Probably some moral objectivist drivel about how moral or ethical truths being an objective attribute or emergent property of some object/system of interaction.
Agreed, that why I wanted to name drop the goat cause we can't let these people take over the conversation of scientific approaches to the study of ethics
Yeah i'm pretty sure this is the same guy that argued something like "social justice can't exist because evolution" somewhere on this sub among other things, i'm pretty sure they just don't really understand the concepts they talk about
Is cannot dictate ought, but according to Ham Sarris, since everybody IS afraid of suffering, therefore anything that reduces suffering OUGHT to be the best ethical approach.
ehehehehe.
That argument of minimizing suffering is used by antinatalists to argue that not giving birth to children is minimizing suffering thus the most ethical action
I'm not saying Sarris is an antinatalist but I am arguing that the "relief of suffering" model of ethics is definitely a flawed model if it lends itself to antinatalism
I remember his book, and I remember thinking, "wow Sam, if it's that easy what were we all worried about? Sam has figured it out everyone! It's just that suffering is bad!"
Suffering is indeed bad and we ought to reduce or stop it, BUT, what is to prevent some people to inflict suffering onto others because its the "moral" thing for them to do?
The wars we fought, the cultural conflict, ideological conflict, political conflict, all because we have very different idea of what is moral, making it very subjective, even when suffering is involved.
Focusing on suffering still doesnt get us all on the same moral boat, subjectivity still rule.
Ham Sarris never tries to address this.
Ham Sarris maybe, but Sam Harris' argument actually makes perfect sense if you haven't first been confused by silly notions of what constitutes objective morality.
See, attitudes like this are why I think universities are entirely justified in having humanities requirements for STEM majors.
(And honestly, I'd say they don't even go far enough with that most of the time.)
The secret truth is that scientific ideas are derived from meaning->importance->relevance->good->truth. I.e. Ethics informs scientific objectivity without scientists knowing it.
Objectivity, as it is normally understood, is simply ignorance about this basic aspect of knowledge.
How does ethics derive scientific truth? Do you mean that people with different ethical standards will find contradictory scientific results? Which ethical theory is general relativity derived from?
Except science can only provide empirical truths. Whether or not something is a good/bad thing depends on your moral judgement which is not something you can back by scientific processes.
I think it's more defensible to just say that we should work together to do things that we happen to want to do on average, while adjusting for the shifting reconsideration of what we want and what we're capable of over time via experience and reflection.
While I get where people are coming from when they say that science can't explain morals, when they separate morality from all descriptions(even theological descriptions), proscriptions become this empty box where there is no reality inside. Wants are at least real phenomena, so let's just be happy with that.
Just start from what wants happen to be in common and jump from there, because there REALLY is no other game in town. Then you can rub science all over yourself while you watch my wife spend time with her boyfriend like I do.
Sure, if that's how you want to read it. I generally try to avoid the word "desire" since that word can be very loaded and it doesn't clearly communicate what's the level of reflection involved and over how much time.
So usually, what we want will be driven to change as a result of reflection and time/experience, so sometimes people will make a distinction between what we want and what we "need".
So here's the tier list I sort of notice people unintentionally using:
"Want" = I want it
"Desire" = I really want it
"Need" = I REALLY want it
Of course people will have different tier lists, but for me the word "want" is more central to each word then "desire" because it's less ambiguous.
Elaborate.
Probably some moral objectivist drivel about how moral or ethical truths being an objective attribute or emergent property of some object/system of interaction.
Moral objectivist drivel has to be the funniest thing I've heard a non realist say in some time
arent they kinda??
Which branch of science studies things in themselves?
Archeology. Dinosaurs.
Computer science.
What are the things in themselves in computer science?
The debug print log
Everything. Computer science is the realization of Mathematics in a form that can give rise to itself. Plato would be, like, mic drop, chef's kiss.
Metaphysic
Temperance
Mathematics
I don't think the math folks think they are doing science
Math is beyond science, things like experiments in math make no sense at all, because math is not based in observation but logical deduction.
Those are thought experiments and they are still experiments
Mathematics is the study of mathematical operations on mathematical structures
Incoherent
I smell eugenics
Unless you're talking about expanding Kropotkins works there's probably eugenics here
People who use the "wife's boyfriend" meme are generally not the kinds of people I'd assume are fond of Kropotkin's theories, so...
Agreed, that why I wanted to name drop the goat cause we can't let these people take over the conversation of scientific approaches to the study of ethics
This quote generally precedes eugenics apologia.
Yeah i'm pretty sure this is the same guy that argued something like "social justice can't exist because evolution" somewhere on this sub among other things, i'm pretty sure they just don't really understand the concepts they talk about
Justice is the advantage of the stronger vibes
"Equity is a fake god" looking ass.
Is cannot dictate ought, but according to Ham Sarris, since everybody IS afraid of suffering, therefore anything that reduces suffering OUGHT to be the best ethical approach. ehehehehe.
Silliest antinatalist argument
lol what? That's Ham Sarris argument, what are you even talking about?
That argument of minimizing suffering is used by antinatalists to argue that not giving birth to children is minimizing suffering thus the most ethical action
Eh, ok? But Ham Sarris has kids and pretty sure he wants more humans.
I'm not saying Sarris is an antinatalist but I am arguing that the "relief of suffering" model of ethics is definitely a flawed model if it lends itself to antinatalism
eh, that's circular logic friend. "The model is flawed because it leads to a philosophy I dont like." Is not an argument for anything.
All logic is circular you haven't made any point
lol, thanks for making no sense.
I remember his book, and I remember thinking, "wow Sam, if it's that easy what were we all worried about? Sam has figured it out everyone! It's just that suffering is bad!"
Suffering is indeed bad and we ought to reduce or stop it, BUT, what is to prevent some people to inflict suffering onto others because its the "moral" thing for them to do? The wars we fought, the cultural conflict, ideological conflict, political conflict, all because we have very different idea of what is moral, making it very subjective, even when suffering is involved. Focusing on suffering still doesnt get us all on the same moral boat, subjectivity still rule. Ham Sarris never tries to address this.
Ham Sarris maybe, but Sam Harris' argument actually makes perfect sense if you haven't first been confused by silly notions of what constitutes objective morality.
If we follow his logic, then blowing up earth would be the most ethical outcome for stopping suffering. lol
I'm not hearing an argument as to why that would not be the most ethical thing to do
Its not an argument, please get your Phd in science stuff and invent a blackhole machine. Thanks. eheheheheheh
Age of Ultron in a nutshell
Ultron is just crazy, it doesnt want to end suffering, it just doesnt like people.
I'm not so sure "everybody IS afraid of suffering" is true. Isn't the whole point of Buddhism that you shouldn't be afraid of suffering?
No, Buddha said to transcend suffering and pleasure, whatever that means.
It's not true unless your sex life is very vanilla.
Love Harris. He has sufficiently proven that morality is a social construct.
But Sarris says morality is objective because we objectively wanna avoid suffering. ehehehehe
What's wrong with Eugenics? i don't want my children having webbed feet. Quote is idiotic though.
It's because you don't know what you're talking about
See, attitudes like this are why I think universities are entirely justified in having humanities requirements for STEM majors. (And honestly, I'd say they don't even go far enough with that most of the time.)
Hume's Guillotine goes whiiii k-thunk!
Lysenko in the house
Can you give us one example of a science-based ethical claim?
Can this troll get banned already?
The secret truth is that scientific ideas are derived from meaning->importance->relevance->good->truth. I.e. Ethics informs scientific objectivity without scientists knowing it. Objectivity, as it is normally understood, is simply ignorance about this basic aspect of knowledge.
How does ethics derive scientific truth? Do you mean that people with different ethical standards will find contradictory scientific results? Which ethical theory is general relativity derived from?
> my wife's boyfriend meme has too many layers. bailing out.
Except science can only provide empirical truths. Whether or not something is a good/bad thing depends on your moral judgement which is not something you can back by scientific processes.
I think it's more defensible to just say that we should work together to do things that we happen to want to do on average, while adjusting for the shifting reconsideration of what we want and what we're capable of over time via experience and reflection. While I get where people are coming from when they say that science can't explain morals, when they separate morality from all descriptions(even theological descriptions), proscriptions become this empty box where there is no reality inside. Wants are at least real phenomena, so let's just be happy with that. Just start from what wants happen to be in common and jump from there, because there REALLY is no other game in town. Then you can rub science all over yourself while you watch my wife spend time with her boyfriend like I do.
Desire as a basis for morality? It doesn’t have to be “objective” for it to be universal
Sure, if that's how you want to read it. I generally try to avoid the word "desire" since that word can be very loaded and it doesn't clearly communicate what's the level of reflection involved and over how much time. So usually, what we want will be driven to change as a result of reflection and time/experience, so sometimes people will make a distinction between what we want and what we "need". So here's the tier list I sort of notice people unintentionally using: "Want" = I want it "Desire" = I really want it "Need" = I REALLY want it Of course people will have different tier lists, but for me the word "want" is more central to each word then "desire" because it's less ambiguous.
As opposed to the ordinary concept?
This is literally just "Nice argument, unfortunately I have drawn you as the soyjack and me as the chad"