Is he the most rational man on earth?

please stop posting pictures of sam harris followed by something like "is he the best guy" we get it you like sam harris

Even my cat is more reasonable.

he memed himself when he said that science could answer moral questions

I swear the positivists have gotten so batshit insane that they don't even understand their own dogma anymore

that smirk
that eyebrow
i feel sick :(

samharris.org/blog/item/clarifying-the-landscape

He is the Cicero of our time.

Do rational people often get in fights on twitter?

I read it over, and as expected, his clarification to "science can answer moral questions" is to expand the definitions of "science", "answer", and "moral questions". In other words, he doesn't really believe that "science can answer moral questions" but rather that "the scientific process may have inadvertent consequences on what we think will benefit us in the future", which is fine. The problem that Sam thinks he can get away from is the fact that once the arbitrary systems of "prescriptist morality" are called into question, so to is the validity of "goodness" and "badness". In other words, these terms become empty concepts, no matter how eager one may be to conflate them with rational self-interest. Rational self-interest, itself, is opposed to these ideas of good and bad. To serve these concepts is to serve something other than yourself, which, by definition, is not self-interest. Even more strange in this context is his insistence on "moral truths", as if a group of self-interested individuals can then come to a consensus on what is good and what is bad. Beyond that, the idea of moral truths seems to be in conflict with his belief in descriptivist morality.

rational people that care about their reputation

I laughed at the picture in OP. not sure why though. I think because it's just such a stupid picture. was it his idea or the photographer? "oh I have a great idea, let's shoot you in the dark" it will be ebin

I don't know who that is, but he looks like a very sick man. Like he has a terminal illness. May just be the lighting situation, though.

>once the arbitrary systems of "prescriptist morality"
The point of Sam Harris is that this is not arbitrary. He defines evil as the worst possible suffering for the most people. Nothing can be worse than that, and if you accept this simple definition then every moral statement is a statement about how we can move away from this "evil" and so a factual statement about the well-being of humans. Conclusion: science can say if a way to move apart from this "evil" is better than another with evidence, rationality and the scientific method. "Science can determine human values".

>He defines evil as the worst possible suffering for the most people.

So if I was to nuke a city I'd be doing good by saving people from a life of suffering

Rationality is irrational.
This damn it, there's a mysticism of positivism now.

At least the mysticism of rationality could be justified, this is just hilarious.
Utilitarian ethics are a joke

If the life of somebody is more suffering than a neutral or happy state, then yes, killing him (or her) is moral. But very few people are mostly suffering.

but how do you know for sure that their life won't eventually get better? plus, is it really your call to end somebody else's suffering?

>But very few people are mostly suffering.

Wew lads

Utilitarian horseshit

Whats wrong with Utilitarianism? seems like perfectly good moral framework.
HARDMODE: no nihilist arguments, no is/ought.

Science itself isn't determining any human values here. It is just measuring things and then half baked utilitarianism is being used to translate it into human values in the most plain and thoughtless way possible.

Its like saying that a hammer is holding a painting up on the wall because it put the nail there. Also the nail is made of shit because it is a utilitarian nail that can't hold up anything.

It's* oops

>presuppositions
>handwavy moralizing
>Trying to form an objective grounds off of something inherently subjective and thereby also presuming that humanity is somehow an object
btw utilitarianism is a nihilist morality, it's just that Liberals don't want to accept that they're functionally just nihilists.

His face is an ode to teenage profundity