions, and I find the Moral Landscape the most valuable book in my persuit of these questions. I have a similiar academic background as Harris with psychology and neuroscience and find the arguments very persuasive. I think the arguments run truer to people who have studied/ have an interest in evolution as well, but I might be wrong.
@@shreddits684 I have watched a lot of Harris interviews and lectures over the years. In that time i studied psychology and comparative religion which also involves anthropology and other disciplines in the humanities. It strikes me as totally naive to think that the scientific establishment can somehow answer moral questions. Harris's point of view also seems to come out of a broader anti-religion polemic. His attacks on Islam have kind of revealed his ignorance on the subject of religion and social psychology. In the end i think that neuroscience is just a completely different ball game. I admittedly understand little about it, but i don't see what it has to say about morality. Harris has never really been able to prove anything which is kind of the scientific standard.
@@shyman3000 What *are* moral questions then?
The notion that science can tell us what we should value is obviously ridiculous.
What I love most about this video is the clear irritation in your voice. All the videos that you have done prior have had a clam and steady voice, including your K-Pop take. You can hear the hot and speedyness in your tone, it's wonderful and I applaud you for not completely losing your cool.
Sam Harris made a companion between “well being” and physical health.
Physical health is somewhat undefined on a myriad of issues.
How fast should a person run? How much should they weigh? How best to maintain immune system. Etc.
But we do have thriving sciences of nutrition, exercise, and immunology.
It does rest on the axiomatic assumption of not wanting to be dead.
And having a science of morality would rest on the axiomatic assumption of not wanting to be miserable and spreading misery.
Enjoying the critique - I found an issue in your argument tho - 9:26
It says Harris assumes (or nueuromania and thus harris) a Cartesian self - Harris explicitly denies the existence of a "self" BECAUSE of his understanding of neurology. I mean, they guy says subjectivity is also an illusion ffs.
Harris does not think all causality is bottom up.
Harris has pointed out the irreducibly subjective reality of consciousnesses repeatedly in his work - its one of his main beliefs.
Yes but that makes his arguments even worse. How can analysis of a subjective experience determine moral values?
@@yourmom9931 Oh sure, I'm not saying his argument is good by any means, I'm just saying he defiantly doesn't view the self as Cartesian, but has a very eastern/hindu view of the self as an illusion.
@@BakerWase it's not that he explicitly views it that way, it's that he treats it that way and his arguments presuppose it
@@pietzsche well, no. I mean he has explicitly denied the Cartesian self. In his own words. I can get quotes if need be ?
@@BakerWase No, it just further demonstrates his incompetency.
Thanks for all this information. I never questioned Sam Harris before, but your content makes me think.
the entire book seems like sam saying: "cmon lets just do utilitarianism" which i personally agree with but i'm not going to act like i just solved meta ethics.
Do meta ethics even matter when the ultimate goal is utilitarianism? Meta ethics are just an endless cycle of subjective morality clashing with each other until people agree on something, when we should agree from the start that human well being should be the only thing we need to keep in mind.
Videos with citations, this is wonderful
I would argue that he isn't contradicting himself between point one and point two.
He may have written that a little bit lazily, or you're leaving out clarifying context, but if you listen to him speak on the topic it is clear that he doesn't believe that the ONLY thing you can reasonably value is well-being. Rather, that well-being is the only value reasonable to consider when talking about morality specifically. To value logical consistency, parsimony, etc, is a value with respect to a different goal than morality. Those are values related to discovering and communicating truth, not moral behavior.
To add: They aren't contradictory as the pursuit of knowledge is sought after due to its utility in increasing wellbeing.
Not always. Not all science or discovery is used to increase well-being. Well-being is not contained within the notion of well being. Sometimes we discover horrible things about the world through scientific investigation.
@@Kelpexable True, but we're talking values. He isn't saying that all discoveries aid in welbeing. He is saying that valuing (seeking after) the pursuit is reasonable because it so often provides utility to that end.
@@Reepecheep Right, but while those values can promote well-being, they often don't. Or, their ability to provide well being also comes with the ability to provide great suffering, or at least ethically dubious circumstances. Take CRISPR, for example. Many of its applications are benign and very helpful. But it could also be used to gene edit and eliminate certain groups of people from the human gene pool. All bioethics courses are filled with examples just like this, as is the history of science.
It's also important to recognize that scientific methods and values can't be cleanly distinguished from personal values. If someone were to identify some brain state as one that marks "Well-Being", their values of what well-being is will certainly play some role in shaping and defining that. Whom's concept of Well-Being will we be saddled with? Concepts are not created in a vacuum, divorced from our biases.
@@Kelpexable First off let me say I think we agree on quite a bit here. Certainly there is a great potential for suffering possible with regard to valuing scientific inquiry. Your point about CRISPR is perfect for pointing this out. We have to ask these kinds of hard questions of ourselves if we seek to minimize the range of suffering we can cause with our curiosity and be truly forced to balance that with the kinds of benefits we wish to see. I would be happy to argue the merits of scientific inquiry separately, but in any case, what method would you suggest for determining the risk/benefit of these values if not wellbeing?
Secondly, your point about wellbeing being subjective seems true to me. It seems certainly true that different brains will have different views on what constitutes 'wellbeing.' Once again you bring up something that seems very much worth raising when discussing ethical/moral judgements. As you say, the concept of wellbeing is subjective. I find that it is therefore inappropriate to ask 'whom's concept...will we be saddled with?' because you even recognize that there is no single person or single brain state that would qualify universally. As with all things, and especially with all things that we know to be subjective, there is no magic bullet. There is only discourse.
Thank you for your time and thoughts.
You earned a subscriber - thank you for the excellent critiques of these very popular intellectuals. I have watched this and the Steven Hicks critiques thus far and look forward to many more.
This video manages to be respectful, honest, and yet utterly savage.
I read Moral Landscape. My final thoughts were, this is a beginning of a conversation. The conversation is about getting people, as much as possible, to come together and define morals for everyone that wants them. That many religions, philosophies, societies etc find agreement through reason and dialogue. This process, if it comes to pass, would be done in good faith by people dedicated to bring forth a better, safer world. I did not understand it to be a bible, of sorts. I did not think it the end of conversation in philosophy for morality. I do think it can be instructional for steps forward in morality. The rest must be done by those that hold morality important for a better world. EDIT: While late to this discussion party, it appears I have stumbled upon an exercise in philosophical discussion, pro/con, of a sort. I took Logic and Philosophy 50 yrs ago. A short version of my discovery here is, has not changed much. One thing, ‘word salad’ is a term I learned recently, like 15yrs ago, as a pejorative. Those trying the hardest to make points should understand that first. Name calling and silliness in argument accomplishes, name calling and silliness, if your lucky. Enjoy college and keep the debt low. I did and it works. Be well and safe. Peace
“Happiness is distinguished from well-being only in this, that happiness is conceived just as an immediate reality, whereas well-being is regarded as justifiable in relation to morality.” -Hegel
Excellent video. I'm a new viewer to the channel and really liked your critique of Harris. I wrote about this book in my philosophy undergrad class, making the point that it's only really a science-informed utilitarianism. While I had a view of this work similar to Rationality Rules', I've come to completely reject much of Harris's work as nothing more than amateurish and reactionary. As an aside, one of the things that drives me crazy about his books is his burying of arguments in the endnotes. He should include much of what he says in those notes into the main text, as it would improve the books (somewhat).
Keep uploading bro, you have a new fan from Perú great video as always 😊
"sham harris"
Henry Fielding would be proud
I might just not be understanding correctly, but 5:43 doesn't seem like a contradiction. It just looks like you used some semantic ambiguity to make it look like it. When in the first statement he talks about value he implies it's within the larger context of morality and when he talks about value in the second statement it's within the narrower more fundamental context of objective knowledge.
That was very annoying to watch
@TheEsotericZebra he also rambles about how sam reduces ethics to neuro chemistry, making this point reveals a massive confusion. The whole point of the book, his bedrock claim is that morality has to relate to wellbeing, wellbeing has to relate to states of the brain that can be described. Rambling about neuromania and how hes biased because hes a neuro scientist really screams out how he missed the main point of the book, also the is ought argument is addressed in the book. Very annoying
You turned Sam Harris' ramblings into an actually stimulating philosophical essay so bravo. You should know this was his plan all along because if there's one thing he has learned in this life, it is to take credit for other people's hard work. Don't you know he has a PhD!
Its stimulating cause you don't need to think anymore. Instead of believing Sam Harris, you just believe this random guy on the internet, who can't/won't even substantiate half his claims.
@@x10018ro Jonas is a Ph.D student in philosophy. He wrote his thesis on the German Revolution. So, he’s more qualified to talk about it than Harris is (his Ph.D is in neuroscience and has only an undergraduate degree in philosophy).
@@x10018roHe quoted multiple philosophers, cited sources, and laid out his arguments quite well and simply.
@@x10018ro The opinions of anime avatars are entirely irrelevant.
@@IIIIAmSHODAN Agreed, except it includes system shock players.
I stumbled upon your channel earlier this month. After watching a few videos I just wanted to share some appreciation for your hard work. 👍🌠
I remember being a fan of sam harris and then reading about this book. Luckily ive already had classes on the is/ought distinction put forth by Hume. Needles to say my admiration for him declined somewhat. I mean, it is so easy to see that his argument cannot work, even using his own hypotheticals. If a true psychopath claims that inflicting as much suffering to the people is “good” there is no emperical data that can help you prove him wrong. You can disagree with him, as most of us would. We cant tell him to jump of a building like we would to a person that denies gravity. There is a great deal of hubris involved i am afraid. Like wise his book on determinism. Eveything he writes had already been discussed by other philosophers. His works are just good for getting people interested in science and philosophy, and he should stick to that instead of make these grandious claims
I don't think his books are good for getting people into those fields. He effectively says that entire academic fields are capture by people who write pretentious, boring and harmful works and so people should ignore them and just listen to his simple solutions.
Coincedently a day before this video was released, I listened to one of the discussions between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris (the 2nd one they did on podcasts) and looked a bit into Harris' opinions about the is-ought gap afterwards. I was quite disappointed, because all I got out of it were statements and opinions that to me sounded like any materialistic reductionist view, with barely any given arguments, nevermind any new argument that hasn't been put forward by previous philosophers.
Now the fact Harris states in his own book that important philosophical developments are only of interest to academic philosophers says enough in my opinion about his engagement with the existing literature. I think you were spot on on that.
Something else:
When Derrida was mentioned in that podcast I listened to, Peterson joked ''Well we're simply not smart enough to understand the deeper meaning of his words'' and Harris remarked ''In the course I took about Derrida, I could not understand how fellow students could listen so inspiredly to such a word-salad''. This was really ironic to me since most commenters on youtube that are Anti-Peterson comment the same remarks about Peterson, like Peterson and Harris did about Derrida; mentioning ''word-salad'' and making sarcastic remarks about how they are not smart enough to understand, though when they try to put a point across why Peterson is wrong they indeed dó not seem to understand what Peterson is actually saying, without realising it.
In my first year of philosphy one of the more prominent professors of the faculty gave the following advice to everyone: If you are reading a philosophical text and you start to think ''this is just gibberish and word-play, I can't understand how anyone has deemed this meaningful in any sense'', then you should go back and read it again because you most likely do not understand the text as well as you think you do. This has been true for me every single time those thoughts occured and I'm pretty convinced by now this is true for Peterson and Harris in regards to Derrida as well. So for anyone that reads this, whether you're a youtube commenter or a professor or neurologist or whatever, try to remember this advice from my professor, because its starting to look like it's the wisest thing I have personally heard in years.
beautifully conveyed, thank you sir
If Chomsky says that postmodern philosophy is mostly gibberish designed to impress people, then it probably is. And if you can't explain it in terms in which a junior high student can't understand it then there's probably nothing there. I tend to agree.
Kropotkin Beard Agreed, most of what the postmodernists write about could easily be conveyed in more simple terms but they choose not to do so. Reason being they like to use polysyllabic words as a shield against criticism.
It’s the equivalent of someone writing out numbers in overly convoluted formats in order to appear intelligent. For example, you could write 7 as [2,228169 X 3,14159265] but it adds nothing of value.
If an idea can be explained in more understandable terms, it should be. The evolutionary use of language is communication after all.
Edit: Chomsky expands on this here - th-cam.com/video/O3cm0OCA4So/w-d-xo.html
The difference is that Jordan Peterson's word salad is due to his not knowing the subjects very well and trying to wing it. He also has a tendency to try and appear deeper than what he actually produces. He often says "It's deeper than that..." and then goes on to confuse the matter further. Derrida's word salad is of a different type. Chomsky has adequately dealt with most all post-modernists noting that they're mostly doing nothing more than concocting things which sound impressive, but have little or no substance. "If you can't put it in terms in which a junior high school student can't understand it there's probably not much to it." I happen to agree. Sam Harris does a good job of tolerating Peterson's babble. Peterson reminds me of freshman students, not only philosophy students, doing acid for the first time and putting all the pieces together, even the ones that aren't there.
Kropotkin Beard In all fairness, Baudrillard’s hyperreality concept was somewhat interesting.
Chomsky’s spot on in regard to Derrida and Lacan though.
31:10 - Philosophy can help us "love thee more dearly, see thee more clearly, follow thee more nearly" - Ben Stiller.
What is so dreadfully unbearable for Sam Harris about terms like "metaethics", "deontology" or "noncognitivism"? Those are fairly simple terms. It's not quantum physics ffs.
Also, you cannot write ethics off as boring, and then proceed to write an entire book about ethics. It just doesn't make any fucking sense.
Haven't finished watching the video yet, but on the note of "Experience is not reducible down to neural states." The example you provide is unconvincing, and I think the fault is the result of our inability to translate experience to and from the neural level to the extent that is likely possible. I would argue that eventually we will be able to allow a blind person experience what red is like. The technology and science isn't there yet, but it's moving in that direction.
I dont see a contradiction in statements (1) and (2) about the distinction between facts and values:
In (1), he says "reasonably value", which as I understand it, translates to "using reason to derive
it (the value)". Reasoning is the act of thinking or making judgements in a logical manner, therefore
logical consistency is presumably assumed here. In fact, the value of logical consistency has to be
already assumed (almost by definition) in order for a logical argument to be followed and for a
contradiction to occur in the first place, otherwise we can only play tennis without the net.
In (2), he asserts that "objective knowledge has values built into it (logical consistency, reliance on
evidence, parsimony, etc.)", which is in any way in contradiction with the previous statement. It just
states that science and reason rely on presuposed axioms which attain to what our primate minds need
to begin to understand the world around us and to extract practical knowledge of it.
Of course, to suggest
that Sam could argue that logical consistency is defined in terms of well-being
seems to me an absurd counterfactual indicating a substancial amount of bias.
I would argue that the order in which the 3 statements appear is rather arbitrary and almost weird, I
would put (2) as the first one, followed by (1). I also think that to say that "well-being is the only
thing we can reasonably value" is not only to set a burden of proof right away, but to make a bald and
hyperbolic statement that needs strong justification (which Sam somewhat manages to do later in the book).
I am not here to defend the ideas that Sam puts forward in his book for what he is, but for what they are.
I think that his book is presumptuos and, as pointed out in this video, lacking references and
previous work on the subject (which is more massive than Sam seems to want his readers to know).
However, though
the ideas in the book are not entirely original, he has been good at making his case
and it is a far better reading experience that Cuck philosophy seems to want his viewers to think.
In short, and I hope I am not misrepresenting his position here (almost for Sam's own sake), he is just
saying that adequate reasoning and objective knowledge can only take place once assumed the axioms of logical
consistency and so forth; and that once there, the only thing we can reasonably value (at the core)
is well-being, since according to his definition, it relates to the states of mind of any conscious being,
and everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness in some way or another.
No contradiction whatsoever, albeit a bit misleading.
I thought I was the only one who thought this way albeit in a much more basic way.
Yes I think he was using the word 'value' in two different senses - moral value in premise 1, and epistemological value in premise 2.
Exactly. Thanks for articulating it prefectly
the trouble with Harris's postmodernist critics is they won't accept anything that's been "tainted" by the human mind. they want all claims to be verified externally by the cosmos in some divine, immutable way. well let me just say... *fuck* the cosmos.
@@ArnoldTohtFan is Sam Harris' approach any better? He seeks to break metaphysics into components so each piece can be considered individually.
Harris does not seem to understand the concept of the sum of parts. Especially when his ideas are challenged by an equal (or better) intellect.
This video has shown me the significance of philosophy, and how much it's still needed in the west. I'm going to start reading those books you recommended.
I would start with anything outside of postmodernist philosophy. Go back to Plato or Aristotle.
@@bodbn well, it would be a good start to know where some things have fallen apart.. How was it with the male idea that ideas came before birth and what did Plato love?
One just got to love poets who exile themselves out of their utopia when one believes in owns own youth I guess..
Defianatly not a bad place to start because of Sokrates - the one that never wrote his "philosophy" down. Oh, speaking of Socrates, S. Kierkegaard wrote a book called 'On the concept of Irony' in an ironic way as his magister thesis. Sidenote: he didn't regard it as part of his authorship...
@@bodbn best to start from modern logic
What significance? Who precisely benefits by smearing people trying to help as "consequentialist" and then going back to our armchairs?
John Locke's liberal philosophy ironically failed him.
I'm less than 60 seconds in and you've already got me laughing by calling Sam Harris' values 'Christian'. Going to watch the rest, but please don't pull a Jordan Peterson on me.
Jesus smuggling incoming... please proceed to the emergency exits in orderly fashion.
@@pocnit Of course, this is one of those funny little situations. By Sam Harris being fundamentally Christian, yet denying such, he can forever be Christian yet claim not to be, by just calling this 'Jesus smuggling' or, saying something like, 'I am telling you what I think', even though the latter has no bearing at all on what values you hold, and what those values are (or where they came from). That was the whole point of mentioning Nietzsche at the beginning. Nietzsche doesn't care about your atheism or 'Jesus smuggling' notions: he's just going to tell you out-right, you're fundamentally a Christian. Ben Shapiro makes this point all the time, in fact, when he says, 'How is it that Sam Harris grew up just a few miles from me, and we share 95% of the same values, yet he claims it has nothing to do with religion?' This is also the point Jordan makes (and to the degree that Jordan has done some Jesus smuggling, he has actually admitted it beforehand -- or, he has disagreed with that notion).
Fun fact: It's not an intelligent argument to say, 'I'm not listening to you anymore, because I think you are Jesus smuggling'.
it's an idea of nietzsche in the genealogy of morals where he draws a distinction between "slave morality" (christian) and "master morality" (not christian) and critiques slave morality. the argument would be to say that harris's conception of morals is fundamentally based in slave morality, which was started by and is fundamentally linked to christianity
@@TheClassicWorld Neither is it an intelligent argument to say "Your morals are Christian because I say so" :)
5:30 It's clear from the context he meant "...reasonably value as the foundation for a moral system".
I must say that when I first came across Sam Harris, he struck me as someone who seems to have most of his ducks lined up. I did buy his book in the hope that he would put up some compelling arguments on this topic, but when I started reading it, I couldn't believe the number of deficiencies that I thought were in the book. You've pretty well identified all of the deficiencies that I picked up. I was rather disappointed.
Very intriguing video, I agree with most of your points so far. However, I have one small problem with your "problem with utilitarianism" number 4, at least if you go with Bentham. Injecting someone with heroin does produce short-turn pleasure, but that's not the only aspect of what makes an action good from an utilitarian standpoint. The duration of the pleasure and the consequence of the action are also important factors. So, while it WOULD give him short-term pleasure, the negative effects that it would probably have on his life and the suffering it would cause, not only on him, but on people in his surroundings, outweigh the pleasure it initially produces.
Edit: Just got to the part where you mention the felicific calculus. So yeah, if that didn't exist, you could argue that killing people is fine because the adrenaline rush makes you feel good for a little while.
Why do you say that his philosophy is fundamentally Christian?
I Also don't think that Sam Harris would argue that the Tamil tigers are behaving religiously. He would simply say that they're operating under another pathological philosophy.
I know... I found so many issues with points brought up in this video, I'm actually shocked no-one else hasn't. I made a huge comment detailing, if you can find it.
He said that he wouldnt do that sort of critique but you can check out the book showing on screen when he says it - on the genealogy of morality
9:26 I'd have to disagree with your first point about neuromania. Neuroscience in itself offers no distinction or separation between the states of "mind" and "body" (or alternatively the "spiritual" and the "natural") - on the contrary, it implicitly shatters any distinctions between those concepts. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it rather difficult to have a duality when only one option exists?
@@sicongli6594
Well all of your muscles are controlled by nerves, so at some point the causal chain of anything we call behavior must include the nervous system.
Oh boy...I'm sorry you had to go through this ordeal, but thank you!:)
djivaha what ordeal voltunarily reading a book and doing a review. I had more of an odeal doing my third grade book report on Tom Sawyer. Stop being overly dramatic.
Reading Sam Harris is definitely like reading at a third grade level.
This was really eye opening. Thanks for posting.
Ben Stiller knows what the Dunning-Kruger effect is, and that makes his mix of hubris and intellectual laziness even funnier.
Hi there, I've seen you around lately.
In the case you are mistaken, you would appear to have the same qualities.
Ahh the rare triple layer dunning Kruger. And perhaps a fourth? Who's to say
@@lutze5086 give me a few days, you've already waited three monthes
This whole thread is ridiculous. Confirmation bias/Dunning-Kruger is not limited to people you think are stupid. It’s a psychological effect in the vast majority of people. TH-cam has totally twisted this into some kind of pseudo-scientific insult and it’s cringey af.
I'm loving all the book critiques.
Wow! This was a great video! I hope all of them are this good!
3:30 It's called premise. "We want to reduce human suffering" + "So how do we do that". Sam doesn't push for objective morality, he is just meaning that it is possible to measure morals with a scientific perspective (as premises).
I haven't read the book. Science can't answer moral questions, but instead we can use sciene as a tool to for example, calculate how to minimize human suffering.
Just an input, not saying Sam is right.
Precisely. Sam's only mistake is to argue for moral realism. Realism is really the villain here and what leads to fruitless discussions like the above.
Morality is just a poisonous word. You can have fantastic arguments about morality, until the *word* morality comes in and then it's all confusion.
Sam does take for granted THAT reduction of human suffering and promotion of wellbeing is the foundation of morality and no other foundation matters rationally The additional argument which would be a "naturalistic fallacy" in the eyes of logicians is we intuitively WANT to live and be happy as a people or species and therefore THIS makes it good FOR us because we want it and naturally cannot want otherwise. Anyone saying they want something other their own happiness does set up a logical contradiction of sorts I will be happy if I do what does not make me happy is by very definition an act of doublethink because it sets up contradictory premises. Does this prove that consequentialism is moral. No but it does prove it would be futile to appeal to anything other than consequentialism without resorting to self contradiction and arbitrary values. Philosophers think they can REALLY get to morality and other abstract concepts like justice goodness or other values via rationalism or pure reason as if such concepts absent of human consciousness existed like the physical world exists But the very concept of justice and morality are dependent on human consciousness in order for them to make any sense. What or whom could BE moral or just in the absence of human beings. The same cannot be said of the sun and stars and the laws of physics which work pretty well without human understanding of how "things should be" But human happiness is OF concern TO humans because we ARE humans and most importantly cannnot be otherwise Therefore its rather silly to critique Harris as not proving objective morality with reason and use of premises that are not "truly objective" since the very concept of morality outside of human awareness is meaningless. Saying a hurricane destroyed a house is not a statement on whether the hurricane SHOULD have done it since it presumably is not an intelligent agent its a force of nature. Saying a person burned a house down for insurance money can be commented on as a moral or immoral act depending on whom was affected. If burning it down was the only way to pay for medical bills it changes the outcome completely regarding whether its "moral" or not So humans to the degree we are aware of have choices and options available can learn from past behavior and change behavior to accommodate our understanding of reality That does open up an entire new can of worms about "free will" whether because we can learn and mediate on experience we therefore should do X or Y especially if free will itself as Sam also points out is an illusion Sam does box himself in with this We have no free will but with an understanding of what does vs what does not bring up happiness or suffering we can learn to choose better. Though such understanding is completely immaterial since the choices we make would be determined by what learning we are or are not exposed to WE are condemned then to philosophize about free will justice morality while knowing our choices themselves are merely neurological stimuli recording and running "programs" in our heads. To the degree reason IS a free choice itself is never completely understood given there is no other source for reason than the brain
@@robertbaur2672 Yeah
Simply put, the IDW are political movers in philosophical clothing. They take advantage of people's lack of exposure to central philosophical literature. I'm no scholar myself, but from my limited knowledge of epistemological work in moral philosophy, the IDW tend to run headlong into a wall of scholarly precedence, and instead of acknowledging the fact that these themes have been covered by career scholars in philosophy, they retread old topics as if they are new, even if they have been deemed flawed or impractical.
The conflation of is and ought is basically throwing out all of philosophy. Science cannot tell us the oughts reliably or consistently and oughts cannot be easily defined, as in many cases the ought goes counter to what may be prescribed by the is. Instead its the balance of both of these that makes moral systems difficult. Harris does what all IDW folks do, package up pop psych and present them in terms of black and white prescriptive ways to look at complex issues.
From the little i have read/watched/listened, career philosophers are much more interesting, complete, and cautious. The more you learn the more you realize we have no fucking clue what makes any one moral system better than another, or even if they exist inherently. To claim otherwise is irresponsible, and a self-proclaimed scientist he lacks rigor.
IDW?
intellectual dark web
> the IDW
Meaningless smearword.
> are political movers in philosophical clothing
Sam totally admits that his goal is not to write academic philosophy, but to have meaningful discussions about moral questions. The same meaningful discussions we often have about the exact same moral questions when the word morality doesn't come up.
Great stuff. Do you have any thoughts on Steven Pinker L's Better Angel's of our nature? As I recall, it was similarly panned by academia but adored in popular press.
I would love to see your take on Pinker. He annoys me even more than Harris.
Enlightenment Fundamentalism
There's an hour long video by "Unlearning economics" on him. Give it a watch.
I know plenty of people, convinced of their own well being and sunk in misery.
I got to say, your topic overview, depth-knowledge and argumentation is admirable. Thank you!
"I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics", "deontology" , "noncognitivism", "antirealism", "emotivism", etc, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe." Jesus christ! i still cant believe Sam Harris actually wrote that in his book. We are in dire need of real public intellectuals whether we agree with them or not, but this kind of intellectual laziness by "the leading thinkers of our time" is baffling.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe Harris is not as stupid as you assume and that "metaethics", "deontology" etc. are indeed important only to philosophers, and that it's YOU who is suffering from intellectual laziness, if not shortsightedness?
@@LukasOfTheLight That really depends on what kind of "complex idea" it is. If it's a *philosophical* complex idea, then sure, but that's only because nobody outside philosophy finds it important to explain, sort of like a complex idea from Astrology that only astrologists know how to explain. But if it's an idea from our "empirical" life, then I can't think of an example where philosophy would do a better job. Let's take, for example, a complex idea of gauge symmetry or quantum computing, or even decoherence principle that drives people insane because they don't get it. You pick philosophers that you think do a better job explaining those ideas than my pick of astrophysicists. Same can be done in any other domain of empirical knowledge.
@@PavelSTL what is harris doing if not philosophy? He is just afraid to engage with complex subjects
@@trentonslovakia2693 you honestly think Harris is afraid to engage with complex subjects?? Really? You philosophers never seize to amaze me with your arrogance, especially when you start talking about humility like the guy above.
@@PavelSTL arguing morality is literally philosophy though. Sam Harris is arguing a hypthetical philosophical scenario and is really bad at it.
Another great video. Knowing about the is-ought distinction is really helpful.
It is the basis to be able to distigushing the square from the circle!
Quick thoughts in response to the critique of neuromania.
1 - Neuroscience isn't supposing there is a self that is trapped in the body in some spiritual sense, rather, the 'sense' of self is created and experienced through your neurophysiology and its interaction with the environment. Hence why Harris claims the 'self' is an illusion.
2 - Who assumes causality is bottom up? You are talking about consciousness here, right? A lot of current neuroscience values top-down quite a bit in trying to work out the function of consciousness so it'd be interesting to hear what you mean by that.
3 - Neuroscience can't explain first person intentionality - yet. No there isn't a 'guarantee' that we'll get there, but it'd be strange to claim it to be impossible. Already we have experiments where you can predict motor function before it reaches the awareness of humans. At the end of the day, this is a criticism of the current nature of the scientific field. It's like saying to a biologist a 200 years ago that you'll never understand too much about body functions because you can't observe molecular activity with your eyes. We don't know what type of technology we'll have in the future so there is value in having theoretically probable discussions.
4 - Experience is not reducible to neural states. Well, who says? What type of evidence is there for it? In the example used, you say the person "tells" the neuroscientist his experience. If you're putting it into words, you're already failing to communicate the experience. But theoretically, if you were to be able to control the input (sensory experience) lets say of the colour red for person A. Then measure the output (neural activity) of person A's reaction in it's entirety, you could then calculate the frequency that needs to be emitted to elicit the same response from the neurophysiology of person B.
Or you might even be able to artificially knock out the visual, auditory & somatosensory cortex of person B and then "plug" it either digitally or god forbid, literally into person A's correlating brain parts - then you could be experiencing how that person is experiencing a stimulus on a sensory level. But this could theoretically be applied to perceptual experiences once the phenomena is worked out in the relevant regions.
Basically, what we don't know about in neuroscience isn't a reason to suppose the knowledge is unknowable. And looking at the evidence which is admittedly in its infancy, there's still enough there to draw out certain inferences about the nature of humanity.
As for the part directly after that list, trying to work out the ontology of the brain will undoubtedly work out what its design to do. Morality is built into us and it is a moving target because it is evolving alongside human beings. That's not to say that objective morals don't exist, it could just mean that it's incredibly hard, if not near impossible to account for that level of interrelated patterns that compose its entire existence.
If the technology were there, you could essentially map the neurophysiology of the players in a basketball game, look at what activity is being rewarded as opposed to error related negativity responses - according to input data. And that's on a basic level that we're not even too far off from. Who knows, we might get to the point where we could potentially just read the rules of basket ball game from one player's brain.
I do agree with the bulk of the rest of the video in terms of his tardiness in the book. Me personally, would rather him engage all the relevant philosophy and dismantle it one by one (if it is truly possible). However, I do understand that Harris' primary focus in all of his books is to be as non-clunky, accessible books that just about anyone could pick up. Now people can speculate that this is a money-grab and who knows, maybe it is? But you could also say that it is so that the maximum amount of people will be reached and that the world will become a better place (in his view) quicker.
The fact is, he's more than capable of making convoluted arguments. But on paper, as a consequentialist, you'd probably argue that the more people are able to easily understand it and increase their feeling of "wellbeing", the better it is - rather than making an academically exhaustive text. This is why barely anyone has read Critique of Pure Reason, and people have to listen to 'interpretations' by other philosophers. I don't really agree with all that ultimately though. Getting to the "truth" in terms of morality seems important enough to write two books if necessary, one for the academics and the second to reach the public.
Well, basically what Cuck Philosophy alluded to in point 4 of your comment are the problems posed by the article "What is it like to be a bat?" by Thomas Nagel.
Let's reframe the problem based on the ideas of the article: We know that bats perceive the world through echolocation ("seeing" objects through sound). We cannot know "what is it like for a bat to be a bat", through our imagination, because our experience is of a fundamentally different structure. Even if we artificially plug a bat's experience in a person's brain ("transform a person to a bat", let's say), her experience would not be describable even in our most general experiential terms.
I am making some of that stuff up, but Nagel's key point is that the more different from oneself is the other experiencer, the less success we should expect in the enterprise of understanding one's subjective character of experience through scienctific inquiry. While it is not true of all scientific fields, neurolophysiology, physics, etc. try to move in the direction of objectivity, reducing our dependence on individual or species-specific points of view; a thing which is highly problematic when it comes to the character of experience.
@@Demetrisx it's not a test to see if an organism is, in fact conscious. It's a thought experiment used to describe consciousness.
Maybe you already know that. If so, all we need to know in order to conclude something is conscious that anything is happening from the 'inside'. When we dream, we are conscious. Even if all we perceive is a feint light, we are conscious.
Maybe none of this is clarifying. Hopefully it helps.
Excellent comment. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
Best comment on here
Most of this video is pretty solid, but the "problems with utilitarianism" presented are very flimsy.
- The purpose of a good moral theory is not to be maximally compatible with other moral theories. Yes, while human rights are a very useful tool to improve the world in practice, utilitarianism doesn't suppose they're inherently valuable on their own, only instrumentally valuable. This is a feature, not a bug.
- Very few utilitarians claim that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences, and there are much stronger arguments against that view than the one you gave anyway - such as that depending on how you interpret it, it means moral judgment of an action must either change over time as more consequences roll in, or must be postponed indefinitely until all eventual consequences have played out (the end of time), which makes it impossible to put into practice. Most utilitarians instead claim that the *expected* consequences determine morality.
- Whether we DO always think about right and wrong in terms of consequences doesn't say anything about whether we SHOULD - a basic is/ought distinction.
- The other points given are less "problems with utilitarianism" and more "things different schools of utilitarian thought disagree on because 'utilitarianism' is merely a category and doesn't describe a complete moral theory on its own".
> _Most utilitarians instead claim that the _*_expected_*_ consequences determine morality._
One cannot concievably calculate all the expected consequences (that will play out until the end of time), so how does one put it into practice?
@@Ronni3no2 whether you can apply any given ethical theory doesn't say anything about whether it has merits as a theory. It certainly is a problem for the usefulness of the theory, but that is also a problem many ethical theories share. These are also some of the reasons why applied ethics is usually taught as a separate subject from ethical theories.
Does the trivial theory that postulates that absolutely everything is ethical have "merit"? What exactly do you mean by "merit"?
@@Ronni3no2 Oh, I'm not defending Harris Theory or Utilitarianism in general. I just wanted to point out the difference between the 'usefullness' of any given ethical theory (whether it is possible to apply it) and it's 'truthfullness'. I don't think one can dismiss Harris theory or utilitarianism just on that basis
The assumption is that aspect of Time, again. It's like what Pragmaticism is to Pragmatism. That's the distinguishing feature that should be sussed within a Utilitarian framework; that mark of Time, where it is so pertinent to have a View.
Sam Harris is what passes for a philosopher to those that don't know about philosophy.
He's a philosopher to the same people who think Gary Vee is an entrepreneur.
Nice video. You picked up on the the I noticed when I was listening to the book. Harris rarely argues for or against positions. He usually just states that a position is obviously right or obviously wrong and then moves on without any argumentation. It's quite frustrating. I remember yelling "But you never argued for that, you just assumed it!" in my car when I was listening to the audiobook of The Moral Landscape.
Hello,
I'd like to take a stab at your criticisms of Utilitarianism at 19:29.
* "It is incompatible with a rights-based framework" - it all depends how you sum these happinesses together. If you describe happiness as a factor between 0 and 1, then average will make it so that (sqrt(0.25) + sqrt(0.25))² / 2 is preferable to (sqrt(0.5) + sqrt(0))² / 2.
That is, if you apply an exponent X before summing (you get a square root when X=1/2), you can tune how much the individual matters more than the collective.
Under utilitarianism, there is *some* value of N where killing one person is worth it if it somehow improves the happiness/quality of life of N people.
* "If all that matters is the sum total of happiness" - in the example above I made the number a (square-rooted) average by dividing by the number of people I summed up. You can divide by anything you want, such as sqrt(number of people). Just like the exponent, most utilitarians won't give you an exact formula, because they don't claim to know it; I'm merely providing examples of how these two issues can be addressed with mathematics.
* "We often don't think about right and wrong in terms of consequences" - yes. Utilitarianism disagrees with this, and most utilitarians frame these thoughts merely as heuristics.
* ""The moral luck" argument" - Utilitarianism doesn't claim that someone is or isn't ethical, it claims that some action is or isn't ethical. If an action caused good while intending to cause harm, it accidentally was an ethical action, it's just that in the general case it's definitely not recommendable to try and cause harm, because if you do try to cause harm, you're much more likely to cause harm than good.
People should act to do the most good based on their knowledge, and in general people should increase their knowledge in order to more accurately be able to do good.
Let's say, somehow, by trying to kill someone in cold blood, I save their life. Did my action end up being ethical ? Yes. Should I go to prison anyways ? Yes, since systematically imprisoning people who try to murder others in cold blood will create an [addtional] incentive to not murder others in cold blood, and certainly, *more* murder attempts result in death than result in accidentally saving a life.
This also works in the other direction. According to utilitarianism, people should concern themselves with actually causing good, not just with intending to cause good. It's just that nobody controls everything, and sometimes, inevitably, randomness will make a well-intended action cause harm and a harm-intending action cause good. An ignorant fool causing harm because even though he wants to do good is acting unethically because he refuses to get informed enough to actually cause good.
* "Can't judge whether pleasure is good or not" - just like you can squareroot-average over multiple people, you can squareroot-average over multiple instances of someone over time. I'm currently making a video game; at times it can be hard work, but I'm investing in the happiness of my future selves, who surely will be satisfied to have accomplish that. Similarly, someone doing hard drugs all day may be getting a lot of pleasure up-front, but they're probably at a high risk of significantly reducing the happiness of their future selves.
* "Which people to prioritize ? Prioritize maximizing pleasure or prioritize minimizing pain ?" - it all depends on how you add together, which formulas you use to average or sum happiness, what you even define happiness to be, etcetera.
My point with all this is, consequentialism is a flexible framework from which people derive a variety of ethics, of which utilitarianism is a subset where the value to maximize is some meaning of "happiness".
I'm personally not entirely decided about utilitarianism, but I've found that when I evaluate my actions, I always in some form of another care about the consequence. Even things that I've always thought to be dogmatic, like "I shouldn't lie", I realized I'm doing because I want to go towards a world where people are honest, and because I want to recognize myself and be recognized as an honest person.
Sorry for the wall of text, good video, nice channel, have a good day !
This might be really late, but this was an excellent breakdown of all the points I wanted to raise about his objections to utilitarianism. Better yet, the emphasis on mathematics being applied to utilitarianism, though I knew *of* it, was something I really never thought all that much about before now. 😊👍
@@thek2despot426 It's actually funny how the author fails to grasp these obvious considerations while trying so hard to undermine the whole approach of consequentialism
i really like the way you can tweak the math behind calculating happiness/suffering here. for example i would disagree with killing a person to save ten people, but killing somebody to save 1 million people i would agree with.
@@maxono1465 that's threshold deontology then
@@mountaindew371 thanks for the tip!
Regarding Neuromania, describing the neural states wouldn't help the blind person experience Red, but wouldn't mimicking those states in their brain have the approximate effect of 'experiencing red'?
Not necessarily. For one, even if you were capable make people experience red that way, they wouldn't have any context for it, as in where they can find it and what they can associate with it. This is already a diminished perception.
Leonardo Rossi
Can’t they learn the context if they see more of the world and red stuff in it as if they’re plugged into the experience machine?
You're the most rightful next guest in Ben Harris' podcast... Hands down
Could you please still do a Nietzschean critique, though? I’m sure we’d all love to watch it
Oh goody, Sam Harris, this should be good
When you mean good, you mean spectacular train wreck..........
I think you mean Well** lol
So dude makes a video critical of Sam Harris and his audience eagerly anticipates it. I can't imagine any confirmation bias would go on here not at all only total critical thinking ability on full display
Your not from around here are you..........Ryan
I'm a Muslim, and Sam made me the enemy to many. I'm very interested in someone like Sam who creates more enemies for me.
As Alfred North Whitehead pointed out, scientists often claim to have overcome metaphysics. What they are really saying is that they don't want you to examine their own metaphysics. Same extends to those who claim to have overcome philosophy in general.
Sam knew exactly what he was doing. He sold thousands of copies of his armchair philosophy hack of a book to all the fanboys, thus making his bank account swell, leading to his maximal pleasure...A brilliant dismembering of his 'arguments', if one can be charitable enough to call them that...Subbed
I would not doubt that. Still, it's kind of sad, because science does have an important role to play in rights-based justice and fair material distribution of goods, just not the role Harris and the IDW make out. A better book selling as much could have been written without Harris compromising his morality! (But for that to have happened my guess is he'd have to not be a narcissist.)
@@Achrononmaster
It's sad in the sense of decreasing overall well being or it's sad in the sense of decreasing "rights-based justice"?
I am a bit of a snob, if you don't engage with the opposing viewpoints, then I don't consider it philosophy
Pretty much sums up this video...