/lit/ - Literature

>falls apart at #5

>>14222916
I doubt anything in history has ever produced as much high grade idiocy as twitter

Ok I've avoided all physical suffering what do I do now Mr Harris?

>>14222929
This. How do people miss something so blatant?

>>14222946
Why does #5 fail? I'm a brainlet

>>14222916
What if 1 is false and moral facts exist?

>>14222916
>mfw he tries to come off as original

>>14222916
This thread sucks. I do what is morally ought to do and report it.

>>14222916
>put your hand on the stove
>but Sam, I suffer from congenital insensitivity to pain

>>14222952
Mostly, it assumes the conclusion.

>>14222916
>pain = bad

If you want to bridge the gap, just do what MacIntyre did. A knife cuts more effectively than a rock; we call that which does some job more effectively than some other thing “better” than it relative to that job, and “good” if it does that job more effectively than the average of things. That means relative to actions, things can objectively be both better or worse and good or bad. The act of being is an action, and the act of being a human is as well. Morality falls out from these premises.

Holy fucking shit I hate nuAtheism

>Getting from "Is" to "Ought"
>Step 1: Start from the position that there are no Oughts
>Step 2: Don't provide anything that would prove the existence of Oughts
>Step 3: Conclude that Oughts exist
>DONE!
Thanks, Dr. Philosophy Man.

>>14222989
I don't think it actually does, it's just a conditional that's never followed up properly.

>>14223001
dip your face in boiling water

>>14223001
>Pain=good

>>14222952
Simply put, it assumes that we have a certain obligation to do what we enjoy.

>>14223044
>>14222952
Really what it does is itself fail the is/ought gap. It says there exists an is: pain, and assumes an ought: avoid. Really it just becomes an argument for intuition which ends up at loggerheads with the is/ought distinction

>>14223035
>>14223041
>pain is the signal that you are doing something wrong, and to stop doing it. it's by definition good

>>14222943

Create a more pleasurable state than the current one. Then maximise. It's basically hedonism.

>>14223001
>>14223041
>Pain = good or bad
Ok, brainlets.

>>14223069
This.
Just hook yourself up with heroin drips and die.

>>14223004
This assumes that there is a certain end or goals for humans similar to knives and such, brainlet.

>>14223081
>pain = nothing

>>14223101
>If pain /= good or bad, then it doesn't exist!

>>14223094

>Who is Jesus Christ

Lmfaoing @ u rn

Materialism is a dead end. Nothing can be said about it. So boring zzzzz

>>14223127
What is that supposed to imply?

>>14223068
this is answered by #6

>>14223069
If happiness is measured by the current happy-juice concentration in the brain, and overall happiness of a person's life equals the average happy-juice concentration over the given lifetime, then one can conclude that by pumping babies' brains with happy-juice and immediately killing it afterwards maximises total happy-juice and minimises time lived therefore the babies would be the happiest people to ever live.

Wow JBP mind broke him

>>14223004
>if I make up a specific definition for "good" that happens to be objectively measurable then morality is objective
lmaooooo

Dude I just solved humanities biggest problems in just one Twitter ® thread! Haha, now please head to my store and buy my books and download my App.

>>14223094
Well, yeah, that was McIntyre's point.

>>14223017
I think it does, by smuggling in the idea of "suckness" as in "things one would rather avoid".
Sure, everyone will think some things suck, but that doesn't mean you can go from that to an universal concept of what sucks and what does not.

>>14223004
>MacIntyre
>Literally verbatim Aristotle's function argument...

>reading twitter

>>14223140

That he is the end of humanity

>>14222916

He is literally saying nothing. He claims to start from a position of not assuming any oughts, but the instantly says that it just is that some things are objectively bad. How can anyone take this hack seriously?

>>14223001
Me like when daddy whips my naked butt so pain good

Worst line of reasoning I’ve ever read

>>14223279
Finally a patrician post.

>>14222916
so this is the power of the axiomatic ought...
so he's only saying the way to get around the is/ought gap is to assume the ought, which is still proving the is/ought gap correct

>>14222916
How is this not plain Jane utilitarianism?

>>14222916
Lol what a fucking retard, he doesn't realise that this "*is*" is still of course -- in his understanding -- including the ought of what we should do by understanding human values. Secondly his statement that "if we were to learn everything there is to know about physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, economics, etc., we would know everything there is to know about making our corner of the universe suck less" is a vast materialisation of mans experience. It is more than just simply the collection of "facts", for which if it were just that, nothing could be done about it. But it is instead a driving philosophical and religious experience. How or why we achieve this spiritual desire is the direct destruction and contradiction of its own existence, and finally ours. We exist in this moral arbitration by its own aesthetic revelation and achievement. It does not exist "to make us happier" as only an egoistic materialist could see. We exist for its continuum as human nature states, and the philosophical enforces = the Religious and its experience.

Quite literally just a shittier version of Molyneux's "mutually acceptable actions".

>let's assume
Stopped reading , he btfo himself already

>>14222916
I consulted my stove as directed! I’ll never trust anything Sam says again!!

>>14222916
Ok I went to doctor and he lobotomised me and pumped me full of morphine. I guess I have truly ascended!

>>14222916
How did he come to the conclusion that understanding how the world works is a pursuit with a quantifiable end-goal and is also somehow inherently moral? If a person is looking to live morally by engaging in an endless race of understanding facts through variably moral/immoral means (by his own admission) for an eternity, are they automatically considered "moral"?

>>14223649
Yes, he ignores mans desire for pleasure, which can only be at its greatest heights what has been known as the immaterial. And this is primarily a reflection of his cowardice nature, unwilling to suffer. And so because he holds suffering as the greatest evil, he cannot have the greatest joy.

this is how we create the last man, people would be happier if they stopped trying to avoid suffering

>>14222916
>BAD THING SUCKS!!!!

>>14222916
TL;DR: What something is determines what it ought to do.

>>14222916
Wait, is one of the most famous living philosophers actually spouting a retarded version of utilitarism on twitter and people applaud him for it?
I mean I've had a grand total of 1 year of philosophy in high school and this strikes me as mindboggingly retarded.

>>14222916
wow it took him 3 tweets to make a fallacy
>>14222929
yeah but 3 is already stupid

>>14223522
It is

>>14222916
Haha yeah materialistic hedonism is always good and reasonable

>>14223174
The most basic question in Western philosophy is what we mean by “good” and how good-making properties can be ontic to some thing’s existence. If you think that’s inherently absurd, then you’re not interested in philosophy.

>>14222916
>But Sam, how do you know what is good?
>Well, just put your hand on a stove !

>>14223094
Why do you think “the search for the good life” has been the goal of philosophy since Aristotle? The question of which acts are good has been of the utmost import to humans for as long as writing has existed.
>>14223265
>what is an aristotelian

his reasoning is so retarded that i am certain he is arguing purely out of malice for the human race, most likely due to his jewish nature, and as such, ironically enough, he should be killed for the greater good of society.

>>14223944
>basic question in Western philosophy is what we mean by “good”
cringe af. that is ethics/morals only

>>14223968
this. i find it pretty obvious, it is difficult to be this retarded, he is jsut saying muh multiculturalism is objectiely valid

>>14224039
except for israel, muticulturalism for israel would suck too much, so we ought to avoid it!

>>14224035
“What is good?” spawned every branch and tradition of philosophy including those which do not have the good as their central question. Modern philosophical pursuits in all fields- epistemology, metaphysics, so on- all exist because first the question of the good was asked.

>>14223968
based

>>14222916
People like this guy being observably wrong yet having an audience anyway makes me think that success in philosophy is all about showmanship and connections/celebrity status rather than actually being good at what you do.

>>14222916
>apostrophes in TWO fucking plurals

ABSOLUTELY HARAM

>>14223035
>>14223041
>Doesn't understand that pleasure feels better when contrasted with pain and unhappiness.
I love how everyone forgets about the problem with spoiled brats when it comes to happiness. People adjusted to their conditions until they become normal and unremarkable.

>>14222929
It falls apart at #3.
1. I bet people would touch their stove to save someone they love. Maybe they wouldn't be happy about doing it but they will see that as the better option, and probably the most "moral" or "good" option.

2. There are some people who actually like being pissed on and enjoy eating shit. You can't get to "ought" from "is" becasue the "is" is tottally different for evrey person to the point they conflict.

>>14227629
It's also highly reductive. I eat superhot chilis every day, the kind that damage mucous membranes. I specifically seek out the crippling pain. I'm hardly the only one in this camp.

Sam Harris' argument is trash.

>>14226488
It's always been about nepotism and charisma. Only lobotomised boomers believe the world is a meritocracy

>>14222929
You mean
>falls apart at #3

>>14223857
By definition, if something is 'bad,' then it sucks. Sam Harris' argument is watertight.

>>14227629
>1. I bet people would touch their stove to save someone they love. Maybe they wouldn't be happy about doing it but they will see that as the better option, and probably the most "moral" or "good" option.

How does that fall apart? Surely, if actions can be taken to prevent the need to undergo pain like that, then those actions ought to be taken.


>>14227779
>eating spicy food causes crippling pain

What a faggot.

>>14222970
no such things as moral facts

>>14222916
lol as others have pointed out #3 is where he goes wrong. he's trying to claim that our subjective preference to avoid pain means there are moral facts. hume was aware of our subjective preferences being the foundations of what we consider moral, he just didn't conclude this means there are corresponding moral facts. harris makes an unwarranted jump

>>14222970
Facts exist.

Some facts are moral.

>>14222916
Sam is an absurd illogical logician.

>>14226488
To be fair, he's an absolute nobody in academic philosophy.

>>14222916
Should have been more careful with the phrasing of 2. What I think he means is that there are possible minds, not actual minds somehow being affected by unactualized possibilities.

3 is using childish vagueness as a veil, but whatever.

>5
Yeah, figured that would happen.

>Still needs steps after the end of his supposed conclusion
How to spot someone who is not intellectually confident 101. Why was this written as anything besides steps 4 and 5? If all he wants to be is a "realist about preferences" then sure, whatever.

>7
>By the way: utilitarianism
fucking lmao

>>14227920
He's saying touching a stove sucks therefore you shouldn't do it.
I'm saying I can imagine a situation where people will want to touch a stove despite it sucking.
Your personal expierence of a single event doesn't dictate what should be done in life. You need to take into account the motivations of why you would do an action despite it sucking.

I mean for fuck sake most people hate their job but they still go. You can say they should quit and find something better but it might not be applicable in all situations, a father of 3 can't just quit his 9-5 ware house job to chase a passion.

>>14222916
There must be a name for this style of writing. Its what you see on reddit: This annoying combination of superiority and childish internet humor. Its so agitating. Its the writing equivalent of Will Ferrel. The point is that it's an adult acting like a child. It's an offputting discordance that not too many people seem to mind.

>>14227962
Technically #3 is still an "is" statement in that Harris hasn't said what should be done yet. #5 is the first ought and the real fallacy

>>14227939
>implying
He begs the question in point one, the rest is sophistry

>>14227998
I wouldn't seriously contest the idea that touching a hot stove "sucks", but he really is retarded for using it in the way he does. Especially the comment about it sucking universally, regardless of culture or environment is bafflingly dumb, considering how easy it is to imagine a culture where burning yourself in order to prove your strength of character or something is incredibly easy. We have had cultures wherein even voluntary human sacrifice (with death as arguably the suckiest of all possible experiences) had a positive connotation.

Yes, the actual painful *sensation* might be universal across cultures, but the act of exposing yourself to this painful sensation, which is what he describes in #3, is not a universally "sucky" one. This would indeed depend entirely on the (cultural) context.

>>14228008
He doesn't. Don't be even more retarded than Harris.

>>14222916
>let us assume there are no ought's or should's in this universe
>...we should
as a lover of tautologies, this amuses me.

>>14222933
I think you're right

>>14222916
>So what is morality? What *ought* sentient beings like ourselves do? Understand how the world works (facts), so that we can avoid what sucks (values).
He literally made himself into a caricature of a culture-destroying stereotype. Wow.

>>14228084
His first premise asks us to assume the conclusion he wishes us to draw

>>14228595
His first premise is the fucking position he seeks to refute, you moron.

>>14222916
Wait so am i getting it right?

He´s arguing for hedonism on the scope of a whole society but doesnt say who´s happyness is more important??

So in his view 2 murderers OUGHT to kill 1 innocent if their happyness about murder is great enough?

I dont really know much about him or pop philosophers in general.
But he seems to make a billion assumptions about morality itself which he doesnt mention.
Also does he asume experience is universal?

>>14228616
No, he wishes to establish his materialist atheist worldview

While putting a hand on a hot stove is a pretty good instance of things that suck, it is a real bad to assume it can be made into a group of universals of things that suck, though such a group may exist. I think he chose the hand on the stove as more of a hypnotic trick to put readers and listeners into the mind set of being a child. It is clever.

>>14227920
>Trivializing vanilloid agonism
Absolute retard who thinks he knows what "spicy" food is because he ate a habanero once.

I'd love to watch you eat a bleeding borg 9 and start flipping out when the second round of capsacinoids start binding, crying and hiccupping and dancing around, wiping away the tears and moaning because now it's in your eyes too. There's nothing more hilarious than some retard overestimating himself and getting his dick knocked in the dirt with culinary pepper spray.

>>14222916
But Sam, im a sadist who being a sensitive little boy actually experiences infinitesimally small amount more pleasure than collective humanity experiences suffering. So the way to make "fewer things suck" is for you all to go into your torture boxes. Thank you.

>>14222929
It falls apart at #2, atheist materialists have no way to know conscious minds exist.