3 ms·

Here's what Harris said in his TED talk: "If you hold to classical utilitarianism, science can help you decide which actions are in line with that morality." H

by decode 17y ago

Here's what Harris said in his TED talk: "If you hold to classical utilitarianism, science can help you decide which actions are in line with that morality." Here's what Harris claimed to have said in his TED talk: "Science can help you decide what is moral and what isn't." I think it's the gap between these two things that caused so much confusion and commentary. Here's what Harris says in this rebuttal: "If you don't hold to classical utilitarianism, you're either an imbecile or self-delusional, and everyone else should ignore you. This isn't really a defensible position, but it's the only one that makes sense." Unfortunately, this does not close, or even address, the above communication gap. I just can't figure out why he's afraid to use the word utilitarian.

houseabsolute 17y ago
This was exactly my problem with it. Although in many cases it is pragmatic, there's no real _reason_ why I ought to hold to utilitarianism except that I feel like I should. That's not what a lot of people think of when they hear the word "morality."
gizmo 17y ago
Hmm, I've both watched the TED talk and read the article pretty carefully and as far as I can tell he's been saying "Science can give us answers to moral questions" all along. I also don't see how Harris is defending classical utilitarianism. According to classical utilitarianism the needs of the group are far more important than the needs of the individual, and as far as I can tell Harris doesn't subscribe to that line of thought at all. He cites the golden rule as a decent guideline, and I think the golden rule and classical utilitarianism are not compatible. He also used the words imbecile and delusional in very different contexts. He doesn't claim that (again, as far as I can tell) that people who don't share his point of view are imbeciles, he just considers some points of view idiotic, such as the extreme form of moral relativism where every action can be justified by simply accepting it as an axiom of "goodness".
- decode 17y ago
  "I also don't see how Harris is defending classical utilitarianism." His primary mode of definition is hand-waving, so it's hard to pin him down, but it seems like he is advocating for maximizing wellbeing/happiness/flourishing among all people. This is pretty much the textbook definition of utilitarianism. Admittedly, he contradicts himself enough that it's hard to know what he really wants, so I might be wrong. When he says, "I think people should be able to wear whatever they want" and simultaneously advocates for condemning those who don't objectively promote human well-being, you know he doesn't have an internally consistent ethic worked out. "He doesn't claim that (again, as far as I can tell) that people who don't share his point of view are imbeciles" He describes important questions from critics as "profoundly stupid". But this is the money quote: "Others will be free to define 'equality' differently. Yes, they will. And we will be free to call them 'imbeciles.'" The others are those who disagree with utilitarianism, so it's there in black and white.

by decode 17y ago

houseabsolute 17y ago

This was exactly my problem with it. Although in many cases it is pragmatic, there's no real _reason_ why I ought to hold to utilitarianism except that I feel like I should. That's not what a lot of people think of when they hear the word "morality."

gizmo 17y ago

Hmm, I've both watched the TED talk and read the article pretty carefully and as far as I can tell he's been saying "Science can give us answers to moral questions" all along. I also don't see how Harris is defending classical utilitarianism. According to classical utilitarianism the needs of the group are far more important than the needs of the individual, and as far as I can tell Harris doesn't subscribe to that line of thought at all. He cites the golden rule as a decent guideline, and I think the golden rule and classical utilitarianism are not compatible. He also used the words imbecile and delusional in very different contexts. He doesn't claim that (again, as far as I can tell) that people who don't share his point of view are imbeciles, he just considers some points of view idiotic, such as the extreme form of moral relativism where every action can be justified by simply accepting it as an axiom of "goodness".

decode 17y ago
"I also don't see how Harris is defending classical utilitarianism." His primary mode of definition is hand-waving, so it's hard to pin him down, but it seems like he is advocating for maximizing wellbeing/happiness/flourishing among all people. This is pretty much the textbook definition of utilitarianism. Admittedly, he contradicts himself enough that it's hard to know what he really wants, so I might be wrong. When he says, "I think people should be able to wear whatever they want" and simultaneously advocates for condemning those who don't objectively promote human well-being, you know he doesn't have an internally consistent ethic worked out. "He doesn't claim that (again, as far as I can tell) that people who don't share his point of view are imbeciles" He describes important questions from critics as "profoundly stupid". But this is the money quote: "Others will be free to define 'equality' differently. Yes, they will. And we will be free to call them 'imbeciles.'" The others are those who disagree with utilitarianism, so it's there in black and white.