3 ms·

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 questi

by 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 gizmo 17y ago

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.