The is/ought "problem"

Philosophy
41

OK. I just saw Sam Harris’ TED talk ‘Science can answer moral questions]’.
I really see nothing else than utilitarianism.
I think the essential ‘move’ is here:

And we know -- we know -- that there are right and wrong answers to how to move in this space. Would adding cholera to the water be a good idea? Probably not. Would it be a good idea for everyone to believe in the evil eye, so that when bad things happened to them they immediately blame their neighbors? Probably not. There are truths to be known about how human communities flourish, whether or not we understand these truths. And morality relates to these truths.
Human communities should flourish. Right, I do agree with that. But it is nothing new. And then he explicitly says we cannot answer all questions:
Now, let me be clear about what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that science is guaranteed to map this space, or that we will have scientific answers to every conceivable moral question. I don't think, for instance, that you will one day consult a supercomputer to learn whether you should have a second child, or whether we should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, or whether you can deduct the full cost of TED as a business expense.
Right. That is the known problem with utilitarianism. The next argument is as weak is it can be:
But if questions affect human well-being then they do have answers, whether or not we can find them. And just admitting this -- just admitting that there are right and wrong answers to the question of how humans flourish -- will change the way we talk about morality, and will change our expectations of human cooperation in the future.
There is another way of saying this: there are no objective answers to moral questions, but we should always stay in a permanent dialogue about what is the greatest good, and for who. (Animals?) And science can help us to find the means to reach this greatest good. Now this is the strongest part:
Now the irony, from my perspective, is that the only people who seem to generally agree with me and who think that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions are religious demagogues of one form or another.
That is not irony: it is exactly the idea that morality is objective that makes people unfree. The idea of objective morality is the best way to oppress people. Morality is always based in the rational discourse of the people themselves. Only when people can freely discuss and decide what they think is the greatest good, oppression has no chance. Yes, people must take into account what science know to be facts. But science cannot not tell us what to do. That is decided in a societal, rational discourse. The call for objective moral truths, in my opinion, comes from fear of taking responsibility, fear of being free and not know what to do. The powers of the world always have known how to use these fears.
42

Oh, BTW, there is a great example here, in our own rows. What has utilitarianism to say about this]?

Killing innocent people is never morally justified.
But what if it increases the overall lessening of suffering? Would not utilitarianism say it is OK?
43
First, what Harris says is not “just utilitarian", he does talk about the means we have to reach goals once we define them, it’s utilitarian-plus.
So it is utilitarianism in action. Nothing new again. I don't care if it's new or old, and I don't find much defining of goals in any utilitarian theory I've ever seen, just a general "good".
He also defines those goals based on valid reasoning, that’s the key factor.
Gdb, "That is a key factor??? Any ethical theory claims to be based on valid reasoning. Sorry, I do not get it." This is where you get frustrating. What other ethical theory? The Ten Commandments? The Sermon on the Mount? Toltec culture? Deepak Chopra? Show me valid reasoning and I'll grapple with it. You just assert it.
Science has shown us that those moral thoughts are related to survival. So now you need to argue against survival. Why would you want to do that? To survive, we need to cooperate, care for each other and lots of other good things, that’s what I mean by “moral".
Gdb, "Where I agree with your moral stance, I do not agree that 'we ought to do everything to survive' is a fact. It is a value. This kind of argumentation is called the naturalistic fallacy. One can also use this argumentation model to defend eugenics." And if you are not willing to be more specific about why you think we ought not survive, then this conversation is going nowhere. Lookup Naturalistic Fallacy in Wikipedia, it leads to "moral realism" which has a lot of support by philosophers. I think you have those two confused.
Are the whale hunters right?
I don't have enough information about Norwegian whale hunters to answer that. I do know that Japan has floating whale factories that are capable of sending whales into extinction. It is highly probable that whales are important to the world's ecosystem, therefore that is wrong. My guess is we are talking a much smaller scale in Norway. However the simple statement "it's a lifestyle" or "it's a job" is not a valid argument. I would need to know more.
44
Yes, people must take into account what science know to be facts. But science cannot not tell us what to do. That is decided in a societal, rational discourse. The call for objective moral truths, in my opinion, comes from fear of taking responsibility, fear of being free and not know what to do. The powers of the world always have known how to use these fears.
Science doesn't tell anyone anything, other than facts. That's your straw man. It is the irrational fear of people today who believe if we use the scientific method, that means we are surrendering ourselves to some people in white lab coats. It is a misunderstanding of what "authority" means. Authority is not a man in front of a room telling us what to think, it is a collection of facts, reviewed and questioned constantly. Because we live in a complex world, we need experts to help us know that the reviewing and questioning is being done properly, but no single person gets to decide. A single person deciding is the opposite of the scientific method. Anyone playing on people's fears is even further down the scale in the opposite direction. You say "societal, rational discourse" as if that is something different. The question is, what method does that society use to validate its discourse as rational?
45
... There is no way you can get to an 'ought' with an 'is', without at least putting one 'ought' already in it somewhere.
I have a sense that if I could understand this one sentence, I would have a clue as to what you guys are talking about. It just means you cannot derive a value from facts only. I'm just wondering if we can bridge the gap sometimes. So the first fact we have is there would be no right or wrong if we weren't sentient beings capable of happiness and suffering. So we can at least deductively get to the fact that morality is about avoiding suffering can't we? Might we also get to the fact that "everyone" should mean all sentient beings? Ok, I think I have enough of an inkling of understanding to jump in to this discussion. Morals and values are intrinsically a special kind of verbal behavior. They function, mostly, I think, to maintain the existence (and sometimes, also, the well-being) of a select group of folks who subscribe to those values/morals. Morals/values can change over time with changing contingencies. So I don't think that there can be an eternal unchanging gold-standard of morals/values. But within certain contingency sets, there must surely, I would hope, be certain morals/values that would function better than others in not only maintaining the existence, but also the optimal well being of a given population. (And as humanists, I would suspect that the population of most concern, is the totality of all humans, and indirectly, also, our fellow earthlings, the other animals, as well as plants, and other natural resources.)
46
I don't care if it's new or old, and I don't find much defining of goals in any utilitarian theory I've ever seen, just a general "good".
Of course not. Utilitarianism is a way of ethical thinking. Defining the greatest good, and including whom, belong to the most difficult problems of it. That somebody like Harris just is giving his opinion about what is good doesn't make his way of thinking something else than utilitarianism.
Gdb, "That is a key factor??? Any ethical theory claims to be based on valid reasoning. Sorry, I do not get it." This is where you get frustrating. What other ethical theory? The Ten Commandments? The Sermon on the Mount? Toltec culture? Deepak Chopra? Show me valid reasoning and I'll grapple with it. You just assert it.
Don't be silly, Lausten. Here] you find a pretty long list of different ethical theories. See the attachment for a simple overview.
And if you are not willing to be more specific about why you think we ought not survive.
I do agree, grosso modo, that 'we' should survive. But to make that practical, you still must add a lot of additional values. Who are 'we'? Belong Muslims to it? Or just the human species? These questions are value questions, not scientific questions. One can give arguments in such unscientific debates, to show why you are convinced, e.g. that animals should not be taken into account, or under what conditions etc. The arguments might convince some people, maybe they do not convince others, and those may have grounds too. In such a way we can have a rational discussion, but it is not a discussion about facts. It is more or less finding common ground on which we can base our values; with that what we should do; and use science to see how this can possibly done.
Are the whale hunters right?
I don't have enough information about Norwegian whale hunters to answer that. I do know that Japan has floating whale factories that are capable of sending whales into extinction. It is highly probable that whales are important to the world's ecosystem, therefore that is wrong. My guess is we are talking a much smaller scale in Norway. However the simple statement "it's a lifestyle" or "it's a job" is not a valid argument. I would need to know more.
It is not exactly about if they are right: it is about their statement that the whale protectors are giving emotional, and therefore irrational argument; whereas, because whale hunting is their livelihood, they are rational.
47
I don't care if it's new or old, and I don't find much defining of goals in any utilitarian theory I've ever seen, just a general "good".
Of course not. Utilitarianism is a way of ethical thinking. Defining the greatest good, and including whom, belong to the most difficult problems of it. That somebody like Harris just is giving his opinion about what is good doesn't make his way of thinking something else than utilitarianism. You say this, then in your next sentence, you say there are many ethical theories and they all claim valid reasoning. You are ignoring the subtle differences in all of these theories. You are avoiding choosing one and instead just throwing up your hands and saying it can't be done or that Harris is "just" X because he has not perfected his theory. Look through some of the details of that list, hedonism is in the class of moral realism. Do you think pleasure as a goal is valid reasoning? Please explain. Harris is talking about how to choose a valid goal and how to go about refining it and applying it. That's what sets him apart from hedonism, religion and classic utilitarianism. You are taking the easy way out of this conversation, pointing to all ethical theories and saying not one of them has been universally adopted. It seems that the very evidence of non-adoption is your argument against them. I'm asking the question, why not? 500 years ago people were arguing about why the Sun came up every day, then we developed a universal language of math and came up with ideas like showing your evidence, this put a dent in the idea of sacrificing virgins. Now, if you don't adopt the idea of the sun "rising" due to planetary rotation and orbits, you are not honored for your cultural difference, you are called ignorant. Not ignorant as in stupid, but as in unaware of facts.
It is not exactly about if they are right: it is about their statement that the whale protectors are giving emotional, and therefore irrational argument; whereas, because whale hunting is their livelihood, they are rational.
You've lost me here. You asked a question before, now it appears you wanted something other than an answer to the literal question. I said the statement that "because a particular thing is your livelihood" is not a rational argument. Organized crime is a tradition, that doesn't mean I have any moral obligation to preserve it. Are you agreeing with that? What is it "about" here?
48
It's irrelevant whether they can always be solved. Just like it's irrelevant whether questions of health can always be "solved" (e.g. Is it "healthier" to live six more months as a paraplegic or only three more months but with barely functional legs?) to the question of whether medicine is a science or not (it is). In light of this, why can't there be a science of morality?
There can be a science of morality, but it would be a branch of psychology, sociology or cultural anthropology. It would show what happens when people are making moral considerations, how their moral thinking works. What it would not show if the values we observe are 'really' morally good. It would describe what moral capable objects do; it does not show what we as moral subjects should do. That's precisely what Harris argues. And, no; it's really nothing new. But he does make some novel arguments in his book as I've previously described. But it would show what we should do, given the goals of moral actions (decreasing suffering/increasing pleasure)--unless you define morality as merely a matter of preference (you could do the same for "health" and "science", but why would you?).
Everybody agrees on the precise meaning of "health" and what exactly the methods of science are? That's not even close to being true.
Well, then it is even worse. Don't you see that? Yes! It is worse if we buy the often-argued premise that there can be no objective morality, because using that same logic, there can be no objective concept of science or health. That's why such arguments (made by many critics of Harris) are worse than useless.
As far as TWPMFE not being precise enough, it doesn't matter. As long as it is factually true that some actions are objectively better than others at moving us away from TWPMFE (such as beheading homosexuals vs. feeding the homeless), then rational inquiry is the best tool we have to find what those actions are. What's the alternative?
I fully agree that many moral situations are morally unproblematic, using TWPMFE. And I agree that we should approach the more difficult situations with rationality. But science is not the only area in which we can be rational (again, see above). Then you agree with Harris (and most philosophers). The question is then; why is Harris being attacked? And if one actually reads the book, they'd know that Harris using the word "science" in the broadest sense--basically, he's talking about using "rational inquiry" to solve moral problems. And again, no; there's not much new there. He's not claiming to have solved the is/ought problem. He's saying it's not a problem--unless one defines morality as purely a matter of preference. But then, that would be a self-sealing argument. Define something as merely a matter of preference (subjective), and you've defined it out of any possibility of being objectively approached. If you disagree with Harris, you are, by definition, a moral relativist and believe there is no objective moral difference between beheading homosexuals and feeding the homeless. It's just a matter of preference. Sadly, there are a lot of moral relativists in academia--particularly among postmodernist "philosophers" (e.g. English professors).
49
... There is no way you can get to an 'ought' with an 'is', without at least putting one 'ought' already in it somewhere.
I have a sense that if I could understand this one sentence, I would have a clue as to what you guys are talking about. It just means you cannot derive a value from facts only. I totally agree. But if this means there can be no objective morality, then there can be no objective science or concept of health either, because people "arbitrarily" decided what these concepts mean, just like Harris and most philosophers have done with morality (i.e. some variation of ethical utilitarianism).
50
...There can be a science of morality, but it would be a branch of psychology, sociology or cultural anthropology. It would show what happens when people are making moral considerations, how their moral thinking works. What it would not show if the values we observe are 'really' morally good. It would describe what moral capable objects do; it does not show what we as moral subjects should do...
It could suggest what a particular group moral should be, and then, over time, determine (by some objective measure) whether the moral functioned to, let's say, maintain or grow the group's population, or, perhaps to enhance the members' (of the group, on some specified criteria relevant to their) well-being. Of course, it could be problematic getting a group to adopt and follow the moral for the duration of such a study.
51
You say this, then in your next sentence, you say there are many ethical theories and they all claim valid reasoning. You are ignoring the subtle differences in all of these theories.
I ignore the differences? I only mentioned the theories. I know the differences. But that is not the point. The point is, and I think BugRib and you make the same error here, that 'rational' does not mean 'scientific'. A rational discourse is a discourse in which people give arguments for their viewpoints, and are prepared to give up on their positions under the force of the better argument. But we are all under the spell of the 'building metaphor': that a theory only stands when it has an absolute ground. Science, especially 'hard' science, has the advantage that it has some domain that gives very convincing arguments, on which the building metaphor more or less applies: observation and experiment. In questions of ethics and aesthetics we don't have them. But that does not mean that it is not possible to have a rational discourse about them! But especially ethics is rooted in this rational discourse itself. Ethics is, and always will be, a living discipline. Under changing circumstances, changing cultures, morality will change. Therefore BugRib, you are just wrong when you state:
He's not claiming to have solved the is/ought problem. He's saying it's not a problem--unless one defines morality as purely a matter of preference. But then, that would be a self-sealing argument. Define something as merely a matter of preference (subjective), and you've defined it out of any possibility of being objectively approached. If you disagree with Harris, you are, by definition, a moral relativist and believe there is no objective moral difference between beheading homosexuals and feeding the homeless. It's just a matter of preference. Sadly, there are a lot of moral relativists in academia--particularly among postmodernist "philosophers" (e.g. English professors).
You create a false dilemma here. It is not a question of 'merely a matter of preference' and 'moral relativism' on one side, and 'objective morality' on the other. Ethics is rooted in the ongoing possibility of subjects to participate in the endless rational discourse, in which each is equally entitled to give his or her arguments. In this discourse, when it factual statements play a role, one should of course take the hardest possible established facts, i.e. scientific proven facts, or at least the most probable according to science. However, to declare moral questions as scientific questions, in which the belief of finding objective norms is entailed, is killing the ethical discourse, and it becomes oppression. This is scientism]. Ethical discourse is per definition a living discourse, in which no final answers exist. But it is not relativism: if such a discourse does not exist, no moral rightness can be claimed. So any society in which people cannot raise ethical questions (on the risk of being beheaded?) is no ethical society. But we should not make the error to 'outsource' ethical questions to science, because then ethical discourses could be terrible short: "you are wrong, science has proven it to be otherwise". (It would be the same move as outsourcing ethical questions to a religion.) In technical matters we can outsource problems to science. Without any understanding people use technology they do not understand. But for ethics this is impossible. Short: an ethical discourse must be correctly informed about facts, i.e. use science, but it is not science. So, what is Harris saying: that we should use science in ethical question, or that ethical questions should be answered by science? (BTW: Yesterday is looked at his TED talk about morality: he clearly uses his ethical position for Islam bashing. I think we have much better ways to criticise Islam than science. Should be clear from the above.)
You've lost me here. You asked a question before, now it appears you wanted something other than an answer to the literal question. I said the statement that "because a particular thing is your livelihood" is not a rational argument. Organized crime is a tradition, that doesn't mean I have any moral obligation to preserve it. Are you agreeing with that? What is it "about" here?
I am only asking: is the argument 'it is our livelihood' a rational argument and 'whales should not be killed' an emotional argument?
52

I think I’ve already addressed everything you said in your last post. Science is always an open question, and we don’t “outsource” to it. If your critique of science is that those things aren’t true, then you don’t understand how to use science.

53
I think I've already addressed everything you said in your last post. Science is always an open question, and we don't "outsource" to it. If your critique of science is that those things aren't true, then you don't understand how to use science.
You are misinterpreting what is being said. Science isn't being criticised. I'm a bit confused about all the points being made but think the main one is science can only tell us how to achieve our goals. It can't say what the goal should be. In my dark moments I think the goal should be to stop breeding, which would stop a tremendous amount of suffering. You can't use science to argue against that, for instance.
54

That’s right, science is not being criticized. It’s also not being accepted as a proper tool to discuss ethics and determine morality. He does this by claiming that I am proposing “scientism”. As here from Gdb:

However, to declare moral questions as scientific questions, in which the belief of finding objective norms is entailed, is killing the ethical discourse, and it becomes oppression. This is scientism.
Science does not kill discourse. He's right, we shouldn't kill discourse. But he gives no explanation of how attempting to apply science to ethics kills discourse. It only does that if you do science wrong. I don't "believe" objective norms can be found. If I believe something, then try to use science to prove it, I'm doing science wrong.
55
Short: an ethical discourse must be correctly informed about facts, i.e. use science, but it is not science. So, what is Harris saying: that we should use science in ethical question, or that ethical questions should be answered by science? (BTW: Yesterday is looked at his TED talk about morality: he clearly uses his ethical position for Islam bashing. I think we have much better ways to criticise Islam than science. Should be clear from the above.)
I'm not sure why any argument that uses "facts, i.e. use science" could not, broadly speaking, be considered scientific. What area of science does not work this way? As for Harris using his argument for "Islam bashing", would you have the same reservations if he was using it to argue against dictatorship as a form of government? Why is arguing against one belief system (Islam) bigotry, but arguing against another (e.g. dictatorship, communism, Christian fundamentalism, laissez faire capitalism) not? I think a lot of liberals (and I'm a far-left liberal BTW) feel this way about criticizing radical Islam because they're sensitive to picking on the underdog. They often like to believe that the terrorists are not motivated by their religion, that they are motivated by politics or poverty, or they're not "true" Muslims (No True Scotsman fallacy anyone?), or something else. But that is simply ignorance. My sister (who is a wonderful person) once told me that it's okay that women in many Muslim countries have to wear burkas because they like wearing them(!). And besides, who are we to judge their culture? Seriously, moral relativism is a moral sickness that has infected much of the liberal community.
I am only asking: is the argument 'it is our livelihood' a rational argument and 'whales should not be killed' an emotional argument?
Personally, I can't think of any reason to believe that whales are not capable of suffering, so we'd have to weigh their interests against ours. I'm pretty sure the whalers could find another profession, but the whales don't have the option of not being whales. Factory farming is objectively immoral too, by any reasonable utilitarian standard. Hell, I can't even bring myself to go fishing because I feel sorry for the fish. So, again, since Harris' position on morality/ethics is basically the same as most philosophers, and since he hasn't claimed to have solved the is/ought "problem", why is he being so criticized for his book The Moral Landscape? I think it's mostly because he's been labeled a bigot for his "Islam bashing", and because "professional" philosophers take umbrage to an "outsider" invading their territory. But that's just my theory.
56
A rational discourse is a discourse in which people give arguments for their viewpoints, and are prepared to give up on their positions under the force of the better argument. But we are all under the spell of the 'building metaphor': that a theory only stands when it has an absolute ground. Science, especially 'hard' science, has the advantage that it has some domain that gives very convincing arguments, on which the building metaphor more or less applies: observation and experiment. In questions of ethics and aesthetics we don't have them. But that does not mean that it is not possible to have a rational discourse about them!
The building metaphor no more applies to science than it does to morality. In both cases, people "arbitrarily" decide what these words mean and what methods should be used to bring about their respective goals. One could just as easily us is/ought to argue against the possibility of objective science itself: "Who's to say that "observation and experiment" should be important to the scientific method? That's just an opinion. Therefore science cannot be objective because you can't get an 'ought' (the methods of science) from just an 'is' (the existence of the universe)." Replace the references to science in the above statement with references to morality and you can see what a vacuous argument is/ought is. That's really the crux of my argument.
But especially ethics is rooted in this rational discourse itself. Ethics is, and always will be, a living discipline. Under changing circumstances, changing cultures, morality will change.
I agree with everything you said there. And a science of morality would, of course, take into account "changing circumstances" and "changing cultures". Taking changing circumstances into account (i.e. controlling for _____) is part of the scientific method--so it would naturally be part of a science of morality.
57
I'm not sure why any argument that uses "facts, i.e. use science" could not, broadly speaking, be considered scientific. What area of science does not work this way?
I thought we were discussing ethics. Ethics does not work that way. Politics, as another example, does not work that way. But from both we wish that where they need facts, they will take those that are most reliable, i.e. from science.
I think a lot of liberals (and I'm a far-left liberal BTW) feel this way about criticizing radical Islam because they're sensitive to picking on the underdog. They often like to believe that the terrorists are not motivated by their religion, that they are motivated by politics or poverty, or they're not "true" Muslims (No True Scotsman fallacy anyone?), or something else. But that is simply ignorance.
Read some scientific work about Muslim terrorists. Political and ethical discussion should be fed by facts, didn't we agree on that?
Seriously, moral relativism is a moral sickness that has infected much of the liberal community.
Yes, it is. I am not a moral relativist. But you must avoid the thinking error that moral absolutism is the only alternative. I think I was pretty clear on that.
Personally, I can't think of any reason to believe that whales are not capable of suffering, so we'd have to weigh their interests against ours. I'm pretty sure the whalers could find another profession, but the whales don't have the option of not being whales.
So the distinction 'emotional' versus 'rational' argument does not hold? And now: what is the scientific justification of the balance between 'livelihood of a whaler' and 'life of a whale'? Isn't a whale's life worth more than the livelihood of a man? And compared to a pig? Or a cow? Or a fish? Can we base our decision on science alone, without reference to a value?
Factory farming is objectively immoral too, by any reasonable utilitarian standard.
I agree. But I think many utilitarianists will see it otherwise. Do they have their facts wrong, or their values?
Hell, I can't even bring myself to go fishing because I feel sorry for the fish.
Same with me...
So, again, since Harris' position on morality/ethics is basically the same as most philosophers, and since he hasn't claimed to have solved the is/ought "problem", why is he being so criticized for his book The Moral Landscape? I think it's mostly because he's been labeled a bigot for his "Islam bashing", and because "professional" philosophers take umbrage to an "outsider" invading their territory. But that's just my theory.
My theory is that he gives very shallow representations of existing philosophical viewpoints, which are known to have many problems (free will, ethics), but at the same time he is a great speaker. He stands in the spotlight with cheap, outdated philosophy.
58
The building metaphor no more applies to science than it does to morality. In both cases, people "arbitrarily" decide what these words mean and what methods should be used to bring about their respective goals.
I am not talking about the meanings of words. I am talking about the praxis of science and ethics. We do not have experiments and observations in ethics as we have in science. So we cannot 'base' (building metaphor!) ethics on them.
One could just as easily us is/ought to argue against the possibility of objective science itself: "Who's to say that "observation and experiment" should be important to the scientific method? That's just an opinion. Therefore science cannot be objective because you can't get an 'ought' (the methods of science) from just an 'is' (the existence of the universe)."
There stand values behind science: the will to understand nature and to develop usable technology. If we share these values, then we can agree on what counts as objective in science. So of course you can say that there is also a value behind ethics on which we agree: the greatest good for the most people. But I say that this is not enough, we need additional values to decide how fairness, suffering, happiness, inclusion of non-human animals etc weight in in the ethical discourse. Science can help (can animals suffer? are they self aware?), but we will still need some not science based values.
59
Yes, it is. I am not a moral relativist. But you must avoid the thinking error that moral absolutism is the only alternative. I think I was pretty clear on that.
That's not a thinking error, that's you providing a false dichotomy.
So the distinction ‘emotional’ versus ‘rational’ argument does not hold? And now: what is the scientific justification of the balance between ‘livelihood of a whaler’ and ‘life of a whale’? Isn’t a whale’s life worth more than the livelihood of a man? And compared to a pig? Or a cow? Or a fish? Can we base our decision on science alone, without reference to a value? I agree. But I think many utilitarianists will see it otherwise. Do they have their facts wrong, or their values?
Then you try to confuse the conversation with stuff like this. Just because I'm not stopping to write a thesis on these questions doesn't mean it can't be done.
I am not talking about the meanings of words. I am talking about the praxis of science and ethics. We do not have experiments and observations in ethics as we have in science. So we cannot ‘base’ (building metaphor!) ethics on them.
I don't need any more evidence than people being killed for apostasy or 1st world government policy causing starvation in the third world.
So of course you can say that there is also a value behind ethics on which we agree: the greatest good for the most people. But I say that this is not enough, we need additional values to decide how fairness, suffering, happiness, inclusion of non-human animals etc weight in in the ethical discourse. Science can help (can animals suffer? are they self aware?), but we will still need some not science based values.
This is what Harris says, more or less. It's getting hard to tell just what you disagree with.
60
That's not a thinking error, that's you providing a false dichotomy.
I did not:
If you disagree with Harris, you are, by definition, a moral relativist and believe there is no objective moral difference between beheading homosexuals and feeding the homeless. It's just a matter of preference. Sadly, there are a lot of moral relativists in academia--particularly among postmodernist "philosophers" (e.g. English professors).
Then you try to confuse the conversation with stuff like this. Just because I'm not stopping to write a thesis on these questions doesn't mean it can't be done.
I only want to show that it does not work with scientific facts alone. Referring to a thesis that you don't write is not much help as an argument.
This is what Harris says, more or less. It's getting hard to tell just what you disagree with.
If that is all, then, again, it is nothing new. It is just utilitarianism, with all its known problems. Thinking science will help us in the future to solve value questions, is scientism.
I think I've already addressed everything you said in your last post. Science is always an open question, and we don't "outsource" to it. If your critique of science is that those things aren't true, then you don't understand how to use science.
Of course we outsource a hell of a lot to it. Everybody who does not understand the technology he is using does it. That is what science makes objective: everybody can use its output, even without understanding it. You can use it without being part of a scientific discourse. However, it is essential for an ethical discourse that you can't be really ethical without at least the possibility that everyone can participate in ethical discourse. No specialists, who tell what is right or wrong. Just as we do not go the Christian priest for knowing what is right or wrong, we should never go to a scientific specialist for right or wrong. And if that is not what you are saying, then I wonder why you also not just say 'OK, it is just utilitarianism, and we should never stop discussing morality, just be aware, if we need facts, we go to the best possible source for it: science'.