rationalskepticism.org

Mr.Samsa wrote:Sam Harris is an idiot...

Particularly this section:

She: What makes you think that science will ever be able to say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong?
Me: Because I think that right and wrong are a matter of increasing or decreasing well-being—and it is obvious that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags, and beating or killing them if they refuse, is not a good strategy for maximizing human wellbeing.

"She" asks for an explanation or example of how science could answer how forcing women to wear burqas is wrong, and he reverts back to his opinion without answering the question at all. To rephrase his answer so that it actually addresses the question posed to him, he would have to say this:

Because science has demonstrated that right and wrong is a matter of increasing or decreasing well-being—and it is obvious that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags, and beating or killing them if they refuse, is not a good strategy for maximizing human wellbeing.

Then he would point to the scientific experiments or studies that demonstrate why right and wrong is determined by increasing or decreasing well-being. Then he'd point to the experiments which justify whatever particular brand of utilitarianism he subscribes to; is it a compromised well-being for everyone? an overall well-being at the cost of the minority? etc etc. In other words, if the overall well-being of the entire population was increased by hating homosexuals and setting them on fire, even though it resulted in the pain of the minority, then Harris' "objective" morality suggests that science supports our destruction of homosexuals. Obviously, Harris would argue against this and say that we need to take into account the well-being of all individuals, so even though homophobes' well-being would be increased by actively hating homosexuals, their wants should be ignored in favour of the minority... But then we are impacting on the well-being of some individuals (no matter how hate-fuelled and disgusting their opinion is)...

Basically, Harris runs into the same problems that utilitarianism ran into centuries ago. He tries to avoid it by labelling his particular brand of opinion/philosophy as "science", even though it has absolutely nothing to do with science. Why do people let him get away with this?

This doesn't mean I support people who want to burn the faces off women for being raped, I obviously find such actions abhorrent. The point is that there is no scientific reason to label such behavior as "wrong", and only people like Harris who have no clue what Hume's is/ought problem is would think that science can determine human values. Obviously once we figure out what values we want to hold, or what oughts we should have, then science can help inform our positions. For example, we can decide that we think that we should value human well-being. Clearly there is no scientific way of determining this, but we can decide it ourselves or reach this position through logic and reason. From there, we can use science to make moral decisions; if well-being is defined as maintaining the good health of as many people as possible, then we can decide that it is "morally" wrong to throw acid in the face of a rape victim. The problem Harris then faces is that it's also morally wrong to sell cigarettes and to use them.

Summary: Harris should not be discussing an issue he is so clearly ignorant of, and it would be in his best interests to stick to what he's good at. I'm not sure what that is, his politics seem shaky, his neuroscience is like a creationist investigating evolution, and his ideas of morality are more ridiculous than a first year philosophy student...