And you think Sam Harris or James disagree with this?
-
-
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.
-
"Value" has a scope of definition and I think that's what's causing confusion. I disagree with Harris about the utility of his axiom(s), but he's def. not deriving values (defined as that which makes humans flourish) from science. He's using science to observe then maximize them.
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.