I just saw this video and found it pretty interesting.
What do you think about it? Can we say that the Western moral is better than the one for example of the Talibans? Is there a real answer (in Science)? Is it possible to answer questions about moral without religion?
I just saw this video and found it pretty interesting.
Would of loved an short summary or something some of us don't have 30 minutes.
Morality is view which is tainted by personal opinion. When you start skewing science with personal opinion you don't have science anymore. The subject is very similar to A.I. we can create an A.I. that imitates a complex system to some degree based on some variable and functions. But morality doesn't work like that and I don't think we can create A.I. that is unbound and has full absolute sentience therefore I don't think morality and science will ever fully work together.
If you were put in a situation where you could only save one person, and you had to choose between a young girl or an old man, who would you choose? Which one is more right?
One would argue the little girl should be saved because she still has a full life ahead of her. What if the older man is close to finding a cure for cancer?
Here, you see a situation where it is more beneficial to save the old man than the young girl. However, the young girl is still very young and has a lot of potential and she still has a full life ahead of her.
Morality is far more complicated than simple right and wrong. Morality questions which is right and which is more right, as well as which is wrong and which is more wrong.
If a person is drowning in a river and a pro swimmer passes him up and does not save him, should the swimmer get in trouble for not helping the man? We are assuming that the swimmer could have saved the drowning man where both of them live, but can we punish the swimmer for saying "no, i don't want to get wet today." Sure, that's might be a horrible thing for him to say, but does that mean we should *** be held responsible for not helping people? If you are a psychologist who helps people with their relationship problems and you see a couple arguing, should you be held accountable for not helping them?
Morality and science are two different things. Many people believe it is morally good to open a door for a lady and allow her to enter a building first. Some would argue that it is faster and easier for everyone to simply "hand" the door to the person behind them. Others believe whoever gets there first should go through the building first. Which one is scientifically right and whichever one is most convenient, should we attempt to force that way of thinking unto everyone as to make it moral?
I see... But I didn't mean that you can answer all questions, just some... Who would agree that killing an innocent child is moral? You know what I mean?
You have a choice to let 10 die or let 1 die. Even though this is skewed towards Utilitarian philosophies, the point still remains.
Actually the choice is to kill one child to let ten survive, if the choice was to let one die or let ten die it would be strait forward but in your scenario you would have to take the child's life. To me that makes the situation much more complex.
@ grimml, That is a great video. I'm going to spend a lot of time watching that one and the related videos. I love the quote
"Whenever we are talking about facts, certain opinions must be excluded. That is what it is to have a domain of expertise."
I think a big problem with the discourse in the media, politics, and religion, is that people have the notion that all sides to an argument must be treated as equally valid. And, very frequently, an objective viewing of the evidence shows that one side clearly has more validity than another.
Ps, i'm new to this, so if the quotes/links in my posts don't work, its because i dont' know how they work.... lol
You have a choice to let 10 die or let 1 die. Even though this is skewed towards Utilitarian philosophies, the point still remains.
I reject this scenario. The whole scenario. It's an unrealistic situation. The death of one child per se has no bearing on the life of ten per se. Another factor must be introduced for the situation to be realistic. The factor(s) affect my moral conclusion. My morals, tailored for reality, cannot be applied to logically impossible "hypotheticals".
Just because the specific scenario I present it's very realistic does not mean that the scenario, with different characters has not existed. I'm going to post this from debatepedia.com. It gives a run down of both sides of the table: here
OK, it's hard to say what's moral in that case. But I think sometimes it's not hard. Sometimes it's really easy.
However, the deontological ethics pioneered by Immanuel Kant states that the morality of an action depends on the action itself, regardless of the consequences of the action. Therefore, ends never justify the means in deontological ethics. Even if killing one innocent person were to save more people, it is not morally permissible because the action of killing is immoral in all cases.
Here they say that killing is immoral. But why if moral is subjective?
I try to make my morals based on logic and rationality. My morals often do not match with those of the majority. Morals just stem from how you perceive things. For instance, I find making a law about how many children one is allowed to have to not only be moral, but righteous. Most would disagree.
You have a choice to let 10 die or let 1 die. Even though this is skewed towards Utilitarian philosophies, the point still remains.
I think the last thing Harris would want, given his lecture in the video, is for us to try to establish morality philosophically. Well, maybe the second to last thing - I guess the last thing he would want is a theological morality. But this, I think, is where Harris' argument fails. Sure, we can have a principled moral system in the absence of religion - no problem. But trying to reduce moral principles to terms within the natural sciences is simply failed. The example you gave, Ash, of killing one child to save ten is a great example. It's hard to see how an answer can be given in terms of psychology, biology, and neuroscience. But just because it's hard to see how doesn't mean it's in principle impossible.
One of the issues I take with Harris' project is that he doesn't define the scope of morality. In epistemology, for example, there is a lot of talk about what beliefs we ought to hold and what it takes to be a properly functioning cognitive agent. Morality deals with what we should and should not do - our obligations, duties, and prohibitions. But the same can be said for epistemology. What it means to be rational or to be a good cognitive agent is to follow certain rules of justification, belief analysis, etc. Whether or not you think this example fits the scope of morality simpliciter (whatever that is), you must agree that morality has something to say about it. And if we reduce morality talk to natural sciences talk, we risk having anything to say about why we should a particular belief over another. This is why philosophy is so important. And will continue to be important as our society moves to a more secular understanding of the world. As people begin to question, philosophy can provide actual answers and analysis of our commitments and what they entail. This is something the natural sciences could never achieve.
