Find a flaw. No one can do it.
Find a flaw. No one can do it
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
*blocks your path*
is that hume?
>Assuming utilitarianism is correct...
Plenty have though in academia. Harris is a hack.
>posting in a thread likely to attract well read history students
Can someone explain to a history analphabet how it is possible to describe events from the past so accurately? Other than chronicles, how is it possible to know the exact decisions that took place in a time-continuous battle 2000+ years ago.
Example:
youtu.be
Just because Science is one way of establishing morality doesn't mean it's the best way. Certainly it's logical if you adhere to atheistic or agnostic, along with western, ideologies. But at the end of the day the argument of morality isn't necessarily an answerable one. Furthermore, Harris makes many assumptions about what is objectively good for humans without living in a time where the human brain can be truly measured and studied, all we have are loose theories fitting whatever ideological agenda suits our respective societies. Take for example, Harris would probably argue that experiencing a substantial loss or pain in one's life is an objectively bad thing. Most would agree based on the fact that we don't think bad things like pain or loss are beneficial. Now suppose a study of the brain proves that living a life without trauma of any kind can result in emotional/intellectual stunting. Which is better then? Everything Harris says is a logical, but his rhetoric is ultimately steeped in assumption without the proper evidence of what humans are to concretely back anything up...
>Just because Science is one way of establishing morality doesn't mean it's the best way
It literally isn't a way to establish morality at all.
He doesn't even care to read on the topic he's covering and describes words such as metaethics to be boring...