Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Science Can Answer Moral Questions

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Morals are subjective anyway. I know many people refuse to believe that, but they're wrong. :)


  • Options
    #3
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    Morals are subjective anyway. I know many people refuse to believe that, but they're wrong. :)

    Absolutely wrong or subjectively wrong? :pac:


  • Options
    #4
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    I think we could probably all agree killing a person who doesn't want to be killed is wrong, but I do not think it is wrong on a moral level but rather wrong on a legal/respect level.

    Some might observe that if you desist from killing someone because you have respect for them, that constitutes moral behaviour.


  • Options
    #5
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Some might observe that if you desist from killing someone because you have respect for them, that constitutes moral behaviour.

    Some being the important word...

    I would not kill someone who doesn't want to be killed because:

    1. I think it is wrong.
    2. I think there could be repercussions.

    But some people may not think I was wrong. For example, if I killed my wife, some Muslims might think I was justified.


  • Options
    #6
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Excellent thought provoking lecture, has left me a lot to ponder.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    Some being the important word...

    I would not kill someone who doesn't want to be killed because:

    1. I think it is wrong.
    2. I think there could be repercussions.

    But some people may not think I was wrong. For example, if I killed my wife, some Muslims might think I was justified.

    Do you think the view of those Muslims would be as justifiable as your own, that killing your wife is wrong?


    (Edit: Good video, by the way)


  • Options
    #8
    Wacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,057 ✭✭✭Wacker


    Sam Harris wrote: »
    I'm the Ted Bundy of String Theory

    You know, I was fairly sure I was never going to hear that sentence in my life, but there you go! Sam Harris just totally f#%*ing rules.


  • Options
    #9
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    I think we could probably all agree killing a person who doesn't want to be killed is wrong, but I do not think it is wrong on a moral level but rather wrong on a legal/respect level.

    However, it appears that you do think it is morally reprehensible:
    AARRRGH wrote: »
    I would not kill someone who doesn't want to be killed because:

    1. I think it is wrong.
    2. I think there could be repercussions.
    AARRRGH wrote: »
    But some people may not think I was wrong. For example, if I killed my wife, some Muslims might think I was justified.

    That may be true. But you would imagine yourself wrong, therefore your morality is not subjective. And I don't personally feel that the justification of a behaviour makes it morally correct. Killing someone is always wrong (IMO), it's just sometimes I understand why people do it.


  • Options
    #10
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    Do you think the view of those Muslims would be as justifiable as your own, that killing your wife is wrong?

    I personally think they are wrong, hence my original post. Morals are subjective.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    However, it appears that you do think it is morally reprehensible:

    That may be true. But you would imagine yourself wrong, therefore your morality is not subjective. And I don't personally feel that the justification of a behaviour makes it morally correct. Killing someone is always wrong (IMO), it's just sometimes I understand why people do it.

    I think you've misunderstood my point. I said morals are subjective. I didn't say I think killing is morally right.

    For example, Palestinian suicide bombers believe they are morally right (and many people agree with them), whereas most Israeli Jews think they are morally wrong (and many people agree with them).


  • Options
    #11
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Sam Harris <3

    swooooooooooonnn !!!

    Just starting the video now ;)

    I'm sure it'll generate a good discussion !

    edit

    Was he sobbing a bit when talking about women in the Islamic world being killed by their father after they've been raped? Oh Sam you're so sensitive :(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    I think you've misunderstood my point. I said morals are subjective. I didn't say I think killing is morally right.

    I think you've misunderstood mine, which was simply to point out the contradiction between your opening statement: "I don't think it's morally wrong to kill people..." with everything you said afterwards, which clearly indicates that you do think it's morally wrong to kill people. What you are saying is that you understand other people to hold different moral values and in some cases, not consider killing people to be wrong. I disagree - justification does not make an action morally correct.


  • Options
    #13
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    He is a good speaker. But I was slightly disappointed. I was no clearer if science could answer moral question or how it would go about doing it. I was just a little clear about what Harris thought was possible.


  • Options
    #14
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I think you've misunderstood mine, which was simply to point out the contradiction between your opening statement: "I don't think it's morally wrong to kill people..." with everything you said afterwards, which clearly indicates that you do think it's morally wrong to kill people. What you are saying is that you understand other people to hold different moral values and in some cases, not consider killing people to be wrong. I disagree - justification does not make an action morally correct.

    Where did I say I don't think killing is morally wrong? You are putting words in my mouth.


  • Options
    #15
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    Nassim N Taleb
    The 20th C was the bankruptcy of the social utopia. The 21st will be that of the technological one. [From one Procrustean bed to another.]

    Has anyone else noticed that politics and science seems to be the best mixture since religion and porn?


  • Options
    #16
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    Where did I say I don't think killing is morally wrong? You are putting words in my mouth.

    It originally formed part of post #2 but I guess you edited it out. However, I had already quoted and responded to it in post #4.
    Originally Posted by AARRRGH viewpost.gif
    I think we could probably all agree killing a person who doesn't want to be killed is wrong, but I do not think it is wrong on a moral level but rather wrong on a legal/respect level.


  • Options
    #17
    Jako8
    Registered Users Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭Jako8


    Dave! wrote: »

    Was he sobbing a bit when talking about women in the Islamic world being killed by their father after they've been raped? Oh Sam you're so sensitive :(

    I was wondering that too. :o


  • Options
    #18
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    Great speech. Who knew Ben Stiller was so erudite?
    ;)


  • Options
    #19
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    Heres a rational proof for secular ethics if anybody is interested.



  • Options
    #20
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Sam's received a bit of criticism for his talk, you can see his response here if you're so inclined!

    He's bringing out a book soon on the same subject, so hopefully he'll be doing the circuit appearing on the O'Reilly Factor, etc., to plug it :)


  • Options
    #21
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    doctoremma wrote: »
    It originally formed part of post #2 but I guess you edited it out. However, I had already quoted and responded to it in post #4.

    You're twisting what I said.

    I said:
    AARRRGH wrote:
    Where did I say I don't think killing is morally wrong? You are putting words in my mouth.

    And then you provide this as proof that I said I think killing is morally wrong:
    AARRRGH wrote:
    I do not think [killing] is wrong on a moral level

    My last statement is not me saying killing is or isn't morally wrong, it is me saying morals are irrelevant when discussing killing.

    As stated numerous times, I think morals are subjective and depending on the situation you may think something is morally wrong, whereas I may think it is morally right.

    Overall I think killing is wrong, but again it depends on the situation and it depends on our own personal moral framework. There isn't a universal moral code, despite what religious types might think.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I agree with Sam insomuch as we can apply scientific techniques and methods to try to determine answers to moral questions.

    Where my opinion differs from his is that I don't believe there is one universal moral creed and I also don't think we should expect this approach to generate clear-cut answers. In many questions scientists, mathematicians and logicians face, these techniques yield classes of answers rather than specific answers.

    I don't see why we shouldn't be able to say "X is immoral; but Y is moral and Z is also moral, even though Z and Y are different approaches to the same moral dilemna."


Advertisement