3 ms·

I haven't read a lot of his stuff (although what I have read/heard I mostly respect), but I'm not super comfortable with how he just waltzes over the is/ought d

by md224 13y ago

I haven't read a lot of his stuff (although what I have read/heard I mostly respect), but I'm not super comfortable with how he just waltzes over the is/ought divide. But this brings up a larger issue: where do we draw the line between this kind of health-centric utilitarianism and the ability for humans to indulge in pleasurable but potentially self-destructive behaviors? When I was younger, I basically cheered whenever laws were passed to further restrict the sale / usage of cigarettes, because I knew they were harmful and that was all that mattered. But as I grew older, and I realized that the depth of the human experience goes beyond mere self-preservation, I became less sure of this monolithic approach to public policy. I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world of "irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the human experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line.

burntsushi 13y ago
> utilitarianism I personally draw the line that cuts out as much utilitarianism as possible. > I became less sure of this monolithic approach to public policy. I've been a voluntaryist for several years now, so I'm quite on the same page as you. :-) I really was just trying to be fair to Sam Harris. (I both strongly agree and disagree with many of the things he claims.) > I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world of "irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the human experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line. Absolutely. Although, I do view recreational wood burning as a different kind of "irrational" than claiming things based on revealed knowledge. The former can be a reasoned judgment about one's preferences, while the latter is necessarily logically flawed. I believe both types of "irrational" are impossible to eradicate. I share your hesitation with the notion that we might even want to eliminate "irrationality" in the first place.

by md224 13y ago

burntsushi 13y ago

> utilitarianism I personally draw the line that cuts out as much utilitarianism as possible. > I became less sure of this monolithic approach to public policy. I've been a voluntaryist for several years now, so I'm quite on the same page as you. :-) I really was just trying to be fair to Sam Harris. (I both strongly agree and disagree with many of the things he claims.) > I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world of "irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the human experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line. Absolutely. Although, I do view recreational wood burning as a different kind of "irrational" than claiming things based on revealed knowledge. The former can be a reasoned judgment about one's preferences, while the latter is necessarily logically flawed. I believe both types of "irrational" are impossible to eradicate. I share your hesitation with the notion that we might even want to eliminate "irrationality" in the first place.