Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[Angrboda]

In support of Harris, if we have intrinsic interests as a result of our evolved biology, then we might be able to derive an ought from an is, although that might no longer be a moral ought, but one of utility. It's a tricky question, but since Harris never justifies that move but simply assumes it, I consider his argument unsuccessful.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Destroying all life on earth is to inflict the greatest possible suffering on the maximum amount of beings.  Harris, and he makes this argument alot, lol...considers this the very definition of bad.  If this is not bad, then nothing is bad.

Well you could make the argument that actually it does minimise suffering in the long term because in the same way that life procreates to create more entropy in the future, destroying life stops it procreating to create more suffering in the future. Better to take one hit now than billions of years more.

Of course I don't personally believe this, not least because I believe life will always develop somehow if it is possible.

[unfogged]

You have the gas pedal, faster, and the break pedal, slower, on the floor by your feet.  Dur.

Wait, I was asking how you can drop to a lower gear when wanting to accelerate faster. A gas pedal won't do that. It will put you into a higher gear when you go faster.

Automatics have a "stick" which is usually a lever on the steering column.  It typically has P,R,1,2,D on it.  P=parking, R=Reverse, 1 and 2 are for forcing the transmission into lower gears, and D (Drive) is the automatic mode.  Most people just use P, R, and D although some few know enough to use 1 or 2 when needed like going down a long, steep incline.

I drive a manual and would never go back to automatic; automatics are boring.

[The Grand Nudger]

Destroying all life on earth is to inflict the greatest possible suffering on the maximum amount of beings.  Harris, and he makes this argument alot, lol...considers this the very definition of bad.  If this is not bad, then nothing is bad.

Well you could make the argument that actually it does minimise suffering in the long term because in the same way that life procreates to create more entropy in the future, destroying life stops it procreating to create more suffering in the future. Better to take one hit now than billions of years more.

Of course I don't personally believe this, not least because I believe life will always develop somehow if it is possible.

A person can make any argument..but it wont make them good arguments. 

Imagine yourself holding the button.  If you press it, no one will ever cause more suffering than you have..because there won't be anyone left to suffer.  The contended selling point of the idea demonstrates exactly -why- it's a bad decision by the metric of suffering in a suffering reducing moral schema. You'll have not only done the opposite of what you intend..you'll have done it to a greater extent than will ever be possible again.

Unless more life arises, evolves..and find itself considering the same, ofc.....and then you'll have inflicted maximum suffering to no effect at all, lol.

Repeat ad infinitum.



Hedonism does have a problem, though, on that count..even if that's not a particularly compelling example. We do accept that it might sometimes be right (even if it's not good) to cause some suffering to reduce other suffering. The idea, generally, is that the suffering caused should be lesser than the suffering reduced..otherwise we've replaced a small problem with a bigger problem.

[I_am_not_mafia]

A person can make any argument..but it wont make them good arguments. 

That's my point though. If we only go by science, letting it make the decisions for us, then we won't end up with good decisions because science is objective, not subjective. We need to make the decisions and then use the science to give us the options.

Imagine yourself holding the button.  If you press it, no one will ever cause more suffering than you have..because there won't be anyone left to suffer.  The contended selling point of the idea demonstrates exactly -why- it's a bad decision by the metric of suffering in a suffering reducing moral schema.  You'll have not only done the opposite of what you intend..you'll have done it to a greater extent than will ever be possible again.

My husband often jokes that this is me ... (Davros that is, not the doctor)

[The Grand Nudger]

That's my point though. If we only go by science, letting it make the decisions for us, then we won't end up with good decisions because science is objective, not subjective. We need to make the decisions and then use the science to give us the options.

I'm having difficulty parsing why objectivity is a flaw of science when it comes to moral decision-making.  That's precisely -why- Harris (and others) would like to tear down the conceptual wall between facts and morality.  It's contended that moral relativism and moral subjectivity are very poor ways to arrange normative ethics.  

If we're looking for realist or objective normative ethics, we might want to use our most productive objective tool.

You're strongly agreeing with what Harris is proposing, going so far as to say that we -need- to do it. That science gives us the options towards some goal, and we choose the best among them. Even I don't take it that far, lol. I think it might be a good idea..but I don't know that we need a giant scientific study to tell us not to go all rapey mcrapeface. I consider it a self evident truth....and no amount of scientific studies lining out the benefits of rape (and there are benefits) will change my mind.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Wait, I was asking how you can drop to a lower gear when wanting to accelerate faster. A gas pedal won't do that. It will put you into a higher gear when you go faster.

Automatics have a "stick" which is usually a lever on the steering column.  It typically has P,R,1,2,D on it.  P=parking, R=Reverse, 1 and 2 are for forcing the transmission into lower gears, and D (Drive) is the automatic mode.  Most people just use P, R, and D although some few know enough to use 1 or 2 when needed like going down a long, steep incline.

I drive a manual and would never go back to automatic; automatics are boring.

Agreed.

Not to be judgemental (because that is SO unlike me), but anyone who can't drive stick isn't fully human. At best, they are a tolerable subhuman who has been taught to speak, wear shoes, and not make messes in the house.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I used to love sticks...then I drove a semi.   Fuck all that noise. All auto all the time for me, now. I put the bitch in drive and cruise, that's how I like it.

[I_am_not_mafia]

You're strongly agreeing with what Harris is proposing

Oh shit really? I didn't know what he was proposing.

That's worrying.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gonna keep you up at night, eh?