/lit/ - Literature

Yeah he's filled with all sorts of big brained ideas, like when he confused a character within a story commanding his followers to kill people and said Jesus himself was commanding his followers to kill people. This was after he wrote a book about Christianity too, so you know he did his research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENtlW-LEqu8

>>13113300
This is just some nitpicking in bad-faith, it doesn't detract from Sams overall argument in anyway.

>>13113311
When I say really stupid shit and demonstrate my incompetence you're just nitpicking by pointing it out.

>>13113237
He reinvented Bentham's moral philosophy without realizing it, and on top of that doesn't even understand the is-ought problem. Why would you take him seriously?

>>13113237
Sam Harris has no understanding of philosophy because he was never formally educated in it, if he read Kant maybe just once he'd realize why he was wrong.

>>13113237
Sam Harris is mostly fine but his real problem is a lack of curiosity and a presumption of greater education than he in fact possesses.

How go get an ”ought” from an ”is” - by Samuel Harrington

A Critique of Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI

>>13113339
Sam is correct on the is-out problem, put your hand on a hot stove and tell me that isn't an objectively bad experience that we want to avoid.

>>13113353
sam's such a brainlet it makes me feel better about myself

>>13113386
You can put your hand on a hot stove with a glove to clean it.
You can put your hand on a hot stove that is nevertheless not hot enough to burn your hand.
You can put your hand on a hot stove to cauterize a wound.
You can put your hand on a hot stove to burn away a wart or a tick.

You can put your hand on a hot stove and burn yourself on purpose in order to mortify the body.
You can put your hand on a hot stove in order to suffer.
The hidden premise is that you ought to minimize suffering, but this isn't established anywhere from an "is."
The argument fails rather spectacularly. It's almost paridigmatically poor philosophical argumentation.

>>13113353

Sam is correct, people screencap his post to make fun of him without actually dealing with the argument.

No human wants to suffer for no reason, benefit, or foreseen reward. We can objectively say no human wants to suffer. No one wants to put their hand on a hot stove and suffer for no reason, this would be an objectively bad experience.

We can further draw from the fact that humans want to avoid suffering and develop moral philosophy.

Is-out problem is garbage

>>13113420
strawmaning sams point, no ones talking about cleaning stoves or using heat to heal wounds. We're talking about suffering for no reason

>>13113423

>>13113420
Post a pic of your hand on a hot stove or STFU.

>>13113431
>or STFU:
based unironic zoomer

>>13113311
>>13113386
>>13113423
>>13113427
You can tell the Harrisite from a normal person by how they awkwardly use his first name when referring to him.

>>13113427
... yeah. I'm actually surprised at anon who want to argue with harris' point did some mistake with making reason with it

... but have you look at the sentence "the hidden premise is that you ought to minimize suffering, but this isn't established anywhere from an "is.""

>>13113237
>Is this man the great moral philosopher of all time?
good bait have a (You)

>>13113423
The skip happens at step 3 where he presupposes that suffering is bad. There is a difference between saying that "conscious minds seek to reduce suffering" and saying that "conscious minds ought to seek to reduce suffering." The first is a descriptive statement, the other prescriptive. Sam Harris conflates the two. That some experiences "suck" is a value statement. An examination of what it means to go through experiences which "suck," what suffering consists in, that would be descriptive.

This is a somewhat tedious argument and Sam Harris is a little obtuse for not relenting.

>>13113423
>objectively means intensely
idiot, if he just said we can ignore it for all practical purposes it wouldn't be so bad.

You empiricists are cute, trying to solve things that shouldn't be a problem.

>>13113475
>The skip happens at step 3 where he presupposes that suffering is bad

This presupposition is correct.

Conscious minds don't want to suffer for no reason, the only "counter examples" anyone ever gives to this are simply strawmanning the argument.

"Well most people would get stabbed if it meant protecting their child."

"You'd cut off your leg if you were bitten by a poisonous snake if it was the only way to keep your life"

etc. etc. These do not refute the point that no conscious being wants to suffer for NO REASON, no benefit, no gratification, no gain. We can say that suffering for no reason is an objectively bad experience for conscious minds, this is a fact about the universe.

Show me a human or an animal which subjects itself to suffering for absolutely no reason, does not exist.

Sammy boi is right

>>13113510
Even saying "concious minds dont want to suffer" doesn't get you an ought (even though it's not true and very circumstantial as people expose themselves to suffering and pain voluntarily many many times a day)

>>13113510
It's a fine thing to presuppose, but it's not derived from the fact. We don't act based on the fact, but with regard to the fact given a value.

>>13113514
If all conscious minds avoid suffering, as conscious minds ourselves, we ought to avoid suffering, and we do so naturally as everyone else alive does.

>people expose themselves to suffering and pain voluntarily many many times a day

No they don't, people only subject themselves to pain voluntarily if there is some kind of benefit. No one subjects themselves to pain suffering for NO REASON.

Give examples if you believe otherwise

>>13113563
This is circular logic. Anyone who exposed themselves to pain must have a reason, therefore anyone who exposes themselves to pain did so for a reason. Your premise is your conclusion.

>>13113563
>Give examples if you believe otherwise
If it's merely conceivable that a person can inflict pain themselves for no reason, then it's a possibility which must be positively disproved.

>>13113237
He’s just a blogger with a fake degree in nothing

>>13113576
I gove you big brain boy / 10

>>13113427
>determinist philosophy
>wants to avoid suffering 'for no reason'

No inherent contradiction to be seen here folks.

>>13113386
Define "objectively".
Define "bad".

>>13113563
1: All minds avoid suffering.
2: We are minds.
C: We ought to avoid suffering.
Doesn't follow.

>>13113738
Spend time on liveleak

>>13113762
Is war bad?

>>13113774
Define "bad".

>>13113300
>"there wasn't any killing of unbelievers by Christians until the 4th century when the Romans adopted the religion"
Holy shit, two fucking minutes in and he's already proving himself to be a retard.

If you're going to criticize someone for talking shit at least make sure you don't commit the same mistake.

>>13113783
He said there wasn't any systematic persecution from Christians until the Romans adopted the religion and continued acting as Romans always have. The Christians were systematically prosecuted themselves and they had no systematic power, so how could they be the ones doing the persecuting?

>>13113774
It involves bad shit, yes.

>>13113774
>Is war bad?
no

>>13113815
What about killing people. Is killing bad?

>>13113814
He said 'killing in the name of Jesus,' watch it again. There was mob violence left and right during the first three centuries of Christianity, he's either ignorant about the history of Christianity or disingenuous.

>>13113827
Yes he said killing the name of Jesus and he's talking about systematic violence. There is a difference between mob violence and systematic persecution.

>>13113822
Many instances of killing are. Not all.

>>13113841
Just like putting your hand on a stove?

>>13113846
No. I do that myself. Cutting off an innocent child’s arms and legs and letting it bleed to death for ones own amusement etc. is an instance of evil that poses a problem. Not killing in self defence.

>>13113839
He says they didn't start killing in the name of Jesus, which they did. It doesn't matter if they acquired systematic power to do so three centuries later.

>>13113855
Really man, think it about for just a moment. Do you honestly think he believes that no Christian has ever engaged in an act of violence before the 4th century? I don't think you're being charitable because from the context it's clear he's talking about systematic violence. Christians didn't have systematic power until the Romans adopted the religion.

>>13113873
What’s the difference between systematic violence and non-systematic violence?

>>13113873
He literally says they only started killing because le evil Romans continued in their murderous ways after adopting Christianity, anon.

>>13113237
no he is a soft talking little faggot jew bitch boy
>m-m-muh atheism is the way to go
>builds entire career shilling against muslims
yeah i'm thinking he's lying about having no faith and is in fact a subversive little kosherboi

>>13113880
Systematic violence would be with a government support. Before the Romans adopted Christianity, the Christians had no authority to persecute anyone and were persecuted themselves.

>>13113890
Any this is true. The Romans adopted the religion and continued acting as Romans always have.

>>13113909
Is systematic violence worse than non-systematic violence?

>>13113909
>The Romans adopted the religion and continued acting as Romans always have
Yeah and that's not the point here, is it? The point is that the guy is a retard who shouldn't be making youtube videos to criticize anyone.

>>13113386
>who was Gaius Mucius Scaevola

>>13113915
It doesn't matter. He doesn't think that no Christian ever engaged in violence before the 4th century because he was talking about a particular type of violence and you uncharitably assumed the dumbest possible opinion from him, presumably because you want him to be wrong about something so you can justify dismissing what he says. Maybe I'm just being an armchair psychologist though.

>>13113933
not that anon but oddly i know exactly who Scaevola was. based Roman, subject of Livy.

Like the rest of the "New Atheists" he's nothing more than a cheerleader for Islamophobic imperialism.

>>13113934
>He doesn't think that no Christian ever engaged in violence before the 4th century
He clearly does, that's why he ascribes Christian violence to Roman culture.

>because he was talking about a particular type of violence and you uncharitably assumed the dumbest possible opinion from him, presumably because you want him to be wrong about something so you can justify dismissing what he says. Maybe I'm just being an armchair psychologist though.
That's a different anon and no, it's you who's being apologetic of his mistake.