Sam Harris; The Moral Landscape

Just purchased this book on my ipad2. Having read it, I like Harris's argument that relativism is ridiculous. In any culture, the mutilation of women should be abhorrent and no matter how label it as "culture," it is still reprehensible and fails the number one test of usefulnesss in his outlook-does it benefit the individual person and the greater good of society? Harris is quick to admit that we are all selfish to an extent and that we are not perfetly selfless beings. At the same time, humans have to have some "gray" area so to speak, but that there is a clear line between right and wrong, moral and immoral, that a rational person and science can help determine.

I would say that Harris effectively demolishes relativism, as well as the notion tha every culture is equal in practice and that certain religious practics should not be above criticism. While creating a moral landscape, he needs to write a book about meaning-scape. A community of believers is not just tied together sociologically like the Elks or Moose lodges. There is more there, though necessarily what that is, I don't know, but I know it exists. Harris and others would be more persuasive if they had their own ethos, or storyline that explains man and man's meaning, and ultimately, man's purpose on the earth. Processes of the body and mind do not give us meaning, or answer pertinent why questions. Until this done, third-rate, backwater preachers will have more sway with people other than the choir that Harris preaches to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFG75

In any culture, the mutilation of women should be abhorrent and no matter how label it as "culture," it is still reprehensible and fails the number one test of usefulnesss in his outlook-does it benefit the individual person and the greater good of society?

---

What does Harris mean by "mutilation"? Are tattoos mutilations?

I have a female relative who got a tattoo of her boyfriend's name on her neck. Her boyfriend didn't make her do it. If there was any pressure, she made her boyfriend tattoo her name on his body. He choose to put her name on his ankle where it was easier to cover up.

I told her, using different words, that what she was doing was "mutilation" and "reprehensible" and "abhorrent", but that didn't stop her. It probably made her more convinced to get it done.

Did the tattoo benefit her or the greater good of society? Well, it provided some economic stimulus since she had to pay to have it done. So there was a benefit to society, but she could have bought cigarettes and done the same thing. Since she broke up with the boyfriend, she had to have the name blocked out so it was no longer readable. More economic stimulus, but no real benefit to her.

Is this the kind of mutilation Harris is concerned about? It seems to fit and not fit at the same time.

I think this might refer to female genital mutilation, a practise in some cultures. Could it refer to circumcision too? That is, if it could be argued that such a thing deprives sensation.

So it is female genital mutilation. Not tattoos. Not navel or ear-piercings.

You make a good point about circumcision, Silas Thorne.

Somehow Harris has found a privileged position upon which to judge these other cultures when it comes to something that is not commonly practiced in his own culture. What does his privileged position have to say about circumcision which could be viewed as a comparable mutilation of men and is more likely practiced in his own culture?

Relativism is for wimps. Sammy Harris is the only memeber of the 'millitant atheist brigade' i have any respect for. He is human enough to see the nonsense of moral relativism,tries to create a basis for a 'universalish morality' ,does not ram evolution in my face,and he at least displays an open mind on meditation and its scientific basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theunderground

Relativism is for wimps. Sammy Harris is the only memeber of the 'millitant atheist brigade' i have any respect for. He is human enough to see the nonsense of moral relativism,tries to create a basis for a 'universalish morality' ,does not ram evolution in my face,and he at least displays an open mind on meditation and its scientific basis.

---

I don't know much about him, but I'm interested. Since he is one of the "militant atheist brigate" what is the "basis" that gives him an ability to make non-relative moral judgements?

To answer many of the questions in this thread. Sam Harris, without coming out and saying it, is still basically working from a utilitarian viewpoint.

He also doesn't say that things like genital mutilation are unequivocally wrong. At one point in his book, if I'm remembering correctly, he says something to the effect of being willing to be proven wrong about genital mutilation, but that all available evidence points to it being bad.

He admits that this may be overturned, but that you have to start somewhere, and things like this seem the most obvious places to start.

A big part of the moral landscape is also that multiple sets of inputs could lead to the same level of moral "goodness" (for lack of a better word). That's what the landscape is. The height of the peaks on the landscape represent this "goodness" and the other two dimensions represent all of the inputs that might coalesce to getting us there.

Thus genital mutilation might contribute significantly to one of the peaks, given that many other variables are correct, while significantly detracting from another peak.

Here is a link to a Sam Harris TED talk, which pretty well summarizes his viewpoint.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_...t_s_right.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFG75

Harris and others would be more persuasive if they had their own ethos, or storyline that explains man and man's meaning, and ultimately, man's purpose on the earth. Processes of the body and mind do not give us meaning, or answer pertinent why questions.

---

It would actually become less persuasive, I think, because it would become more like a belief system. The reason there is not a more cohesive storyline is because the number of variables are staggering, which is what we should set out to understanding. In the meantime we are stuck using these cruder heuristics like "killing is wrong" "stealing is wrong"

But I think body and mind do give us meaning. I think they are the only thing from which meaning flows. What pertinent why questions can't they answer? Or do you simply not like the answers that they provide?

Good explanations, Rores28.

I'd like to add that with 'goodness', Harris basically means 'well-being' of individuals. And because FGM in most cases causes a lot of unnecessary suffering, it's bad.

Harris uses facts about the well-being of people and about how actions / policies will likely affect it, to make conclusions regarding the good and bad. He must define what it is that we should strive for though, that's where he brings in well-being. This is axiomatic, but it's also the most obvious thing in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rores28

It would actually become less persuasive, I think, because it would become more like a belief system. The reason there is not a more cohesive storyline is because the number of variables are staggering, which is what we should set out to understanding. In the meantime we are stuck using these cruder heuristics like "killing is wrong" "stealing is wrong"

But I think body and mind do give us meaning. I think they are the only thing from which meaning flows. What pertinent why questions can't they answer? Or do you simply not like the answers that they provide?

---

Agree, not necessarily as to the storyline but as to the staggering number of variables and the need to be even less persuasive. Also, as to the why's they are overrated over the evidence of the hows. It's almost like something like gravity, which few understand until they ask how before they deal with why. I also agree that body is the rethoric of postmodern science and of course, mind is a service. Have fun.

I like this thread.
I think sammys' basis is that 'suffering' is not good in general,and may be taken as a universal fact. He does have some 'utilitarian' type thinking as well. I think his arguments are the closest we will get to a universal morality based on naturalistic arguments. At least this 'holy lie' will be possibly more beneficial for the general public and the intellectuals than any other form of 'morality'...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theunderground

I like this thread.
I think sammys' basis is that 'suffering' is not good in general,and may be taken as a universal fact. He does have some 'utilitarian' type thinking as well. I think his arguments are the closest we will get to a universal morality based on naturalistic arguments. At least this 'holy lie' will be possibly more beneficial for the general public and the intellectuals than any other form of 'morality'...

---

What about masochists? They like suffering.

I enjoyed the news report about Gadafi suffering - punched the air in fact - many did! 'Punching the air' makes something a perceived subjective good - which makes it a good. Full stop.

There are no goods 'in general', none that may be taken as a universal fact. There is no universal morality. Why do you think we need one?

Surely the idea of 'God the holy lie' as beneficial for 'the general public' has ran totally out of steam now. How condescending it is, something that most people can now see through and treat with rightful disdain. And as for the intellectuals, surely part of being an intellectual is to see through holy lies not swallow them wholesale!

Quote:

---

... it is still reprehensible and fails the number one test of usefulnesss in his outlook-does it benefit the individual person and the greater good of society?

---

This is hardly a 'covert' form of utilitarianism.





J

Enjoying the suffering of others and masochism are genuine pleasures and essential to our 'humanity'. The holy lie is still used when selling the 'benefits' of democracy and 'just' wars,and some people will always swallow those lies.
Intellectuals i class as those that can understand the benefits of holy lies and morality,politicans can fall under this class. The true elite 'just do it',they dont need intellectual systems or holy crutches.

This is ridiculous. Utilitarian morality for everyone? Absolutely insane. And people are biting.

Only those will bite who have no bark.