We have lots of moral sentiments all happening and once and yes, we go with whatever wins and then we rationalise it afterwards. Jonathan Haidt is good on this.
Oh god! If you're not going to explain what you mean by this and if it differs from what we've all just agreed is true - that this system comes from brains and the neuroscience explains it - we'll just have to accept there is no disagreement.
-
-
Well, I suppose that, at least between you and I, there's no disagreement. But, look, let's pick up Sam Harris' argument that we can derive our moral values from scientific facts that we know, and we don't need anything else. Here's the problem, and with this I don't agree.
-
But where does he say this? He says there are real facts that can be known about the wellbeing and suffering of conscious creatures and he sets this as the bar (values) and he accepts that this all - the suffering/wellbeing, reason & morality - comes from our brains. Like us.
-
Oh, no, but he clearly says that we can derive moral values exclusively from scientific facts. Come on. He even tries to ridicule moral philosophy in his book, The Moral Landscape.
-
In a different way from what we've just said? That we have innate morality, consistent drives to avoid suffering & achieve wellbeing and that there are real facts we can know about how to do this?
-
Look, the problem here is that he clearly states that we can create moral values out of scientific facts alone. He even says so in the debate that has been shared here. But I will share it again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY1232gqfdA …
-
We have agreed that everything comes down to a scientific fact tho! There are layers! This is silly, I'm not repeating myself any more. You'll just say 'but how do you select facts? You need values' & then admit values comes from our brains which is a scientific fact. Enough now.
-
Okay, and it really seems that we can't get past this point. Because I'm not questioning that. Only the fact that from facts alone you can derive moral values. Only that.
-
He argue "well-being" should be defined fluidly and the definition should represent that which makes conscious creatures flourish. Then he argues that science can be used to maximize that. So what makes humans flourish (values) is imported as variables, not derived from science.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
And this isn't so say that the foundation to our moral sentiments and values is not biology, evolution and the brain. Just what I said.
-
You seem to think Sam Harris disagrees with this even tho he's a neuroscientist and wrote a whole book about it. I give up.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Because you can't have a moral system just based on scientific facts. Because, how can you choose which facts to pay attention to and incorporate in your moral system, if you haven't moral values to guide you on that?
-
We've been here! Jesus. Just read back. I'm not going to answer any more,
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.