Science can answer moral questions - Sam Harris

[@OriginalPuro]

Morality is to do what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion is to do what you are told regardless of what is right.

[@unhomesenzill4366]

So religion = legal system :D

[@eduardo42897]

And what does religion tell us to do that isnt right?

[@eduardo42897]

@@unhomesenzill4366 I'm asking you.

[@ihx7]

@@eduardo42897 well like a lot of stuff like killing gays...

[@MrPianoJames]

String theory - "It doesn't resonate with me." Well played, sir.

[@JackSparrow-ii5gt]

badum dum tshh

[@pax630]

The fact this doesn't have more than a million views in 9 years makes me question everything about humanity and if we're fit to survive.

[@stevenru4516]

Because it’s is self-refuting?

[@doctorliman]

A core idea behind science is to never have absolute certainties; to always welcome emergent ideas that can further expand knowledge. There is no bias; there is no desire to cling to traditional explanation. This is a core tenet of science that can also be found in certain Eastern religions and forms of philosophy. The recognition of the limits of the human mind; the inability to ever be certain. It is an important concept to confront as a human being, I think.

[@loveisinportant5570]

I love how many people in this comment section seem to believe they're smarter (especially on this topic) than Sam Harris whilst failing to use basic English sentence structure.

[@mofuker199]

@j s k uhuh

[@BrotherGothel]

People actually think this is a good take? He essentially used extreme examples to make things seems logical while ignoring the much more nuanced middle grounds (e.g. comparing the Dali Lama and Ted Bundy, but not explaining how his theory would affect the much more common person at some point between those two extremes). He then suggested multiple times "I think we can all agree that *insert example* is not a good thing". However, he acknowledges that other people disagree with that point, basically saying that those people must be wrong. And then his final point seemed to lean a little towards the totalitarian... saying that eventually the world won't really have borders, and at that point we just won't let people do those things that we think are bad. Am I missing something? Maybe I need a more in depth explanation but none of that was convincing and he provided no proof or explanation as to why things were the way he felt they were, just that they are.

[@martinbennett2228]

Sam Harris is making a parallel with material realism as in science. Science has to make value judgements at every turn (whether this explanation is better than that, what to study, what to publish etc.). Science struggles to construct its description of realty, but there is always the underlying assumption that there is a reality to try to understand. Sam Harris makes the case that similar assumptions can apply to ethics and that this can also be a subject for scientific investigation. The use of extreme examples is to make it clear that whilst some questions might be finely balanced and not practically resolvable, there are others that are as obvious as whether it is OK to drink cholera contaminated water. His argument is largely utilitarian but allied with neuroscience. There are some underlying assumptions such as that it is better to live than to be dead for example. He would acknowledge that although an answer is theoretically available for whether you should give your daughter a chocolate cake, and you might be in disagreement with your wife on this, very question it is impractical and futile to try to find out what the answer would be. But on whether it is OK to sell your daughter into prostitution, the factors at stake will make the answer obvious. More than this he is also saying that where the answers are obvious, there is every reason not to be afraid to say so.

[@serialcomplexity]

sometimes logic can be destorted by personal ambition, however over time peer review and constant search for scientific truth tends to reveal these mistakes in the system. Unfortunately, these flaws are inevitable and sometimes can wreak havoc in societies, especially when misconstrued or missinterpreted for what these scientific princples are revealed to be. Human character is the one constant variable that alignes against or sometimes for the advancement of realistic knowledge.

[@gregertel1983]

Sam Harris for President!!! We need to start making decisions based on logic and reason not emotion and myth

[@jadbaghdadi998]

Wow. please explain how you associated logic with science. Tell me, how does science explain logic?

[@jadbaghdadi998]

Scott Laux Science requires logic in order for it to work. We use logic in our reasoning. I don't think a scientific test could be used to prove that our logic is sound.

[@slammusaran]

"I'm the Ted Bundy of String Theory." This guy is great.

[@kakasuke2]

I'm reading Mere Christianity right now in a Christian apologetics class, and Lewis' whole argument for the existence of God is based on human morals. If morals can be derived using science, however, Lewis' argument basically falls apart. I'm really interested in seeing how my teacher would respond to this video and the points that Harris brings up. This video was really interesting, especially because it is forcing me to look at my beliefs, criticize them, and build them back up again.

[@Homo_sAPEien]

If you look up “good,” it says “to be desired or approved of.” Well, first off, what does it mean by “to be”? “Going to be”? “Ought to be”? Or, by “to be” does it just mean “is”? Then, why include the “to be,” rather than just saying “desired or approved of”? Furthermore, when it says “approved of,” what does it mean by that? Given a thumbs up? Approved for what? And, as for “desired,” what does that mean? “Strongly wished or intended”? Intention meaning plan? Well, most people would agree that planning for something doesn’t mean that you desire it. For example, it’s forecasted to rain tomorrow but, that doesn’t mean that I want it to rain. And, as for “wish,” what is a wish? “A desire or hope for something to happen”? What is a hope? “A feeling of expectation and desire”? But, most people would agree that expecting something doesn’t mean you hope for it. So, in conclusion, “good” is an ambiguous word. At least, under the first definition given on google search.

[@TomasMikaX]

Promotion of happiness and lessening of suffering is by definition good. The "worst possible misery for everyone scenario" illustrates that nicely. If bad is to have any meaning at all, surely it applies to the worst possible misery for everyone scenario. Good would then by default be anything that avoids such a scenario. Morality deals with which actions are good and which are bad. It does follow that the goal morality is to promote happiness and to diminish suffering.

[@UsernameGoomba]

I kept thinking to myself throughout this entire talk, that the title should have been "Can Positive Psychology (or neuroscience) determine moral values?". No it can't. It can only tell you how to increase someone's well-being. It's also interesting he views that the "Care/harm" module is the most important while ignoring the other five : "Fairness/cheating","Liberty/oppression","Loyalty/betrayal","Authority/subversion", "Sanctity/degradation". I mean the decline in violence can be answered...

[@thesecretathies]

this really made me think higher of ben stiller

[@Firuzeh]

😁

[@kallistiX1]

Well-being is the ultimate goal, I've been clear on that, but that doesn't make the means by which it is achieved irrelevant. The path must be chosen carefully, with awareness and knowledge of what we are doing and the effects it may have. There is no dichotomy, only the conscious effort to maximize the goal with the least amount of harm possible.

[@kenkeller6072]

Harris was trying to offer some ways of quantifying an ethic. That suffering and flourishing are part of a continuum of possible states of humanity, and that choices which trend more towards flourishing and less towards suffering is a very good place to start when talking about ethical choices. This seems pretty straightforward, not as some dogmatic unbreakable law of the universe, but rather as a guideline and a POTENTIAL way of scientifically approaching moral questions. Perfectly reasonable.

[@CandidateKev]

Somebody give this man an award.

[@WorldCollections]

Well deserved standing ovation. Thank you Ted for exposing minds like these.

[@fredarroyo7429]

Bunch of Godless commenters here

[@utobtest6711]

​@@fredarroyo7429haha

[@odysseusofithaca1620]

My man starts out with denying the is-ought gap, What a legend

[@laxmisubedi7450]

Yeah he says its just a language game

[@53095westbend]

Another issue with this line of thinking is the presumption that morality is found in moderation, as was stated in the example of clothing extremes. Good is the absence of bad or evil. The problem is that humans have a tendency to make decisions that are selfish, vengeful, prideful or corrupt. God is man's only hope in the battle of good versus evil.

[@Skeluz]

One of the best talks ever, even though it's a re-upload.

[@hvbris_]

He deserved every bit of that standing ovation

[@farqueueman]

lol

[@TempestTossedWaters]

You could argue you can believe in science. Belief is just the psychological state of holding something as true. Any scientific statement that you think is true, you believe it. Belief isn't itself a bad thing. Beliefs based on bad evidence and bad reasoning are.

[@kallistiX1]

4/6. He addresses the value of an objective morality all through out this talk. When talking about the spectrum of human well-being, when talks about various notions of morality, how an open ended definition doesn't diminish of human well being. 5/7. I did answer why human well-being is important. As for the rest: this interpretation is more balanced and adaptable, good is what promotes most human well being and the least harm, bad is the opposite and that serves no logical purpose.

[@Siledas]

19:30 "...male lust is not to be trusted" If it's really that bad, why don't all Muslim men just wear blindfolds?

[@sashakid]

FINALLY someone talking truth and fact THANK YOU !

[@Homo_sAPEien]

If it really did, then he wouldn’t need to make an argument for how it can. It would just be a fact that it does.

[@Anytus2007]

If the question is what we ought to do, practically, then i think you're right that solipsism and questioning induction doesn't get us anywhere. Testing/induction is the best method we have. But Harris is making a fundamental claim about ethics. He is not (imo) saying science is the best thing we can do, but that science can tell us the truth about ethics. That claim I deny. If you want to say, "we might as well use science because we can't do better," then I think thats more defensible.

[@3002321542]

Yup, thank you for the conversation. It really made me think.

[@Acquavallo]

Sam Harris knows what he's talking about. It's refreshing to hear some logic in morality.

[@fredarroyo7429]

Not really morality. Just redefining morality

[@Haikuhiaku]

That someone has words for these thoughts is restoring some of my faith in humanity.

[@mrbunjo123]

I see the difference between scientific difference of opinion is that when talking about morality it is far harder (and could be seen as impossible currently) to say what suffering is "needless"

[@Sprinic1501]

16:00 im liking where hes going

[@kimmarshall3913]

Morality is mankind creation for surviving and continuity of existence, it gets better with time, Evolution of Morals ✨💕

[@chrischanmagachu9958]

yes! However the moral cowards in academia use its man made nature to declare that it is arbitrary when it is anything but. This truth ultimately means that all cultures are far from equal, an unacceptable conclusion for sociologists, anthropologists etc

[@almostafa4725]

Absolute nonsense

[@sigmaupsilon3768]

yees

[@Lihaschu]

well i can agree with that but as i stated in another comment, i find it rater pointles to answer the question as to whether science can help us without looking at what kind of principles science would give us. i understand that philosophy sometimes doen't need to make a solid point but in my opinion, that's what we should aim for in ethics.

[@3002321542]

Taking your question to the extreme, You are essentially asking me whether I would create a world where everybody lives physically healthy and prosperous lives but take away their free will in the process. I would not sacrifice free will for safety. Given Freedom and Health are equally objective (Free Will = Health). Mathematically Free Will > Health - Pain. or Free Will + pleasure > Health.

[@CelestialQuestTV]

"...Limitless WITHIN IT'S SCOPE.." I perfectly agree then. :)

[@lucasjarrett6139]

Science can help* answer moral questions. Fixed that for him.

[@Homo_sAPEien]

What proof is there that human well-being should be attended to? And, if human well-being is, by definition, good, then why is it important to use the word “good,” as opposed to just using the word “well-being”? Or, more specifically “health”(which includes mental health). So, wouldn’t “healthy” and “unhealthy” be a more unambiguous words for taking about what you are trying to communicate when you say “good,” or “bad,”? Why the need to hold onto vague moral language? And, the reason why I try to attend to my health and others health, despite not thinking that I should, is that I don’t think that I shouldn’t, and my instincts tell me to.

[@TempestTossedWaters]

2) Pain and pleasure aren't responsible for what constitutes right or wrong. The notion of responsibility doesn't make sense in a context which doesn't involve choices of conscious agents, responsibility relates to choices. The actual claim is that human well-being is what determines right and wrong, that's the definitional starting point. If you accept that's what morality is then it logically follows that science does have things to say about how to reach that.

[@mindypark1825]

How and why is it so difficult to admit there is such thing as Balance And Healthy morality Just like Health of a body? Why do we believe we need to swing two extremes of morality like good and bad

[@punkfluff64]

That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying moral questions can be reduced to whether something promotes "flourishing" of a human brain and by extension life experience, or is detrimental to it. What the things are that cause these effects is up for debate, but there are parameters with which to measure this. Notice how in the landscape image there were peaks and troughs of varying depths too. Presumably these ideas exist on a sliding scale but arguably balance requires the acknowledgement of two extremes in order to be achieved, otherwise what exactly are you balancing?

[@echo5354]

Well, a great speech, yes, but saying that everyone should have the same standard on morality is rather intuitive, and not something new or special. He obviously didn't talk ethics in a philosophical or metaphysical way. Despite he says there got to be truth in morality, there are many dilemmas that still hold many different truths and moral values. Even metaethics doesn't have a conscientious, the debate between moral realism and moral anti-realism is still a problem, then how could morality suddenly have a general truth. All ethical theories can be criticized in the same cultural context or even by its own rules, no matter it is consequentialism, cultural relativism, virtue theory, or any other..... A logical complete ethical system is impossible. His claim sounds like an elitism view about morality. And by the way, he said that analogy on chess is just can't stand. Chess has a rule, but the rule is not the single truth, there are Chinese Chess, Japanese Chess, and many other kinds of chess that have different rules. Plus, he said rules can be used differently in different situations... I mean... himself just proved moral relativism... Also having the mind that believes there is a moral truth that everyone ought to obey is more dangerous, it will create a society without cultural tolerance. Moreover, science can't explain many things, even music can't be explained. No matter how much brain scan you did, you cannot find a musical truth... Look at how different Japanese traditional music is different than Western American folk sons, you cannot say there is a truth that tells u which is more beautiful. This guy confused the nature of facts and opinions. Facts do not need to be valued, its not on the human scale, but independent things that have been proven true. While morality can be valued by humans, which is what he is doing in the talk, he is evaluating what is better for mankind, this is clearly an opinion. Therefore morality is an opinion rather than fact.

[@OwenEWYoungs]

This seemed to me to be much more focused on moral objectivity vs moral relativism than it has anything much to do with scientifically reinforced values, tho I see the connection.

[@kallistiX1]

1. Any argument not based on reason is inherently weak and would be no trouble to deal with. 4/6. I think you will find that many people have argued exactly that point and done so very well. Furthermore, there are, in fact, a plethora of justifications beyond human happiness. 5/7 The standard comes from the most common denominator in morality, as Harris points out at the very beginning of this talk.

[@Cylon39]

I'm glad you don't think religion should be condemned. I myself also do not hate Science. In fact, despite appearances on this forum, I actually love science and do not reject it. I think it is a wonderful thing. I only disagree with a few conclusions. Science in general is awesome!

[@infinit888]

"however, they cannot quantify the amount of "wrong" or "evil" of suffering itself." I think Harris might argue that under his proposed system suffering ∝ wrong/evil.

[@asterlaevis]

What he's advocating is known in this field called "philosophy" as "Utilitarianism." Hardly science, I'm afraid, though it's a lovely change to hear someone advocating some kind of moral objectivity.

[@3002321542]

An analogy I can give you is that of a computer program. Given inputs x and y in a computer, the output is z based on the mathematical function which the program uses. If the output is w, this can only mean that the inputs were not strictly x and y. The future being dissimilar to the past does not mean that the math is wrong, it only means that the inputs are different.

[@Weirdman920]

Sam Harris isn't a charlatan he is a genius on every level. He is trying to show us that science through things like, biology and neurology, is determining certain things that are objectively good and bad for us. Regardless of what tradition says. How is that 'phoney baloney'.

[@raviept]

The difference between uncertainty and faith is much more than splitting hairs. You accept something because it is very likely to be true, and in practice it happens to be true with very high frequency. This is the principle underlying all technology. It is true because it works in practice, although it may fail in some very rare scenarios. With faith, you just don't care whether what you believe is plausible in practice.

[@Cylon39]

You know what? I think we agree. For the most part. I would modify it slightly to say that you wouldn't blame it on philosophy, but to blame it on man for being Foolish enough to think Science could ever make moral determinations. Morals deals with distinctions between right and wrong, something that is rather subjective making philosophical conclusions inevitable.

[@Cylon39]

That makes as much sense as saying reason should be abandoned because it has no grounds in religion.

[@TempestTossedWaters]

One could also argue that addiction mimics the body's normal functioning, not that the body mimics addiction.

[@TomasMikaX]

"Demonstrate that happiness/increased well-being is objectively better than suffering" - Individuals prefer happiness to suffering. That is a provable objective fact. It should therefore be the goal of morality to promote happiness and to diminish suffering.

[@karlmontague]

Endorphins are addictive painkillers similar to heroin. When we have a flu, our body stops producing them, so we experience exactly the same symptoms as a heroin addict - who has been replacing his endorphins with a similar chemical until he stops producing his own - which is, of course, pain. Flu viruses don't cause us joint pain, it's the addiction withdrawals.

[@blarrrging]

A daring talk, for sure. I am of the belief that everyone is compelled by believing their actions are inherently "good". I am not sure we are at the point where we can tell other cultures they are inherently wrong. I do agree on quite a few points the speaker makes, but can not forget I may just be agreeing with him just because I grew up in the same culture.

[@kallistiX1]

Science is two things: the first is systematic, rational exploration of the universe and the second is the body knowledge and information produced by that exploration. You cannot argue with either. The moment you type a single character to reply on your device, which is relayed to the Internet, science has already won the argument. To know what there really true is and not what we think or believe is true, science is the best way.

[@kallistiX1]

What I agreed to is that there maybe more than one way to know what is true, not that science has limits. I also stated that science,logic and reason are the best ways to proceed. Philosophies, including religions, are only useful when dealing with human constructs and only then if reason and logic is applied. As one acknowledges that then you're correct.

[@SAsgarters]

I don't know if I'm not conscious, I don't necessarily know even if I am conscious. For all I know, I could be suffering from malnutrition, diabetes or cancer.

[@kallistiX1]

If we could intervene, the most objective course would be to refrain from taking sides and work towards a compromise and ceasefire. Unless it became apparent that one side was demonstrably wrong, then a quick end to a destructive conflict would be best. This could be achieved a number of ways and not all require violence. As for this percentage, if in all the ways we find to achieve human well-being, in the data and scientific findings some still find grounds to disagree we won't force them.

[@TomasMikaX]

Yes, the word "good" is generally used in a context where happiness is promoted and suffering diminished, it is it's meaning. We prefer when good things happen to us - when our well-being is promoted. That is an objective fact that can be used as an objective basis for a moral system - the system of good and bad. Is a world where everyone suffers as much as they possibly can a good world or a bad world?

[@JungleJargon]

The oldest calendar is the Hindu calendar that just over 5,000 years old. Someone was saying the Assyrian calendar matches the biblical calendar of around 6,685 years. There are many mass burials in the layers of sediment and we have not even seen everything that is down there. We can only see where the layers are pushed above the surface.

[@HeCtorCapitalCe]

"Generally speaking. So what?" NOT generally speaking. By the definition of happiness: (all) 'Individuals prefer happiness to suffering.' The goal of morality has been discussed by philosophers, and a concept that comes up often is: 'treat others how you want to be treated'. This is the core of human morality. If you assume this is true, your optimal "moral strategy" is to promote happiness. You won't only feel good about promoting happiness, but feel good about the happiness others bring.

[@JungleJargon]

As soon as you deny you have a Maker, the only other alternative is physical objects.

[@JungleJargon]

Consecutive layers means little or no time between each deposition. Water rose in cycles. The sediments were basically moved and redeposited by the global flood. Floods always deposit sediments in layers.

[@kallistiX1]

That isn't what Harris said. He said the common denominator in morality is concern for the well being of people and that is an axiom that bears out. Furthermore, it is human well-being not just personal well being that is paramount. He isn't Ayn Rand.

[@odysseusofithaca1620]

But he makes the naturalistic fallacy. Science describes things how they are, not how they should be. You can't bridge that gap

[@kallistiX1]

That's precisely what I meant. Harris suggests in a new to approach morality employing science and the scientific method. Not that this hasn't been attempted before but that Harris is suggesting using science and the scientific method in a new way when applying to morality. One based on neurology and psychology of the species and individual simultaneously applied objectively. I think we can both agree that is a novel approach.

[@kallistiX1]

I have made that distinction. And since derived moral judgments are derived from life stances my point remains. The questions here isn't whether or not science can make moral judgements but whether or not it can answer moral questions. It can. As the man says, this prompts a new more objective morality. By providing a more objective, unbiased source for those answers, science shapes values (and therefore judgments) the way a frame shapes a house, not the other way around.

[@TempestTossedWaters]

I definitely don't dispute any of that. But I don't think it contradicts anything I've said either.

[@TempestTossedWaters]

Having joint pain because a chemical is no longer in your body doesn't mean that's analogous to a withdrawal. You could argue that's just a side-effect from how the body normally functions. With your logic you could say not exercising and the lack of exercise having bad effects on your body is exercise-withdrawal. Or that not breathing and feeling suffocation is air-withdrawal. Or that not eating and feeling hunger is food-withdrawal.

[@daneelolivaw1550]

This is a response to a poster earlier, preaching but his comment got my brain going: You expect your maker to provide your values in a language that you understand without context. You believe that one person, or group of people can accurately, and completely interpret the word of your God. Look...your neighbourhood, your family, your city, world, maybe you have a nice car, maybe you think you have nice things because you earned it, you deserve it.

[@TomasMikaX]

Avoiding misery is an objective value. Individual notions of misery will be of course very subjective, however the fact that there are states of being that are preferable to others remains objective. If morality is to have any goal, it is to support such states.

[@schmitzization]

In the beginning of this video he already makes a statement that well-being of humans and other conscious beings is important, even though many people agree, it doesn´t make is "true". The rest i understand and agree with him on, but he should have started with how he defines a value.

[@penderbayne]

What's the name of the man asking those good questions at the end?? Thank you.

[@3002321542]

Furthermore, the universe is quantifiable and therefore it follows that it can be modelled mathematically.

[@kallistiX1]

I didn't say that, though. I said limitless in it's scope of study. Meaning there is nothing that science cannot study and therefore no possible limit to the questions it can answer.

[@tombalabomba03]

This. This resonates so much with me.

[@guyboy625]

Of course. That's why I said we need a basis AND reason. But saying that science answers moral questions is false. It helps answer, yes, but you will always need an irrational basis such as empathy.

[@karlmontague]

As a process, yes, you could say we're addicted to water :P That's not really what I was saying though. We don't *need things like love nutritionally, so the body uses the exact same chemical process as heroin addiction (using pretty much the same chemicals and receptors). In fact, hunger and thirst are signalled to us with pain/pleasure drugs, that's what makes cocaine and heroin so addictive - we're compatible biochemically.

[@kallistiX1]

I have a problem with terms being applied incorrectly, as you may recall from discussion on absolutes. The term faith doesn't apply to the reasonable expectation of electrical power or that such power will be reestablished given enough time and effort. There is proof of this. There is reliable, documented evidence that the chances that this will be the case are exceedingly high. That, not faith, is why one expects it will happen despite inherent uncertainty.

[@guyboy625]

I agree with what this guy wants to accomplish, as I have similar moral views as him, and I agree that science can help us come to better moral conclusions, and there are logical reasons for maximizing well-being based on facts and scientific knowledge, but not *only* based on that. Those reasons require something like a wish for human flourishing, or our sense of empathy.

[@Meximagician]

Except that at 8:42 he talks about the possibilty of multiple "equivalent ways to thrive" thereby not stating that it must be 'universal' but that the underlying concepts (and possible metrics) are. Also, I'm confused: a philosophy student for years couldn't hold out ~9 minutes into a lecture?

[@guyboy625]

Please make the distinction between life stances or intrinsic values and derived moral judgements or opinions like "we ought to burn this person". Science can answer the following factual question: "is this presumed witch guilty of presumed witchcraft?", or "Is burning guilty people effective at maximizing well-being?". We use science to make moral judgements, but these judgements are always based on our life stance or intrinsic values as well. Science alone cannot make moral judgements.

[@LIBSYDREAD]

How can "values be facts", if they are subjective. A fact is something that doesn't waver in the midst of personal opinion. He didn't even answer the 'why question', as to why we do the things we do. And he didn't answer that because he couldn't without saying we are sinful creatures, and in need of a Saviour. He didn't directly talk about how we know whats right and wrong, because you can't talk about it without admitting we were specially designed with something called a conscience .

[@Ropenior]

And that conscience might resonate at a lower tune for our most convicted fellow humans. He said that morality is making choices that might increase or not decrease human well-being. And we know what causes other humans to feel pain, we know that throwing acid into a woman's face, or killing her after she is raped is not going to increase well-being. Believing that the words from a transcendent being to be the definite truth is harmful because they don't require us to think about the facts; will the actions I take ultimately led to decrease the well-being of others. We don't need to rely on static "truths", we need to think with our brains and our hearts and realize which actions that hurt people.

[@LIBSYDREAD]

Too bad our hearts are misleading. Look around this planet: does it seem like following our hearts and own inner desires are helping the world? No. Why? Because we are selfish creatures. We don't care about others, and don't desire to put them before ourselves. This is why marriages fail, this is why we don't help those in need, this why one steals (putting his needs before thinking of the needs of those he stole from). Same with killing, raping, lying...All acts of selfishness, not thinking of the other party. Yea.. following our hearts and minds are really doing the world good... This is exactly why God told us the most healthy, and beneficial way to live life: Love your enemies. Love others as yourself (Not 'a little less than', but just AS MUCH as you love yourself) Forgive. Give to those who are in need. And so many more. But this amount of loving we must share, is only achievable if you have accepted Christ into your life. Without Him, we don't have the source to generate that sort of love. Were can only love, once we realize that Christ first loved us.

[@mickelodiansurname9578]

These rules predate the bible in human culture and the golden rule one isn't even unique to humans!

[@JungleJargon]

The sources are the calendars, historical records and the fact that the flood di occur.

[@kenkeller6072]

Ah but we know there can be many correct answers to certain types of questions. For example: How many crests exist on a function of a sine wave over the set of all real numbers? Infinite. So too I think Harris' was saying there are many ways to successfully determine right and wrong actions. I believe Harris' argument was more about funneling away opinions and tendencies which have no support or in fact may be patently untrue. Like you say, it's more important to use something we know works.

[@HeCtorCapitalCe]

Well that is a better argument. I personally don't feel that I have ethical obligations to a mouse, but indeed a lot of people argue that we have. I feel that any distinction or rule in that "separate matter", is very vague (which species do we save? plants? rocks?). For me it makes sense that it applies only to you if you understand and can act under the ethical code. In some way we want to project ourselves too much onto other things. And sometimes that results in a one-way "conversation".

[@CelestialQuestTV]

Holy rhetoric...how did this get a standing ovation?!? A room indulging in confirmation bias.

[@TheRainmaker78]

Actually a lot of people have given explanation as to why it doesn't work - you just need to keep reading the comments. The comments are not a debate - they are a critique of Harris' logic. I think the alternative is believing that only a higher omnipotent being could have the "wisdom" of establishing "beneficial" morals.

[@kenkeller6072]

Well I think Sam would agree with you opening statement, we should have a standard to determine morality. He offered the notion of suffering as the standard. Can we find a place in the moral landscape to minimize suffering and maximize flourishing. It seems altogether easy as well. All we need to do is think about this world and try to better it. This scares you because you're just too busy being worried about getting "left behind" in the umteenth version of the rapture that won't happen.

[@Ryan.......]

It has to do with the way youtube verifies veiw count. The is a numberphile video on this topic.

[@shodanxx]

it can't give you the answers but it certainly can give you the confidence to believe you are right thanks to the shining veneer of science !

[@fcmilsweeper9]

Yes. Interesting though: search the problem of induction at google and view the wikipedia page

[@Hexdoll]

There is only one possible philosophical statement being made, the presumption that "Maximizing human well being is good and we should strive to be good" after given this statement everything else can fall into the purview of science...it is very simple.

[@kallistiX1]

1. Reason is the only valid BASIS for a thought system otherwise it would be a feeling system or an imagination system. 2 & 3. Morality can only be objective and immune to social change if they originate from outside of humanity. 4 & 6 Cultural relativism is insufficient due to bias but a science based morality provides objectivity and adaptability. 5&7 Human well-being is as close to universally good as anything could be and it cannot be given but nurtured.

[@atl3630]

1. Who defines what is an innocent human? Science? 2. Who decided that protecting the lives and health of the majority is important? Science? 3. What makes the majority so special?

[@karlmontague]

First off, "peoples well being" is complex. And humans have had thousands of years of defining right and wrong, both superstitiously and based on personal emotions. Science can redefine it as what is actually best for us all based on evidence. Nobody can fool themselves in science - not if they're doing it right, and certainly not forever!

[@JungleJargon]

The Maker only made the hardware. He did not input or programme the software. Identical twins can be total opposites.

[@screnct7]

yes. why do you ask? just to be insulting? An attemp to belittle? No? then answer the question.