I listened to some audios also read some blogs about position of sam harris that science can guide moral behavior.
I get the idea roughly.
However, I would appreciate if someone can give a specific example that Sam Harris provides of a supposedly scientifically-proven moral statement. In others w...
Sam Harris is as much a philosopher as Ayn Rand. At best he's a "pop culture" philosopher. I am unaware of any philosophy of science that suggests that science can guide moral behavior. Fundamentally science is a body of knowledge and methods for acquiring knowledge. Morality is about decision making. You can use information gained from science but science itself cannot provide you with your moral maxims.
I think that most moral strictures derive from empirical observations of problems and experimentation with behavior changes to fix them. The experiments are framed as rules of Correct Behavior to sell them to the masses, and over time they tend to ossify and the original motivations are forgotten, but it seems almost certain that rules against incest, eating pork, and such derive from observations of disease, birth defects, etc. I don't know if this works as an answer because I know nothing about Sam Harris's beliefs.
Sam Harris is startlingly bad at philosophy, for someone who supposedly studied it. Game theory should be one of the most important avenues towards empirical morality, but as far as I can see he never mentions it. The Moral Landscape is a really shoddy piece of work.
Hi @don, welcome to Phil.SE! Please observe that you've asked two different questions which you framed as one (example of Sam Harris' attempted example of supposedly scientifically-proven morality, and is it possible to scientifically prove moral questions). Do note that, accordingly, it can be answered in two different answers. You're welcome to ask the second one in another post (though I'm pretty sure we already have a similar post), currently I'm going to edit your post to reflect only the first question.
@user 76284 -- Basically, anyone who has read much philosophy and understands reasoning and the work done to clarify philosophical questions, considers Rand a polemicist not a philosopher. The answers to this question elaborate on that philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31389/…
@user76284 -- the top and second answer devote their last two and last paragraphs to discussing Rand, and why she is not a credible philosopher. The problem with Rand is that she fails to construct arguments that withstand even brief critical evaluation -- they are mere rationalizations -- IE they serve as props for polemicism. Harris is very similar in his lack of substance. The one "pro-Rand" answer in the link I provided contains at least four logical fallacies in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, and nicely illustrates the weak thinking of Rand.
@Dcleve “Rand did not really engage with other philosophers in any professional capacity.” She did. If you define “professional capacity” narrowly, you’d exclude well-known philosophers. “I don’t there is any Rand commentary on...” Having commentary on Wittgenstein, Frege, Fichte specifically (which I haven’t checked) is obviously not a necessary criterion for being a philosopher. “not even on Kant” She did. The answer is wrong. “It is unclear how much philosophy she read.” Really? This vague statement is supposed to be an argument?
@Dcleve “I have no idea of she read beloved classics in the original or in translations only.” I’m baffled by this statement on multiple counts. (1) In what way is “I have no idea...” (an expression of ignorance) an argument? (2) In what way would the latter imply she was not a philosopher? Are you claiming that reading say, ancient Greek is a requirement for being a philosopher? (3) She was able to read English, French, German and Russian. Hardly lacking in the language department compared to most philosophers. “she wrote capitalist bodice-rippers” This is supposed to be an argument?
@Dcleve “purveyed "elitism for the masses"” As opposed to “purveying elitism for a select few”, like some well-known philosophers? This is getting rather ridiculous, don’t you think? In what way is this supposed to be an argument that Rand was not a philosopher? “made a habit of rather vile "provocative" remarks in the limelight” Oh boy, do you really want to exclude philosophers with this criterion? “cast a such wide spell over impressionable American minds” Again, do you really want to exclude philosophers with this criterion?
@Dcleve “Rand is a joke” is hardly an argument, don’t you think? It’s a bit hypocritical to point fingers about alleged “logical fallacies” when this is what’s being passed as an “argument”. “The one "pro-Rand" answer” Which one? “nicely illustrates the weak thinking of Rand” I’m baffled by this statement. You know Rand has been dead for a while, right? Do you think Rand is the author of that answer?
@user76284 -- I answered your question to Rob, if you wish to discuss it in depth, and try to argue against this view of Rand, I have now created us a chat forum just for that purpose. Here is the link.chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/117933/chat-on-ayn-rand @ to dcleve if I am not there when you post.
@user76284 I consider Ayn Rand an author as most of her works were books, plays, short stories, etc. It is my understanding that she considered herself a novelist, and that the target audience for most of her works were not philosophers. In summary: she didn't self-identify as a philosopher, she didn't write to philosophers, and most of her works would not be considered works of philosophy. If I am mistaken on any of these points I will have to reconsider how I label her.
@Rob "she didn't self-identify as a philosopher" I think she did. "Objectivism is a philosophical movement." "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being."
@Rob "most of her works would not be considered works of philosophy" Depending on what you mean by "most", you'd exclude well-known philosophers like Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, Thomas More, Voltaire, Aldous Huxley, G. K. Chesterton, Umberto Eco, and Albert Camus.
@user76284 "Having a philosophy" is not the same thing as being a philosopher. Donald Trump "has a philosophy" no one is going to mistaken him for a philosopher. Was Rand writing treatise on Objectivism or works of fiction that have objectivist themes? Who was her target audience? How many of her published works did she label as philosophy? How many will you find in the philosophy section of an academic library?
@Rob ""Having a philosophy" is not the same thing as being a philosopher." No, but starting one ("a philosophical movement") probably merits the title. Regarding your other questions, see the non-fiction works For the New Intellectual (1961), The Virtue of Selfishness (1964), Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966), The Romantic Manifesto (1969), The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (1971), Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (1979), and Philosophy: Who Needs It (1982).
@user76284 -- philosophers do not consider Rand a philosopher because she was so ignorant of the subject, and basically incapable of constructing a reasoned argument. Contra Rob -- Rand DID think of herself as a philosopher, and declared herself the true and only heir to Aristotle, the only one worthy to call herself an empirical philosopher. This self-opinion reveals a total lack of familiarity with the field of philosophy of science, which is basically what she would be placing herself within, IF she even had realized it was a sub-field of philosophy.
Comparing Rand with Bacon, Hume, Locke, James, Russell, Popper, and Quine, in her level of insight about how to do empiricism, and solve the problems that empiricism raises, reveals how relatively useless her "contributions" are.
@user76284 -- citing her absurd self-congratulations, along with her cluelessness about the work of giants of empiricism subsequent to Aristotle, -- is not insults. It is an explanation why those of us who are not Rand acolytes -- will never BE Rand Acolytes, and think that your hero-worship is absurd and absurdly misplaced. Note everyone here who is not part of the cult, understands these criticisms, and agrees with them.
@user76284 Rand fans defend her with enthusiasm and virtually no knowledge of any other philosopher, or philosophical issue, on multiple discussion topics. The energy you have expended on Rand, in a discussion topic on Harris, shows the personal focus that you Rand acolytes have. You have repeated a common pattern. That others of us recognize it, and identify it as the hero worship it appears to be, is once again not an insult. meanwhile, Rand does not make me feel anything, other than boredom over yet another vacuous polemicist with acolytes clogging up our public discourse.
@Dcleve I'm not a "Rand acolyte" just because I correct the lies you're trying to spread. You're clearly too emotionally immature to discuss the subject level-headedly without throwing a tantrum. Every post of yours is just unsubstantiated insult after insult, directed not only against Rand but also against anyone who corrects your lies. You are, for some reason, deranged over the subject of Rand. It drives you into a frenzy. Take a break.
@user76284 -- stating the opinion of philosophy professionals that Rand is not a competent philosopher, and that her acolytes are even more ignorant than Rand was of philosophy questions, and of actual post-Aristotelian philosophers, is not lying. Your repeated personal smears of ME and false accusations of lying, are the only deranged tantrum and emotional immaturity demonstrated here. Your posts serve as a demonstration of the nature of Randian acolytes -- ignorant, intolerant, and spouting bs. AND incapable of following the rules for this board, of course.
@Dcleve Not only did you move the goalposts in your first sentence, but the second clause of that sentence is something you pulled out of thin air. You are a liar.
@user76284 -- your accusations, as I have pointed out repeatedly, are themselves lies, which you no doubt know. This question itself presumes that all competent philosophers posting here agree that Rand is not a competent philosopher, and I provided a link to a second, which repeats that assumption. The answers to that question include a link to a discussion of the failings of Rand's "reasoning" to be philosophic, which includes extensive comments on the argumentativeness+ philosophic ignorance of her fans: leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/…
@user76284 -- YOU failed to ether read or to acknowledge these references, and your refused to engage with the list I provided of REAL empirical philosophers, and their ideas. I had also previously set up a discussion site for us to debate the content and quality of Rand's philosophic arguments, vs. those of real philosophers, and you never joined. I note with humor that this is per board rules, and an explicit request of this board, and use of the comment feature the way you want to use it for extended dialog is against the site owners rules, and therefore immoral per Randian thought.
@user76284 Instead of engaging on the philosophic merit of Randian thought, you have chosen, like Rand herself did, to engage in accusations and smears. This is characteristic of those who are ideological dogmatists, rather than philosophers. Rather than actually discussing the philosophy that you clearly do not understand, you instead insult and smear. If you actually READ some real philosophers, you might recover from your Randian cultism, when you discover what reasoning actually consists of. But with your behavior, I fear that is unlikely.
@Dcleve "This question itself presumes..." And? How is that an argument for anything? "I provided a link to a second, which repeats that assumption" And? How is that an argument for anything? " leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/..." How is a random blogpost proof of anything? "these references" What references? "our refused to engage with the list I provided of REAL empirical philosophers, and their ideas" Are you actually insane? That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
@Dcleve "I had also previously set up a discussion site for us to debate the content and quality of..." Irrelevant and goalpost-moving. "the philosophic merit of Randian thought" Moving the goalposts again? You claimed she wasn't a philosopher at all, but of course were unable to prove that claim. "your Randian cultism" That is just laughable. You are the one who has consistently displayed cultish and deranged behavior in this conversation.
@user76284 -- "How is that an argument for anything?" The opinion of philosophers is exhibited by the opinions of the philosophers posting on this site. Providing citations of philosophic opinion is, by definition, "proof" of philosophic opinion. "How is a random blogpost proof of anything?" The "random blog post" provides multiple links to articles about Rand, and the opinions of the philosophers posting on it. I cannot make you read, or learn anything, but I can refute your rationalizations for NOT reading the linked material.
@user76284 -- So -- per you -- following site rules is "irrelevant" and "goalpost moving"? LOL -- ideologues, when outed and shown to be liars, will spout whatever random bs comes to mind. You have now posted ad nauseum off topic, violated site rules on comment policy, refused to engage in the debate you asked for, have not read the links provided, failed to address the actual philosophers and philosophic questions that Rand's claims apply to, and spout innumerable lies and smears instead.
@Dcleve "The opinion of philosophers is exhibited by the opinions of the philosophers posting on this site." Don't make me laugh. "Providing citations of philosophic opinion" You've provided zero such citations. "provides multiple links to articles about Rand" So? Why don't you provide real citation instead of a random blogpost? "following site rules is "irrelevant" and "goalpost moving"?" No, but you are doing the latter.
@Dcleve "You have now posted ad nauseum off topic" Back at you. "violated site rules on comment policy" Back at you. "refused to engage in the debate you asked for" What debate did I ask for? Are you hallucinating? I simply asked you to prove your false claim, which of course you've failed to do. "read the links provided" What about them? "failed to address the actual philosophers and philosophic questions that Rand's claims apply to" What on earth does this have to do with proving your claim? You are actually insane.
@Dcleve Downvoting my questions because you made a fool of yourself in this conversation? Now that is simply sad and pathetic.
@user76284 -- I have not knowingly downvoted any posts you have made -- if I did it was some time ago and unrelated to this conversation. More random falsehoods and accusations ? Check.
@Dcleve Yes you did. You know exactly what you did. You are a liar, and the fact that you continue lying about it is all I need to know about your integrity.
Discussion on question by don: Specif…
Discussion on question by don: Specif…