CFI-NYC | Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape

Sam Harris presents a public lecture on his book, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values."
The Moral Landscape tackles the idea of morality and argues against the notion that good and evil, and right and wrong, are unanswerable by science. Harris posits that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.
Along the way, this talk ventures down the avenue of debunking religion as humanity's sole method of dictating between right and wrong.
This lecture was presented On Oct. 7, 2010 by the Center for Inquiry in New York City. The event was held at the New York Society for Ethical Culture.
This is the full video, including both the talk and question-and-answer session.
Check out more of our reasonable talks: reasonabletalk.tv
Learn more about CFI: www.centerforinquiry.net

[@Denny_7782]

It's June 2nd 2023, everything that Sam says is still super relevant.

[@rzr82]

This man is such a genius. I'm dumbfounded by how eloquent he is. If only this kind of person were more of a role model to children than popstars or sitcom actors, imagine what our world could be like.

[@angelozachos8777]

2023 says “HELLO” 👋 😂

[@mardishores4016]

Yes, it would be a utopian world, lol

[@MichaelChavinda]

I love the way he's so calm

[@wooddoc5956]

Damn, this man has inspired me since 2005 and "End of Faith". Thank you Sam.

[@Catz1985]

Thank you for hosting Sam Harris. He brings the intellectual conversation whenever he talks.

[@lhuskey3733]

Who here in 2020

[@Eternalised]

Sam is one of my heroes. And so was Hitchens. And Dawkins.

[@mardishores4016]

You left out Aron Ra !

[@onenightinkyoto2633]

​@@mardishores4016aron ra has been extremely dishonest and unprofessional in many circumstances

[@kwena7]

Harris is an asset to human thought in this generation. Many like him exist all around our world, and may they flourish and touch more and more lives. There is hope for us if we are sheltered in the strong arms of science and reason.

[@freddykruger5937]

Sam is so easy to listen to, and very addicting on top of that. Very hard to find a stronger source of reasoning and logic.

[@matslundberg6965]

I must say I find Sam Harris very refreshing. We need to point out the religious beliefs going on in our society and world that is not beneficial for our overall sanity and well being. However to go somewhere with this we need to be careful not to "mock" but to meet". F.ex. we can all agree that life within itself is not possible to put a value on. We can all recognize it and appreciate it to the lever of sacredness or devaluing the whole or parts of it to nothing. I would love to hear more of that language so we can find a common, sane ground.

[@bobster451]

This was a great talk! Thanks for the effort to make it available to us who enjoyed listening to it!

[@jestermoon]

Take A Moment Your talk is so relevant today 2022 Stay Safe Stay Free 🌐

[@nadjiguemarful]

his moral landscape analogy, of the peaks and troths, and his insight that as you venture to a higher peak, you are leaving your own and will have to travers a troth, is absolutely beautiful

[@Acecool444]

Coming from an age old metaphor, *"traversing the hills and valleys of life's ups and downs"*. Adding a bit of eloquence to make it your own (paraphrasing) is still considered plagiarizing.

[@janbruns8350]

@@Acecool444 Are you saying that Sam has plagiarized, or perhaps is quoting?

[@JohnDopping]

@@Acecool444 No, it isn't considered plagiarism to borrow from authorless and unprotected adage to illustrate a much wider point. That would be ridiculous.

[@Acecool444]

​@@JohnDopping A fool that follows after a fool is more a fool than the fool he follows, easily drawn by shimmering spectacle, those words of pompous eloquence , where it's beauty is luring, yet dangerously deceptive, as a beautiful poisoned apple, truth for a lie, and stolen bread is sweet, as rats led by it's piper, all led to their doom, and awaiting to die.

[@Acecool444]

@@JohnDopping When you're using familiar proverbs, well-known quotations or common knowledge, I would agree. This is not the case. As evidenced by the original comment from *n guemar* i.e. "his moral landscape analogy, of the peaks and troths,....is absolutely beautiful." Again! Sam Harris is clearly misleading his audience by paraphrasing as if his own.

[@khalilurrahman1009]

Great! Thanks so much Sam Harris, for your explain on your book The Moral Landscape. :)

[@gracelanhbat5512]

Thank you for this 🙌🏻

[@mikeydanger67]

I find the fact that he even explored this concept genius.

[@rogueaire]

Sam's visual presentation is obviously a valuable part of this talk. Why did the camera person OCD on centering Sam at all times and never scan upward to show US the visual images?

[@drflaggstaff9008]

Copyright avoidance. A lot of these lectures/debates in colleges or other institutions sign over rights for the media pieces to the institution in the contract. Pretty common practice actually

[@ekaterinavalinakova2643]

Interesting talk.

[@Anticleric]

Great talk. Thanks CFI. Can't wait to read his book.

[@sueturner715]

I think I need to repeat this talk soak up this breathe of fresh air thank you Sam

[@Wittgensteinien]

This lecture is amazing. I'm appreciate that it was uploaded. He has blended a new science that trespasses that until this era had been the territory of philosophy. A science of beliefs and ethics, and by extension morality.

[@mkelly13207]

Does anyone know the questioner at 1:08:11? I like his question a lot

[@daddyleon]

+Michael Kelly It was the most important question.

[@marcomeme4875]

+Michael Kelly he didn't ask anything.

[@mkelly13207]

"But the assumption that the well being of sentient creatures is what morality is is itself an assumption"

[@marcomeme4875]

Michael Kelly That's a statement and not a question. It's more or less like saying ''but the idea that statistics is numbers and their relative size is still an assumption''.

[@daddyleon]

Riley Jones Yes, it's like a reverse rhetorical question... how do you not get that?

[@leewohlfert5462]

Belief is not about thought but about Experience.

[@ke7ma]

This is one of the best talks I have heard.

[@CPT_R4ND0M]

each time, a believer falls from faith, a fish is granted its legs ;)

[@deborahcassidy970]

sam harris is my god..i follow him like a religion along with dawkins dennett and sorely missed hitchens,, neil de grasse tyson also ..they speak the truth straight 2 the point and the sooner more ppl start 2 listen 2 them the better

[@MDChrest90]

That's a bad way to think. They all actively reject religion and find that it poisons everything, and in one statement you show that you are, at heart, a religiously enticed follower, who takes information from authoritative figures instead of rational thinking and discourse.

[@MDChrest90]

When religious people say, "Atheism is a religion just like Christianity," it is because of people like you, unfortunately.

[@deborahcassidy970]

mitchell i do follow them, but they are not dangerous people they dont believe in killing people for a GOD. or trying to dumb down and teach kids like creationists do to believe the nonsense that our earth is only few thousand years old the talking snake myth etc. Just because im not religous and i did actually used to believe and go to chapel. Doesnt make me a fanatic preaching about stuff that frankly in this day and age is pathetic. You obviously have faith and thats your choice i dont thats mine.

[@latzobear]

Mitchell Chrest no because these people speak of proven facts that she doesn't follow blindly. she is able to test if the things they assert are true or not. which isn't the case for the religious. we are all supposed to blindly believe even if it doens't make sense, because "god". and I think your taking the comment out of context; I don't thing she means god is a literal religious sense, as in paying tithe, praying for 5 times a day, or not having sex until after marriage

[@MDChrest90]

Much of Sam Harris' discussions are philosophical in nature, so no, they aren't testable. I understand what you are saying, I am an agnostic atheist as well, but just because it comes from a figure of authority to you doesn't mean it's inherently right. Dawkins amd Harris have widely different views on spiritualism, so to say you blindly follow any public figure from the enlightenment movement just because they espouse principles that seem to be intellectually honest is an irrational method of ascertaining truth

[@carlosmmora]

Excellent Discourse!!

[@andthereisntone1]

Tx for posting.

[@sirriffsalot4158]

God damn this guy is just too reasonable to be true sometimes... it almost frightens you how inclined you feel to agree with pretty much, if not everything, he says, huh?

[@thomasmills3934]

Man. It's now 2018 and I wish sam still had the balls to talk this bluntly about islam.

[@kevydoo9324]

Thomas Mills have you watched his talks with jordan peterson and douglas murray this year? he talks about the dangers of islam quite in depth in those talks.

[@bme7491]

Should be mandatory in all colleges to watch this talk.

[@tonio19]

Yes. But you are "Assuming" that most colleges want critically thinking students graduating and taking those skills out into the world. And that would be a serious mistake on your part. Higher learning simply means a greater level of indoctrination to the system for the most part.

[@bme7491]

@@tonio19 I can hope can't I?

[@parras65]

Fantastic speaker with great knowledge!!

[@jacquard2009]

science has the only thing to say about morality

[@Jinsun202]

It's interesting how part of the audience giggle like insecure middle school students when Harris said the Koran is "mediocre" and when he suggests Muhammad was a schizophrenic. I suspect the reinforcing aspect of ridicule induces these members of the audience to behave as thus. I agree with his analysis of Christianity, Islam and religion in general being irrational, contradictory and being just a reflection of a society's knowledge at the time of writing. I disagree with his apologetic stance on USA and Israel's aggression. He seems to rule it out absolutely, when it's quite clear it is the major antagonising factor.

[@stayniftyGuyFaceMannPersonDude]

Well, if you've read the Koran like I have, you would know just how mediocre it really is (very) & how schizophrenic Muhammad was (extremely). You would have one hell of a laugh just as i & the audience did. Ten paged kindergarten level books for 5 year old children have better moral opinions and coherent story lines, then the Koran. It really is like reading the diary entries of a violent, masochistic, misogynistic, retarded, schizo. Truly the biggest waste of time in my entire life other then gaining the wisdom to avoid "die-hard" Muslims. At many points of my read i was not only horrified,& mortified at what i was reading, but i was also disgusted, and felt that my intelligence was being insulted. TL;DR horrible book, would not recommend, I got a refund, strained my patience to finish reading this piece of excrement bound in leather.

[@LuraienLP]

staynifty Good response. While the "insecure middle school students" laugh, it's because what he's saying is laughable, not just because he's a charming guy.

[@UnionKid15]

thanks a lot for posting this, it's great.

[@Jexka007]

I love Sam! What a wonderful lecture!

[@marcomeme4875]

No, it isn't immoral to force a child to go to the dentist, because dentistry is important when it comes to your oral health. If your teeth are never checked, the child will be caused tremendous pain when they get hole in their teeth or the teeth rot away. I.E, it's pain, but it's not harm. Because harm has a completely different semantic meaning than pain. Pain is meerely a descriptive word of what we consider phyiscally unpleasant. Whereas harm is essentially synonomus with erosion of body.

[@drstrangelove09]

When Harris directs his admirable powers of analysis at other facets of Liberalism he will find that many other Liberal dogmas are very similar to what he has found about defending Islamicism. (I am in many ways a Liberal. I would say the same thing about Conservatism.)

[@drstrangelove09]

***** Well how about for starters much of this implicit anger at the rich is simply unfounded. IMHO, much of it is a vestige of passages in the Bible like "a rich man has less chance of entering Heaven then a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle."

[@drstrangelove09]

***** Why do you assume that all people who are rich have pushed others down? Why do you assume that everyone who is rich has exploited others?

[@drstrangelove09]

***** I did read what you said and made a reasonable inference based on what you said. Reread your post and you will see that you spoke of people who are rich as a group and made no distinction. If you meant that you are only bothered by rich people who push down other people and by rich people who exploit others then you should have specified. Yes, you did say that you are bothered by people who only provide for their immediate family and don't care about others but you did not specify whether this is all rich people or only a subset. Let me ask you this, how about simply being bothered by people who exploit others and push other people down? Why assume that there is some connection to being rich? Further, when you claim that the rich "control the government" you have again made a rather hyperbolic statement, have you not? This is exactly whet I see very often and what I am talking about generally.

[@drstrangelove09]

***** "I was making declarative statements..." ... NO, as I pointed out you had buried assumptions in what you said. Again, if you had simply said "it is bad to push people around and it is bad to exploit people" then that is one thing but you are linking these behaviors, that anyone can engage in, to some nebulous "rich people" set. Again, is it justified to use such a simplistic metric, namely whether a person is rich, to ascribe various negative qualities to the group? "in some cases, people exploit and push others down to get rich or richer" ... And you know what percentage of "rich people" engage in these behaviors? "it's large corporations, large and powerful interest groups, of which the most prevalent are economic interest groups, like oil companies, large banks, etc" ... here you are saying a very commonly held view. And your evidence for this is...? You feel like these groups are controlling the government? Do you have some actual examples where we are being injured by willful manipulation that is against the common persons interests? Where what is being done by the government is motivated by a underlying push to injure us and benefit the rich? "I think we have a *** up system" Are we talking now about the US? What system would you say would work better?

[@drstrangelove09]

***** 1. fine... I get that sort of reaction a lot, I'm getting used to it. 2. OK, so let that marinated a bit. 3. Well, I think that might bear on some of your thinking... 4. Read a book... that's what you're suggesting? There are all sorts of books written, making all sorts of claims, I'm not sure that that is much of an answer. "A better system... "... What is your opinion of Capitalism? I suspect that, from what you said, that, whether you know it or not, you are not a fan...?

[@RedLionGenetics]

Great upload

[@JayJayAbels]

A bit confusing a shortly after the beginning but it picked up and became VERY interesting later on. Thanx for the upload!

[@jonathanchang8990]

It's very different to say that moral attitudes are reducible to psychological states and that science might be able to one day look at psychological states to determine held beliefs than that the content of the moral beliefs have an objective basis which psychology proves. Sam Harris is making a fundamentally flawed semantic error. For example, someone could say "I like cheese", which is not a significantly meaningful proposition. Even if that a person liking cheese might be correlated with a psychological state which could be determined by science, that doesn't make the feeling of liking cheese an objective fact as much as it makes that a person likes cheese an objective fact. Likewise, that your psychology proves that you think cutting children's eyeballs out is wrong does not prove that cutting children's eyeballs out itself is wrong. Sam Harris' argument could be easily adapted to prove God by looking at people's psychologies, and it would be equally irrelevant.

[@vortexx76]

Your reasoning is absolutely correct Jonathan. Sam is constantly hit with questions regarding semantics in on way or another. However, you must consider that he may actually be right...And cutting children's eyeballs out just might be detrimental along a continuum of actions, regardless of semantic or philosophical inconsistencies... It's called thinking like Spoc from Star Trek. It's possible to have a hyper-logical thought process that could cloud common sense. But, regardless of one's arguments against Sam's reasoning, those same people would for the most part cringe and look away if they saw a culture ripping children's eyeballs out... So is it really wrong to do such a thing? The answer depends on your philosophical point of view. Sam's position is that Science should have a place in the discussion of well being. A place that trumps circular logic, philosophy and religion simultaneously...my 2 cents...I could be wrong ;)

[@jonathanchang8990]

vortexx76 There is importance in presenting rational arguments that are not explained away by common sense. Sam's behavior is dangerously close to religious fanaticism or the old fogeys who are convinced that it's "common sense" that homosexuality destroys society despite mounting evidence. It is one thing to say I THINK, subjectively, that cutting eyeballs out is wrong because it makes me weak in my stomach. This would have been entirely consistent with his premise that morality is reducible to psychological states. But it is entirely different to say that due to my psychological states, cutting eyeballs is OBJECTIVELY wrong and other people who disagree must be wrong also. We can call this the Divine Command argument in which Sam Harris becomes God. It is shameful conduct, considering Sam Harris has a BA in philosophy, to be presenting in vein of a philosophical argument while rejecting philosophy; it is factually incorrect. This is the furthest thing from science. For example, Newton concluded his Laws based upon experimentation, not a priori "common sense". Sam Harris' position has more to do with Intelligent Design than actual science. Whether you happen to agree with the outcome is a different story, but as long as logic is ignored, you might as well be playing the great roulette of ideals. You flipped a coin, chose black, and landed on Humanism. You got lucky. Tomorrow it might be terrorism. This is what happens when you let emotions make factual assertions for you. P.S. It is ironic that you say that Sam has a philosophical position that trumps philosophy. Your insertion of " circular logic" might have been comforting but you have not shown where logic is circular. If argument by faith, as Sam has done is not deemed religious, then I'm not really sure what that designation means. So while his argument trumps none of the above, it is at least related to one, so you are half right.

[@vortexx76]

Your comparisons are off and seem to have an emotional tone within themselves....which would be good because it indicates that you can temper your Spoc like logic. Sam is as far from an emotional decision maker as a human can be. So comparing him to the old fogeys is inherently incorrect. There is no emotion in his decision to call a spade a spade. Unlike, the "old fogeys" ideas about homosexuality...You're comparing Apples and Oranges The decision is based on Data like being blind for the rest of your life. Compare that Data to people who didn't get their eyeballs ripped out. Show me an instance where the "old fogeys" ideas about homosexuality had some sort of science behind them and I will stand corrected.. You would not question whether smoking cigarettes is bad for health because of the Data. Yet people still do of course. But, since we're making comparisons, asking "who are we to say that smoking is bad for health?". Is exactly like asking " who are we to say that plucking kids eyeballs out is bad?" The notion that people will even ask such a question in the face of raw data about smoking is ignorant. Thus, ignoring the data. Sam is trying to get people to understand that if you allow Science into the exclusive realm of morality and well being you will gather DATA. And with that Data you can make decisions that would be better than what philosophy, religion, semantic differences, culture or tribal bias can produce. ...By far. P.S. : The assertion is that Science trumps philosophy, not that Philosophy trumps Philosophy..That is why philosophy has no place in Medicine. Putting words in peoples mouths to satisfy your argument doesn't help the flow of ideas...

[@changdynasty2000]

vortexx76 Science is consistent with philosophy. You are making the logical mistake of equating "bad" for your health with morally "bad" which is to mean what one ought not to do in its own end. That one should not smoke in order to improve his health is entirely different than prescribing overridingly that he should not smoke at all. Sam Harris will understand that this is conflating the hypothetical with categorical imperative. Science can tell us what's good for our health when "good" is defined as adherence to some goal within a closed system. Science cannot tell us what's morally "good". This is a semantic error. Secondly, Sam Harris' argument that morality is completely reducible to psychological states leads to one of two implications: morality is emotional or logical. Since his and your "logic" is that it's common sense, which is a fallacy, that leaves us with bad logic or emotion. I gave Sam Harris the benefit of the doubt that he isn't just plain ignorant, but perhaps I should not have extended that courtesy? Your speculation of whether I am being emotional is frankly irrelevant. I stand by my comparisons. The act of dismissing logic based on the faith of common sense puts you precisely in the same square as the fundamentalist Christian from the documentary I saw a while back who asked stupendously, "How can it be that atheists say God doesn't exist? How can something come from nothing? It's common sense."

[@jonathanchang8990]

^ That was me by the way. Stupid Google apps wouldn't update. In any case, I think it's quite ironic, maybe absurd, that one of the proclaimed Four Horsemen of New Atheist "freethinkers" would pull all this new age tripe (contriving science and religion to support ungrounded theories) to attract the uninclined--to say that logic is dispensable while promoting freethought is like asking God for advice on how to dismiss God. Truly a wolf in sheep's clothing. Perhaps the Christian claim is right at least in one instance, that some atheists dismiss God out of disobedience. I feel pathetic to have to admit this argument, but on the other hand it just goes to show that atheism comes in all stripes. P.S. To ask of a counter example, show me one scientific study which demonstrates evidence that one's own good health is morally binding. Secondly, your post says "It depends on your philosophical position...", so you are talking about philosophical positions which trumps philosophy. Accusing me of putting words in your mouth is silly when it's there in plain succession. I won't say any more. My hope is that one of those new atheists who have just shaken off religion and lost its tail wouldn't settle back into the religious thinking, but without God. I hope I've convinced any anonymous internet browsers the importance of logic in rational thought.

[@IanDateMusic]

this is an excellent talk.

[@83javasea]

I am really looking forward to the debate between Dr Harris and Craig.

[@PoetlaureateNFDL]

Sam, very fascinating talk.

[@leosnaps1]

I am so glad there are people like Harris,Dawkins and Hitchens to provide some sanity to the world!

[@SCAREDBANANA]

He´s one of the best talkers I have seen.

[@hedonism13]

Just started reading the moral landscape.

[@vascoamaralgrilo]

Thanks!

[@trtnec]

@ChristopherConnors The key point is that if a goat is ALWAYS chosen to be shown in door 2, this does not affect your door's chances, so the 2 out of 3 times that your chosen door 1 is a goat, door 3 will 100% be the car, therefore 2/3 of the time door 3 will be the car. If a goat is RANDOMLY (meaning the door could've shown a goat OR the car)shown in door 2, it makes no difference to switch because both doors' chances were increased by this information.

[@skyblazer7]

Sam Harris is excellent at pulling apart and examining the moral problems that face our species. I hope as he does that we are able to, as a species, resolve them to find common good and well being for all.

[@PianoKeyzOfficial]

@WILLTHEWGMAN What other mechanism is there in life to determine something?

[@DaylightDigital]

Sam is one of my favorites of the New Atheists. Not only is he incredibly articulate, but he has his own message to share with the world and I for one think it is both an important and accurate method. The End of Faith is an important work, but The Moral Landscape is a true paradigm shift in thinking.

[@gibsos00]

Exceptional talk.

[@Stead3111]

i am going to this tonight.

[@drstrangelove09]

Brilliant!

[@GaoShengGo]

Nice example on the difference between hope and belief

[@susanhopemason]

I haven't gotten all the way through this video yet, but so far, I totally agree with what he is saying about values.

[@JimMcCray]

WOW! I am only about ten minutes in, and I can say with some confidence that this is one of Sam's best speeches ever. I've heard this material of his at least thirty times in the past, but in spite of that I'm hearing and loving it because his delivery speed and tone of voice are so laid back and clear! A very good job was done here. Giant thanks go out to Sam, the CFI, and everybody who contributed to the production and distribution of this =)

[@hurghuda]

Sam harris is a great speaker, could listen to this for hours

[@slyjokerg]

I fully got every single analogy. I have great confidence that I have a far deeper understanding of Harris and his argument here. I have read every one of his books and have listened to dozens of his talks. I am NOT addressing something outside the realm of the talk. He is implying, to put it mildly, that morality can be factually determined. It can't. By it's very nature morality is subjective. You have to make at least one presupposition in order for his contentions to hold water.

[@motorhead48067]

You say you fully understood every analogy, but I’m not so sure. Is physics by its very nature subjective? There’s no difference between good physics and bad physics because you must presuppose that physics is about understanding the physical world and that understanding the physical world is a worthwhile effort? All this makes physics subjective? What I’m not sure you understood is that the epistemological underpinnings of the Harris’ objective morality are actually more firmly grounded than those of physics. The presupposition that you have to take on board to get an objective morality is deeper than the presuppositions you have to take on board to validate any other objective science there is.

[@slyjokerg]

​@@motorhead48067 ---> POSTED: **You say you fully understood every analogy, but I’m not so sure.** You have no basis to be unsure. You are simply trying to disparage and dismiss what I said. **Is physics by its very nature subjective?** Nope. Physics is not an opinion. It is empirical. It is testable. It is factual. It isn't someone's preference. You are offering a false analogy. The realities of physics not being acknowledged is nothing like someone disagreeing about the best flavor of ice cream. **There’s no difference between good physics and bad physics because you must presuppose that physics is about understanding the physical world and that understanding the physical world is a worthwhile effort?** Physics is physics. There is no good or bad to it. A water molecule is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. That is a fact, not an opinion. You might say that it is good/bad that a water molecule is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. That would be an opinion. That is subject. The fact that it IS two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen is objectively true. **All this makes physics subjective?** Nope. Physics is objective. It is empirical. It is factually based. Again, the distinction here is that water IS objectively two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Thinking it is good or bad that that is the case is what is subjective. **What I’m not sure you understood is that the epistemological underpinnings of the Harris’ objective morality are actually more firmly grounded than those of physics.** That is nonsense that you just made up. There are NO underpinnings for objective morality, since morality is fundamentally subjective. Morality is, essentially, about what is good/bad. And something being good/bad is an opinion. The entire endeavor which you and Harris are exploring is flawed in it's very nature. You desperately want your version of morality to be objectively true/correct. It simply isn't. Whatever your view of good/bad is, anyone can disagree with it, just as they can disagree on what the best kind of ice cream is. Both are opinions. They are subjective views. The makeup of a water molecule is not an opinion. It is objective. **The presupposition that you have to take on board to get an objective morality is deeper than the presuppositions you have to take on board to validate any other objective science there is.** Again.. false analogy. There IS indeed a huge presupposition involved in asserting that morality is objective, and there are sub-presuppositions involved in that dragon hunt. What you are calling presuppositions involving science are about our ability to properly verify facts. The presuppositions involved with claims about objective morality are assuming what is good or bad, not about empirical, testable facts. Good/bad is an opinion. There were people in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s who thought that killing jewish people was "good." It was their opinion, not a fact. It being bad is also an opinion, not a fact. Something being good/bad is an opinion. That does NOT mean that each opinion has equal intellectual merit, but ultimately, each IS an opinion. For it to be objectively good or bad, you would have to be able to prove it with objective facts that don't also require presuppositions, such as, "Well harming people IS bad, so killing jews was bad." I would agree that the holocaust was an absolute horror, but that is me having a shared opinion, not stating an objective fact, that harming people is bad. Harm might be considered good in some situations, which would be an opinion, whatever the particular harm is, and what even constitutes harm can be debated. It is a string of presuppositions based on other presuppositions. That isn't objectivity. It is contingent. There are lots of things about which we would likely agree regarding what is good/bad, moral/immoral, for all practical purposes... such as throwing acid in the faces of girls who dare to try to learn to read... but ULTIMATELY, those are opinions, not objective facts. Morality is fundamentally opinion. Also, you don't demonstrate that morality is objective by contending that accepting science requires a presupposition. That is just a version of the "Johnny did it too" fallacy. All you would accomplish, even if that was a legitimate argument, is show that science is not objective. It wouldn't demonstrate that morality is.

[@erik-forsstrom]

Extremely interesting. Gonna have to wrap my mind around some of the claims though.

[@JDawgspalace]

1) Progress of medicine is not hindered by the fact that "health" is not carefully defined. So it should be with "well-being" and a science of morality 2) If something does not affect conscious creatures in any way (actually or potentially), then it is not worth caring about 3) We recoil at the thought of such acts, and we'd have a clear conscience if we didn't do them. These are felt experiences that must be accounted for - there'd almost certainly be a better way of increasing wellbeing.

[@JDillaDudas]

Sam Harris is one of, if not the most important thinkers in the US. I am eagerly anticipating his next book...

[@hmfr34k]

@Braenar Though it is not obvious at first, the probability in fact is 2 in 3, check out wikipedia for the Monty Hall problem. The key to understanding this is that after your initial choice it has already been determined whether the prize is under the cup you chose. And since all the other options are removed when cup C is turned over, you are in effect offered a choice between one cup and all the other cups (2 in this case). This becomes more obvious if you imagine that there are, say 100 cups

[@ChristopherConnors]

@trtnec Thanks a lot for explaining, that really helped :)

[@BradPitbull]

Johnny Mexica Fashion loves Sam Harris!!!

[@instereovideos]

@lyntonio No, in the Monte Hall problem, Monte isn't obligated to tell you right away if you picked the right door originally. But Monte will reveal at least one place the prize isn't. When you began, you had a 33.3% chance of choosing correctly. The chance was therefore 66.7% that the prize was behind one of the other two doors. The trick is realizing that even when Monte opens one of those other doors, that the chance is still 66% that you didn't choose right to begin with.

[@instereovideos]

(cont. from below) People often assume that because the outcomes are the same that it's essentially the same dilemma. But it isn't, because in scenario 1, you are making the choice for the train (kill many or kill one). In scenario 2, you are making the choice for another person (die or don't). This is why the only way to make a choice that is objectively moral is to discover one that doesn't involve making that choice for someone else (continued above).

[@slyjokerg]

Saying that "there is an answer" implies the very conclusion that is rejected, that is, that it can be factually determined. It can be concluded as a matter of consensus, but that it no way makes it factually good or bad. "it depends on the purpose"... YES IT DOES!!!!! THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!!! I think we just had a breakthrough. If you presuppose that that the PURPOSE should be a justification, then you can conclude that it is factually correct. BUT THAT PRESUPPOSES THE PURPOSE.

[@stanleycates1972]

Jacob Bronowski left the strict science of mathematics to enter the study of humanities. He delivered 3 lectures at MIT that were later turned into a book "Science and Human Values" The 3 lectures were 1. the creative mind 2. the habit of truth 3. the sense of human dignity. Once past the hunter gatherer stage and it's many gods, man had time to become what man is, a thinker. JB wrote that the development of poetry and art in a creative sense were just as important as the science that followed in finding a likeness in nature. His thesis was that the true nature of science comes about because of civilized educated thinking man's human values. This man understands the value of churches in community good and bonding, but remains perplexed at the juvenile mythology's that hold it together. Science could not exist without human values, human values will not remain without science that has given us everything good we have, fighting ignorance, superstition and religion every step of the way.

[@bastastop2010]

Great lecture! Religions have been dominating the world since the existence of humanity. I hope the rational criticism will raise and all preacher will be like Sam Harris. Did not read the book yet! Now I am sure I will buy one

[@EasternOrthodoxApologetics]

...and not 1 and 2. In that case the probability of both cup 1 and 2 will remain 1/10, whilst that of cups 3-10 will increase with each cup being removed and stated as not containing the ball. IN CONCLUSION the probability is only increased amongst the section of cups which are INCLUDED in the elimnination process, NOT the fixed ones...

[@josefvickers]

It's about probability. When you have 3 doors and you choose door 1, your odds of getting the car are 1 in 3. When one goat is revealed behind door 2, your odds of getting the car are 50/50 but only if you change your choice to door 3. Remember you didn’t know the goat was behind door 2 when you chose door 1. As Harris says, it’s easier to see when more doors are added to the problem. If I have misunderstood please let me know!

[@hodge815]

I always thought for the monty hall problem that at first you have a 1/3 chance and then once one of the wrong doors is removed that it’s a 1/2 chance. is this wrong?

[@SquiggleBibble]

We agreed earlier that "good" and "bad" are meaningless without sentient beings. Thus there could never BE any other possible scale by which to measure "good" and "bad" except one based on the well-being of the conscious creatures. It'd be like trying to find the square root of a word instead of a number - dealing in the wrong paradigm. Thus something which is "universally bad to sentient beings", like suffering, is no longer subjective, but a "well-being factor" which must be taken into account

[@tylthomas]

I love Sam Harris.

[@TheLordSod]

He's doing a very good thing, something which i wish i was doing- spreading logic.

[@thejones397]

Great attack on what I consider to be the last claim of monopoly of religion. Readin the great book: Moral Landscape. Thoroughly enjoying listening to Sam talk about these ideas in a lecture format. Occasionally, such as when a friend of a friend hosts us for dinner, I meet people of religion, who distinguish themselves from those who "pervert their holy scriptures" etc. I'd be interested to know how other atheists handle these situations - especially with muslims - where politeness is key. Thx

[@dcx1287]

I should say whether the multiverse hypothesis is ultimately supported by evidence or not shouldn't even be considered fortunate or unfortunate. It is what it is. Getting our biases out of the way and trying to understand the world honestly in a way that puts us in the position of believing as many true things and as few false things as possible represents the foundation of the scientific method.

[@slyjokerg]

Stating victory over and over again doesn't nothing to demonstrate you are right.

[@hmfr34k]

@Braenar Actually it's a 2 in 3 chance of success on the switch, since the only way to loose by switching is to have chosen correctly initially.

[@tiberiius]

does anyone know where to find the verses that go with the bible contradiction diagram?

[@sambutler9927]

Morality as I understand it deals mostly with how we treat one another, which is a very serious issue. Sam Harris' view of morality is the only one which even gives us an opportunity to have a discussion about right and wrong based on an axiom which is tangible to any faith, or lack thereof. I can't read his mid, but I don't think he's trying to argue for a universal set of moral laws for big brother to enforce; rather a step in the direction of having a diverse conversation about them.

[@qaplatlhinganmaH]

Molleen Matsumura: In my view, humanism relies on reason and compassion. Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other people.

[@slyjokerg]

My intent wasn't to say that you and Sam believe all forms of harm are inherently bad. I merely used that notion to demonstrate that SINCE all forms aren't construed as bad BY YOU, something BEING bad in that area is in it's very nature a matter of opinion. "For no good reason" is completely subjective. That's the point.

[@qaplatlhinganmaH]

Many people are confused about what is means to speak with scientific "objectivity" about the human condition. There are two very different senses of the terms "objective" and "subjective". The first relates to how we know (i.e. epistemology),the second to what there is to know (i.e. ontology)

[@anadini]

I don't get the 'Monty Hall' exp. If I choose door No.1 and that's where the car is, why would I be right to change my mind? If I change to door No.3 and it's another goat, I'll have been pretty stupid - can anyone explain?

[@ZarlanTheGreen]

I have never understood how or why you would consider morals and ethics to be separate from logic and reason. I have always, for as long as I can remember, considered morals and ethics to have a clear base in logic and reason. I have never, ever, heard or seen anything or of anything, that would contradict this, but a lot to confirm it. Why has it taken so long for people to realise this thing, that I have known to be an obvious fact since I was a minuscule child? It's so obvious!

[@TheConciseStatement]

@kiddhitta Too right. What Dan Dennett homes in on as 'Belief in Belief'. Even if they're honest with themselves that at some level they know they don't really believe, they're still convinced faith and belief are inherently good values.

[@Vlasko60]

I was having nostalgic thoughts about Sam Harris, so here I am.

[@samuelphillippi]

I don't agree 100% with every point and reason with your idea, however I accept that these ideas have yet to be fully explored in total depth and honestly think you are the closest to actually understanding this.

[@drchaffee]

I like his analogy with health - if we agree that smallpox is bad, it doesn't matter if it is "actually bad" in a philosophical sense; and it doesn't matter if everyone agrees on the ultimate definition of "health". The vast majority participate in the cause via economics, politics, and science - and it gets resolved. That, along with thousands of other pursuits, get swept into that messy tent within science known as the health sciences. It did so without the dippy landscape metaphor.

[@alastairzotos]

I wasn't convinced when I started watching, because I'm sceptical about objective morality. But when he talked about genocide neglect and the problem of giving money to two kids is harder than to one, and stating that we need to be protected ourselves from such problematic moral judgements, I felt he made a good point. Now just to try and figure out what objective morality is, which philosophers have been trying to do for centuries. Then convince the bad guys, which won't be easy.

[@dtstrain]

If someone isn't getting their values from faith, then there simply *is* no other source for values other than the second option - through observations of our natural universe (including ourselves). And that is what science is all about. Those are really the only two games in town.

[@RandCliffLangley]

The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

[@audience2]

@jamesharrel I think the woman he's talking about at the 7:46 is Nita A. Farahany. They both spoke at a Salk Institute conference in Dec 2008, she was recently appointed to the The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, and she has a B.A. in genetics and a Ph. D. in Philosophy of Biology and Jurisprudence.

[@SquiggleBibble]

Think of it like this: When we label an object as "nutritious", what we are describing is a relationship between the object and we humans. We would be flabberghasted if there were a sudden backlash to this - "How DARE you label this as nutritious? You're not describing anything about objective reality, only about how humans think about the object!" Likewise, "good" would merely describe something's properties when taking our needs into the equation, yet would still be based on objective reality.

[@poetreesun]

when you choose initially the chance of choosing a goat is 2/3. if you choose a goat initially the other goat is revealed and you will have chosen the car if you switch. you have a 1/3 chance of choosing the car initially. if you change after having chosen the car initially you will lose. therefore if you always change doors you will have a 2/3 chance of selecting the car compared to a 1/3 chance if you never change

[@VlaDiDaDiY]

@johnhowley22 I'm probably late but they are debating on April 7. I'm looking forward to it. I would also like to see him debate Daniel Dennett as well.

[@ejex2xx]

Its not every day you randomly stumble upon a video on You Tube with this much intellectually stimulating content..