>Science can answer moral questions
What did he mean by this? I thought morality was just another expression of subjective feelings.
Science can answer moral questions
Noah Parker
Other urls found in this thread:
philpapers.org
plato.stanford.edu
philpapers.org
twitter.com
Justin Gray
Morality is objective and originates from God.
Aiden Edwards
>What did he mean by this?
lel, ask Marc Hauser about it
Ethan Campbell
>Sam Harris
Stop reading there.
Adrian Bailey
fpbp
Zachary Ross
Morality is not supported by math so we should just abolish ethics altogether and experiment on people like him. I want to experiment with implanting 200 penises into his body.
Christopher Davis
I'm just gonna drop this here and book it before the STEM-tards try and do philosophy without ever reading it.
>philpapers.org
Most moral philosophers are "moral realists" which means that they believe in objective morality. This is almost always argued without god.
One the the three most competitive theories is called consequentialism which basically states that what is good is happiness (happiness defined usually as pleasure).
This is Harris' starting point. So he's not concerned with proving objective morals. He takes it for granted, thinking that anything besides considering the well being (happiness) of conscious creatures is silly. So he says science can then help determine which actions are more pleasurable (and therefore more good, i.e. moral) than others.
Make sense?
Henry Hernandez
Do you have to bait like this in every thread?
Grayson Walker
right, what is "moral" depends on the stated goal. if the goal is universal happiness, sure, we can define immoral and moral actions. if the goal is happiness for me and only me, we can also define immoral and moral actions.
the problem is, it's an arbitrary distinction and doesn't even pretend to solve the is/ought fallacy. Why should I care if something is "immoral"? Why should I care if I'm interfering with your arbitrarily defined goal of universal happiness? there's zero motivational fuel for morality without god.
Leo Clark
This is why I said "before the STEM-tards try and do philosophy without ever reading it"
I gave a quick summary to explain what Harris was saying because arguing for Moral Realism on a Veeky Forums science board is just not going to happen.
I'll leave you with this: plato.stanford.edu
Before you jump to conclusions just ask your self: what's more likely? That all of moral philosophers, who have dedicated their entire life to arguing for moral realism, are wrong; or maybe someone from Veeky Forums who hasn't had exposure to philosophy before is simply uninformed on the topic that they're uneducated about?