Published on December 5, 2024 10:19 AM GMT
Apparently, the following is an argument made by Sam Harris on twitter, in a series of tweets. Unfortunately, the original tweets have been deleted, so I relied on a secondary source.
Let’s assume that there are no ought’s or should’s in this universe. There is only what is—the totality of actual (and possible) facts.Among the myriad things that exist are conscious minds, susceptible to a vast range of actual (and possible) experiences.Unfortunately, many experiences suck. And they don’t just suck as a matter of cultural convention or personal bias—they really and truly suck. (If you doubt this, place your hand on a hot stove and report back.)Conscious minds are natural phenomena. Consequently, if we were to learn everything there is to know about physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, economics, etc., we would know everything there is to know about making our corner of the universe suck less.If we should do anything in this life, we should avoid what really and truly sucks. (If you consider this question-begging, consult your stove, as above.)Of course, we can be confused or mistaken about experience. Something can suck for a while, only to reveal new experiences which don’t suck at all. On these occasions we say, “At first that sucked, but it was worth it!”We can also be selfish and shortsighted. Many solutions to our problems are zero-sum (my gain will be your loss). But better solutions aren’t. (By what measure of “better”? Fewer things suck.)So what is morality? What ought sentient beings like ourselves do? Understand how the world works (facts), so that we can avoid what sucks (values).
Before going on, let’s pause to consider that Sam Harris is a famous public intellectual, with a BA in philosophy from Stanford and a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA.
Now, let’s consider how flawed his argument is.
The argument contains the following errors:
- It begs the question. It presupposes objective good and bad.It conflates a subjective value judgment (“it sucks”) with objective value.It conflates pain with subjective value.
Essentially, the argument presupposes hedonism and altruism, and then pretends to derive a combination of those two assumptions (objective morality) from pure reason plus experience.
Let’s go through the argument, point by point.
(see the rest of the post in the link)
Discuss
