Why does Veeky Forums hate this guy? His logic is flawless

Why does Veeky Forums hate this guy? His logic is flawless.

youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sCvw_eAT9aM
youtube.com/watch?v=dOOQ1ZCeMY4
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>muh flawless logic

>neuroscience tells us what makes us happy
>therefore it can teach us what is moral

It's amazing what you can accomplish when you just assume utilitarianism.

We don't, only redditors and /pol/tards hate him because he speaks the truth

Even assuming utilitarianism, his logic is fucked
>tech advances
>inject everyone with happy coma juice for eternity
>the end
wow such a great moral system. Well, I guess it's better than receiving genital torture from some AI

>science can answer moral questions
How does science merit the masses more than the individual? Or vice versa. Or does it merit everybody equally?
Is that scientific truth?

>Science can answer moral question like maximizing wellbeing.
Wellbeing is actually measured as low neuroticism and high extraversion. So that's how much depth the metric of wellbeing has as of today.

>science can ask moral questions

not the most important ones

let's take his materialist economic pragmatist viewpoint to its logical extreme in a scenario where Sam Harris becomes the philosopher king of a global order.

What would be the Harris policy on birth? In line with supply and demand, when a child is born demand goes up with no guarantee that it will contribute to supplying useful services or goods, especially on a planet with dwindling resources. Does Harris create a new institution dedicated to influencing the birthrates of those who are more likely to produce useful children and against the birthrates of those who don't? This is the logical extrapolation of his viewpoint but he won't go there because revealing the pure metallic form of his genuine unadulterated autism to the public would spook the proles.

>Veeky Forums
>LITERATURE

So this is how they told women to wash themselves.

What less important moral questions can science answer?

everything that follows from governance is a moral issue, the decisions of institutions in power influence the workings of the world and create moral quandaries within the various moral frameworks of those affected, and every new answer to any moral question either reforms, diminishes, or reinforces the various competing institutions of authority

His only conclusion is
>We can no more respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human well being than we can respect and tolerate vast differences in the notions about how disease spreads or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes. We simply must converge on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life.

What a hack. Every true thing he says is common sense and in between those pieces common of sense he makes wild assertions that just don't follow from his base claims. I can't understand how this guy's got such a following

>universal suffrage is common sense

>inject everyone with happy coma juice for eternity
If we could do this, why shouldn't we?

Science can't answer moral questions. Evolution does. Moral is the collection of behavior that allows a group to survive indefinitely.
Now the question becomes, can we find this set of evolutionary behavior through science?
If you look at chimps you'll find aspect of moral behavior. Bonobos, Baboons, naked mole rats, even ants and bees, have aspects of moral behavior.

literally nothing wrong with that scenario

>Moral is the collection of behavior that allows a group to survive indefinitely.
Would it be immoral for one species to sacrifice itself for another?

Veeky Forums hates him because he's the philosophy wing of the smug, know-it-all, Reddit-using group of people who think they're much smarter than they really are because they have traded in their old gods for the new god of Science, which is merely a pastiche and mockery of actual science. Basically, he's a member of a cult of pseudo-intellectualism that people on Veeky Forums, who generally don't like it when people are up their own ass or riding a high horse, do not like.

before science
Man kill Man

after science
Man kill Man

Yes, if the other species carries your species with it somehow. The same can be said about muticelluarity. All the cells in your body will die with it. Only a few cells, out of the trillions, a single sperm or egg, will survive. But that's okay since that single sperm or egg has the capability of all those other cells. Now there are some cells that refuse to die with the body. We call these cells immoral because they are selfish and refuse to make sacrifice for the group.

>science can ask moral questions

nigga scientists can't even share publications without lawsuits

>Consider this possibility. Imagine if everyone in your city was me, Sam Harris. Your mayor, your doctor, your entire postal service. The criminals in prisons. Even your dog, somehow, was me. I invite you to ask - would that really be such a bad thing? Imagine the possibilities of a world comprised of only a single, solitary, utilitarian mind. Just think about how smooth and well-maintained the public utilities would be, for example. Your pizzas would show up exactly fifteen minutes after you ordered them. Your kids would get great marks in school. All I'm raising with this thoight is the possibilities of a world in which all are one. Where we think about not being Sam Harris in the same way we think about the slave trade, or FGM. This is a glorious horizon of possibilities I fail to find any flaws in.

This is the thought I'll kill myself to.

I like him. He's at least trying to overcome nihilism even though that's not really possible.

lmfao reading this in his voice

Veeky Forums should write a collaborative Sam Harris book on morals, ethics, and the possibility of wonderful Utopian scenarios like this

>hedonists

kek'd

keep on sleeping is my favorite podcast

plaul boom
youtube.com/watch?v=sCvw_eAT9aM

peter jordanson is even better
youtube.com/watch?v=dOOQ1ZCeMY4
>an anarcho-masochist creating a theme park for psychopaths

Say there were only two humans left, a man and a women. They are living on an alien planet inhabited by benevolent aliens, who have kindly adopted them. Would it be immoral for them to sacrifice themselves to save an alien baby? All human DNA dies out forever but they save a member of another species that they emphasize with. It seems self-evidently moral to me.

Pointless pontifications like this really make me cringe... you clearly have no idea what you're talking about

Depends on whether the alien species consider human beings as part of its ingroup and not a threat. If the aliens are on the buddha level of selflessness and consider the entire universe as being part of it's ingroup, then saving the human is "moral." But the problem here is that we, the reader, is making the moral judgement. We are judging the alien action on the baby. We are biased because we consider the baby as part of our ingroup that is the human race. If we were the aliens it would be a different matter. Some of us would say to save the baby, they are part of the ingroup of life. We call these aliens liberal. Then there will be some paranoid aliens that say the baby is a potential threat and not connected to the immediate ingroup of the alien's species and so should be killed. We call these aliens conservatives.

Foucault was pretty spot on about some things.

Foucault was probably the only meme-post modernist with anything worth half a dog shit to say

>Make theory on morality
>Can't explain animal behavior
If you're theory can't even explain simple phenomenon. It's not worth shit.

Hume is spinning in his grave right now...