MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) reading the moral landscape by sam harris. he says that science can determine human values and morality. do you agree? he says hume's normative problem is really a non-sequitor and that our ought claims must be tied to what reality actually is. these normative claims in science are easy to answer when you admit morality is really about suffering and well-being and moving suffering in the direction of well-being. he says if bad is not connected to suffering than he doesnt know what you are talking about, and better yet, he doesnt think you know what you are talking about. he later states that we could imagine the most miserable existence for ourselves, and if we dont think this is bad, then bad is really a empty term that is complete nonsense, like square- circle..... he also uses the analogy of health. there are a ton of ways to be healthy, yet it remains a open subject. and you would be looked at as pathological/mentally ill if you asked normative questions about vomiting or cancer. your thoughts... kind of utilitarianism updated... short vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt7AGv-RNGM Edited June 12, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 12, 2012 Author Share Posted June 12, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 One thing I really like - about both Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens - is that they consistently denied moral relativism in their "new atheist" rants. Harris' recent attempts to popularize the idea that science can determine the most objective human morality possible is simply an outgrowth of that. Though I think his health analogy is a stretch, I've grown to like the use of "well-being" as a place to strive toward (it helps that I'm pretty much a utilitarian anyway). Defining "well-being" is another thing entirely; you can't just say it's the opposite of "suffering." Ultimately, I think that science will be able to tell us how to maximize "our neighbor's" well-being in relation to our own actions. On a larger scale, however, I'm not sure that the field of neuroscience would be able to help us. he also uses the analogy of health. there are a ton of ways to be healthy, yet it remains a open subject. and you would be looked at as pathological/mentally ill if you asked normative questions about vomiting or cancer. And yet Richard Swinburne asks normative questions about the Holocaust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 One thing I really like - about both Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens - is that they consistently denied moral relativism in their "new atheist" rants. Harris' recent attempts to popularize the idea that science can determine the most objective human morality possible is simply an outgrowth of that. Though I think his health analogy is a stretch, I've grown to like the use of "well-being" as a place to strive toward (it helps that I'm pretty much a utilitarian anyway). Defining "well-being" is another thing entirely; you can't just say it's the opposite of "suffering." Ultimately, I think that science will be able to tell us how to maximize "our neighbor's" well-being in relation to our own actions. On a larger scale, however, I'm not sure that the field of neuroscience would be able to help us. And yet Richard Swinburne asks normative questions about the Holocaust You just had to go and respond to him, didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 You just had to go and respond to him, didn't you? Now you know how we feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Now you know how we feel. Tom just wants his hammer back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 You just had to go and respond to him, didn't you? says MDP's puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 12, 2012 Author Share Posted June 12, 2012 One thing I really like - about both Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens - is that they consistently denied moral relativism in their "new atheist" rants. Harris' recent attempts to popularize the idea that science can determine the most objective human morality possible is simply an outgrowth of that. Though I think his health analogy is a stretch, I've grown to like the use of "well-being" as a place to strive toward (it helps that I'm pretty much a utilitarian anyway). Defining "well-being" is another thing entirely; you can't just say it's the opposite of "suffering." Ultimately, I think that science will be able to tell us how to maximize "our neighbor's" well-being in relation to our own actions. On a larger scale, however, I'm not sure that the field of neuroscience would be able to help us. And yet Richard Swinburne asks normative questions about the Holocaust yeah, i agree. i think well- being and suffering are loose terms like health. it could mean lots of things, and there can be many right answers. i think hes just saying at some point, there is a major difference between food and poison for example. statements like i dont want to increase well -being seem to be nonsense. either you are confused, patholigical, or lying... You just had to go and respond to him, didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Now you know how we feel. You're just jealous that you didn't think of starting threads so you can show off what you learned in your freshman level ethics and philosophy classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 You just had to go and respond to him, didn't you? I wouldn't call it a response to him so much as a small response to Sam Harris, who is a guy I've come to respect a bit (although he can be a prick). And once this turns into a 20+ page debacle, you can come around and berate me about this. Until then, you have some penance to undergo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 12, 2012 Author Share Posted June 12, 2012 You're just jealous that you didn't think of starting threads so you can show off what you learned in your freshman level ethics and philosophy classes. how is it showing off? its a discussion that has great controversy. are you that insecure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 how is it showing off? its a discussion that has great controversy. are you that insecure? I can assure you that Jauronimo is a man of high ethical standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 how is it showing off? its a discussion that has great controversy. are you that insecure? Again, you've drawn an absurd conclusion from a simple set of facts. The word you're looking for is annoyed or perhaps bored, with your schtick. Your motive for beginning threads was never in the interest of engaging in any type of back and forth, that much is clear. If it were, you would have acknowledged one of the myriad arguments pointing out the inherent weakness in your Marxist views instead of reiterating the same drivel ad nauseam. You're also a habitual name-dropper, as you declare that poster A needs to re-read Locke, Hobbes, Marx, Engels, Jolly Roger and Seuss (which were clearly last weeks homework assignments). These aren't just passing references or citations but more in the vein of "Look at Me! Look what I've read!" Its boring at best and insufferable at worst. Don't you have classmates (ie: people who are in your class, ie: peers) that you can rehash the lesson plan with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Again, you've drawn an absurd conclusion from a simple set of facts. The word you're looking for is annoyed or perhaps bored, with your schtick. Your motive for beginning threads was never in the interest of engaging in any type of back and forth, that much is clear. If it were, you would have acknowledged one of the myriad arguments pointing out the inherent weakness in your Marxist views instead of reiterating the same drivel ad nauseam. You're also a habitual name-dropper, as you declare that poster A needs to re-read Locke, Hobbes, Marx, Engels, Jolly Roger and Seuss (which were clearly last weeks homework assignments). These aren't just passing references or citations but more in the vein of "Look at Me! Look what I've read!" Its boring at best and insufferable at worst. Don't you have classmates (ie: people who are in your class, ie: peers) that you can rehash the lesson plan with? you are implying that someone who is admitting that author x is better at explaining such theories is a look at me strategy. this is why i didnt just say read person a, but actually put the ideas in quotes from people way smarter than you and i... im not some great thinker, i just stand on other shoulders. and i differ with much of marxist theory. i believe in markets, profit, and i dont think a social contract should subsume every part of our lives. im sorry, but the constant repeating of capitalist rhetoric was your game, not mine. for some odd reason you ignore use value, and its something that is empirical in observation. you were the one being dogmatic and rejecting fact. the name calling, ad hom attacks, straw man, are all coming from your side. like i said, you took a reference to an author and became insecure. when in reality, im saying, this person is smarter than me, so read him. i found this helpful. you want to attack my character instead of addressing my arguments. this is a classic case where someone doesnt have an argument and tries to deflect. reading you is like watching fox news. if you say there is corruption with a republican, they bring up a democrat that was corrupt. if a corporation does x that is bad, they deflect with what a union did. the issue isnt who, but what. and you fail to argue against "the what" and instead attack "the who"... basically, you are insecure and emotional, rather than reasonable... ironically, read the virtue of selfishness by ayn rand. this will better help you understand how your emotional state obfuscates your objectivity and reason. so yeah, either you can talk about the theory harris is putting forth, or we can go down the rabbit hole of attacking the poster and his character... again, that reveals quite a bit about you... for christs sake, its not even my !@#$ing idea. Edited June 13, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Attention DC Tom: any complaints you may have about this thread becoming a shitfest at any point may now be directed to Jauronimo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 i want to talk about harris instead of my character. christ... ideology aside, ethics is fascinating to me and vital to creating a good society... its probably the greatest question in human history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) you are implying that someone who is admitting that author x is better at explaining such theories is a look at me strategy. this is why i didnt just say read person a, but actually put the ideas in quotes from people way smarter than you and i... im not some great thinker, i just stand on other shoulders. and i differ with much of marxist theory. i believe in markets, profit, and i dont think a social contract should subsume every part of our lives. im sorry, but the constant repeating of capitalist rhetoric was your game, not mine. for some odd reason you ignore use value, and its something that is empirical in observation. you were the one being dogmatic and rejecting fact. the name calling, ad hom attacks, straw man, are all coming from your side. like i said, you took a reference to an author and became insecure. when in reality, im saying, this person is smarter than me, so read him. i found this helpful. you want to attack my character instead of addressing my arguments. this is a classic case where someone doesnt have an argument and tries to deflect. reading you is like watching fox news. if you say there is corruption with a republican, they bring up a democrat that was corrupt. if a corporation does x that is bad, they deflect with what a union did. the issue isnt who, but what. and you fail to argue against "the what" and instead attack "the who"... basically, you are insecure and emotional, rather than reasonable... ironically, read the virtue of selfishness by ayn rand. this will better help you understand how your emotional state obfuscates your objectivity and reason. so yeah, either you can talk about the theory harris is putting forth, or we can go down the rabbit hole of attacking the poster and his character... again, that reveals quite a bit about you... for christs sake, its not even my !@#$ing idea. I'm not referring to this thread in particular, but your body of work here at PPP. I couldn't care less about Harris or his theories. I've argued against many of your paper thin points which you seldom acknowledge. By ignoring use value, are you referring to when I kicked your "empirical facts" in the teeth? How's marginal productivity doing for you? Still waiting for you to address either of my responses with something on topic. Stating for the 1,000th time that "land isn't productive" isn't cutting it. Not only aren't you much of a thinker, as you've admitted, but your memory fails you as well. But go on. Continue to tell me about deflection while you dismiss anything that you don't agree with as "Fox News" or "right wing hack" or "did you get that from Rush [Limbaugh]?". Edited June 13, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Attention DC Tom: any complaints you may have about this thread becoming a shitfest at any point may now be directed to Jauronimo. It was a shitfest from inception. But go on. Continue to tell me about deflection while you dismiss anything that you don't agree with as "Fox News" or "right wing hack" or "did you get that from Rush [Limbaugh]?". Or "ad hom" (even when it isn't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 14, 2012 Author Share Posted June 14, 2012 I'm not referring to this thread in particular, but your body of work here at PPP. I couldn't care less about Harris or his theories. I've argued against many of your paper thin points which you seldom acknowledge. By ignoring use value, are you referring to when I kicked your "empirical facts" in the teeth? How's marginal productivity doing for you? Still waiting for you to address either of my responses with something on topic. Stating for the 1,000th time that "land isn't productive" isn't cutting it. Not only aren't you much of a thinker, as you've admitted, but your memory fails you as well. But go on. Continue to tell me about deflection while you dismiss anything that you don't agree with as "Fox News" or "right wing hack" or "did you get that from Rush [Limbaugh]?". wow, im arguing against marginal productivity, not for it. thats your job... i didnt say land was simpliciter unproductive. i said it was unproductive without labor. unless farmers just sit in the house and drink tea all day... It was a shitfest from inception. Or "ad hom" (even when it isn't). state your argument! why do you disagree with harris? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts