Find a flaw. No one can do it

>the moral
Stoped reading there

And assuming we know enough about anything to determine what consequences doing such or such will have.

This

Pretty much sums up what I thought of the Book.

Seems to be a half hearted attempt to justify morality outside of religion. Why write a book, when you can just say morality evolved because it's evolutionarily advantageous, as lain out in evolutionary game theory.

Hackwork, the lot of it, these guys

Bump.

Chronicles themselves would detail most of the troop movements and conjecture would fill up the rest.

Immoral behavior is also evolutionarily advantageous.

/thread

will sam harris ever recover?

Only in a society with a lot of cooperators. In a system filled with defectors, there is no evolutionary benefit.

Defectors do benefit at a certain level, which is why cooperative societies invented things like shaming and laws.

It's why western society is stagnating, because we value defection

In a society full of clever rogues the cleverest rogues will do best. In a society full of gullible do-gooders, clever rogues will thrive at their expense. Either way it is advantageous. Don't conflate "socially advantageous" with "evolutionarily advantageous". Nature doesn't care if your society collapses.

Society is evolutionarily advantageous. Until the development of society, Humans had a smaller effective population than Gorillas.

All human behavior is evolutionary, society is nothing more than evolutionarily derived processes refined

sorry if poor quality

Does he just hate philosophy?

>
>evolution has a standard of right and wrong rather than just being a scientific phenomena that happens like any other
>mosquito are more moral than gorillas cause they are doing better survival wise

You literally can't agree in philosophy. If you weren't a brainlet you'd understand that black is white and white is black.

philosophy isn't a contest it is about building off other ideas to find new ideas and perspectives to broaden human understanding and sense of meaning. sam isn't creating a new idea or exploring a new perspective he is just saying the exact same thing said by others before him and giving it a different title. peter singer who whether or not you agree with him is providing new perspectives in the philosophical world of utilitarianism he is contributing and making proposing new views, sam is not.

I haven't read it. But science determining morality seems absolutely absurd.

Didn't Kant already prove this?

You have no idea what we're talking about.

Morality develops in kingroups to encourage their fitness. It's not the same for all species, and it certainly doesn't apply to R-selected species.

>sam isn't creating a new idea or exploring a new perspective he is just saying the exact same thing said by others before him and giving it a different title
Exactly, you brainlet. He can repeat the same platitudes but as long as he's going to use some fancy words and make some new names it's a ok.

>philosophy isn't a contest it is about building off other ideas to find new ideas and perspectives to broaden human understanding and sense of meaning.
no, it's about coming to know the Truth

Everyone knows the Truth already, there's nothing left to discuss. I'm right, you're wrong.

yeah it is a learning process different people looking at different angles gets us closer to truth
spicy meme
morality can develop evolutionary but sam is claiming that this makes it objective and universal rather than just whatever happens by circumstances of evolution, like evolution has plans or intentions

Without God, there is no objective basis for morality.

Pretty huge flaw.

Then it's not objective. Objective morality stems from absolutism, hence the derivation of a God. At that point, he's just arbitrarily using Science as a stand in for God.

If he's trying to present a code of non-religious morals that most people will agree on, then fine, but it won't be objective. Morals are abstractions of evolutionary circumstance, and do not exist in an objective reality

i agree that is why i think sam harris is flawed cause he is proposing moral absolutes

...

Then he's a retarded memer, or he's afraid of Atheists who refuse to kowtow to what a formerly religious society considered morally absolute and doesn't want to look bad.

He doesn't want someone to come along and say, "Carthaginian Genocide was not objectively wrong, and had no negative outcomes for the Roman Empire."

>this is what passes for intellectualism in the 21st century

Just fucking end Western civilization already.

>Scientific Morality exists, and any arguments against it are overthinking
>""""Genius"""" level intellectual calls arguments against his opinion overthinking
It, just, like, is, though. Trust me, I'm smrt

Hmmm... sounds smart...

I said trust me, I'm smart. god isn't real, everyone who says God isn't real is super smart, even the highschoolers who read my friend's book that's written on a 13 year old reading level.

Why are you arguing with me, when millions of retards still gather around and wish to a sky genie every sunday?

Hmm... very smart... he no doubt is a smelly poppie cuck numale... guess... I just should convert to some esoteric obscure meme religion...

Random question: what ethnicity is Sam Harris?

Assbaby.

Are you implying, that I, Sam Harris, am incapable of outthinking some fat guy from 1,000,000 years ago?
I, mean, as an Atheist, he was probably smarter than most people at the time, but I am an Atheist in the modern day, one who knows all the facts derived from enlightenment era discoveries.

Had those men not lived, I'm sure I'd know all about evolution and gravity and neutrinos, because I'm smart, and smart people know that.

hmm... you are no doubt a smelly ass babi... just like Jesus... braise Jesus?... yes... but not catholic... only orthodox... are... you... (WUB WUB WUB) A GOD...

Five hundred years ago, ''The Earth is flat'' was considered a fact by Science. most of what we believe today, will be considered bullshit in 500 years from now on. Scientism is cancer. It tries to turn Science into a Religion.

No it wasn't. No European intellectual thought the world was flat in the middle ages.

People like you are why absolute mockeries like the nutheists get attention, instead of legitimate field heads

There isn't, most of the time

Historians base themselves off of material evidences (archaeology) and written documents mostly, but those documents themselves were written by an agent wich could mould the narrative and alter 'facts' to favor their agenda.

Still, in cases of battles there is generally material evidence to it, so a synthesis is made between the written documents (subjective) and the material evidences (objective)

There are obviously many epistemological problems with history, and academic history does not claim to write history exactly as it was because it is actually impossible. Even if one were to travel in time and witnessed the event, or had a recording of it, its report would still be affected by its own subjectivity, that's affected by the individual's culture and historical time. Nations, for example, are quite a new concept.

Thus any historian considers not historical narrative as what really happened in the past, it is merely the representation of what happened adapted to the narrative of a particular culture. History is inherently innacurate in a sense, because we will never truly know what's in the past. Still, it doesn't mean we can't have an understanding of what happened, and sometimes even a fairly accurate approximation of what really happened, wich is the case of these battles.

Any historian that claims that he knows what REALLY HAPPENED is a hack

Everyone poops.
Every person you have ever met has pushed a big stinky turd out of their buttholes.
Every single person has had stinky gross shit smeared between their cheeks and had to clean it off themselves.
The majority of them have actually enjoyed doing this because it feels good to them.
They have all done this over and over and over.
We all get out of bed, go in public, and look at each other in the eyes knowing that we're all just waiting to squeeze out a dookie.

We're all only human.
Everyone who judges you for who and how you fuck is just full of shit.
Don't make such a big deal out of it.

Sam Harris is nothing more than a Militant New Atheist trying to abolish the role of Religion in deciding Morality and replacing it with Science. He will fail.

Wisdom!

Is this quote real? Can someone actually be this retarded having had academic education?

Jesus Fucking Christ

>instead of legitimate field heads
Dare do tell. Who are these ''legitimate field heads''?

Muhammad plz go.

...

>We're all only human.
>Everyone who judges you for who and how you fuck is just full of shit.
>Don't make such a big deal out of it.
So basically, You're a Moral Relative Nihilist.

You should try it yourself.

This is the most retarded logic I have ever heard

>I can do whatever I want because everyone poops

You're so pent up. You really should try pooping, it's going to help you.

>Everyone poops

[citation needed]

Sounds like a study needs to be done.

I volunteer to do the hot asian women and will observe with a camera to see if they poop or not.

If I have to do men... Well... I'm not that interested.

I don't know, but I'd take Frans der Waal over Dawkins 10 days a week