/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12610796]

Critique this book without an Ad hominem against the author.

[Anonymous No.12610811]

more like ad HOMOnem

[Anonymous No.12610825]

>>12610796
It's unfouded pseudoscience that uses pedantry to emphasize it's Machiavellian worldview.

[Anonymous No.12610829]

>>12610796
I wish I could but his face is just so annoying I couldn't not mention it

[Anonymous No.12610830]

>>12610825
OP said critique, not complement

[Anonymous No.12610837]

>>12610830
compliment

[Anonymous No.12610841]

>>12610796
>New York TImes bestseller

done

[Anonymous No.12610852]

>>12610829
He looks like ben stiller without the charisma.

[Anonymous No.12610855]

>>12610796
watch the video where cuckphilosophy absolutely demolishes it

[Anonymous No.12610984]

>>12610796
>>12610855
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI

[Anonymous No.12610991]

>>12610796
The tl;dr of Harris's book is that, one day, thanks to neuroscience, we will have a science of morality that will be able to algorithmically solve moral problems by determining the outcome that increases the well-being of humans, otherwise known as human flourishing. In a nutshell, you could call it eudaimonistic utilitarianism that is quantified through some kind of brain imaging. But there's a lot of scientific and philosophical problems with the validity of such a science that Harris fails to resolve.

There is one main problem with Harris's science of morality: Harris never clearly defines what "well-being". What is "well-being"? How will he measure "well-being"? What are the logistical challenges to calculating changes to well-being when resolving ethical dilemmas?

Harris thought that the definition of well-being is something that the "common sense" of reasonable could solve. No reasonable person would agree that burning their hands on a stove is a good idea, and that you could extend this reasoning to create an objective framework. But this vague appeal to "common sense" easily opens the door to subjective interpretation on more difficult problems as what is considered "common sense" can vary from person to person. Unfortunately, Harris sidesteps this problem by dismissing anybody who disagrees with his conception of "common sense". Without a solid and objective definition of well-being, there is no path to an objective science of morality.

Not only is this a philosophical problem, but it is also a scientific problem as well. Working with his personal definition of "well-being", Harris thought he could simply measure changes in the brain as somebody improved their well-being, allowing him to locate "well-being" in the brain and giving him the framework to replicate such changes throughout the population. Harris was clearly motivated by breakthroughs in brain fMRI scans and its promise to explain much in human behavior; after all, he explored this in his PhD thesis while being supervised by a pioneer of fMRI research. But lately, several years after Harris's PhD was awarded and The Moral Landscape was published, MRI scans had been shown to have far less explanatory power than what was previously hoped.

(1/2)

[Anonymous No.12611001]

(2/2)

Finally, the coup de grace to Harris's science of morality is the is-ought problem. Even if Harris understood what well-being is, and even if we had a way of quantifying it not only for each person, but for an entire population at large, it still wouldn't be enough to give that particular science "moral authority". Whatever answers the algorithm spits out, wouldn't be guaranteed to be a moral fact (at least in an objectively meaningful sense). Why is "well-being" the most important priority, and how is it the secret to unveiling moral facts about ethical dilemmas? Again, as an answer to these problems Harris refers to his particular concept of "common sense" and dismisses the is-ought as irrelevant. He even poisons the well against his critics, stating that:
>Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy ... [but] I am convinced that every appearance of terms like ‘metaethics,’ ‘deontology,’ ‘noncognitivism,’ ‘antirealism,’ ‘emotivism,’ etc. directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.
Well, I guess that's one way to ignore an enormous hole in your reasoning, just say that all the people pointing out the hole are boring you to death! If I may be allowed one criticism of Harris's character, then it would be to condemn him for failing to receive a proper education when he completed his philosophy degree at Stanford University. If he had paid a single iota of attention to his studies, then he'd understand the scale of the blunder that he was committing. If you were to ask him "why", then he'd refer to the analogy of the burnt hand. If you were to ask him "how to you extend this to more complex situations" or "what about situations involving painful self-sacrifice", then he would have to respond with a disingenuous reference to "common sense".

When you closely examine Harris's thesis of a science of morality, it seems interesting, intuitive, and promising. It's not like the usual formulations of utilitarianism as stated by Bentham or Mill, but rather something more akin to a merger between virtue ethics and utilitarianism. Unfortunately, there are many philosophical and scientific obstacles to making it an objective arbiter of morality, which Harris deceitfully refuses to even acknowledge. The idea deserves a better defender than Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.12611042]

>>12610991
this. with emphasis on the never defining what is "well-being" or how conflicts in different people's different requirements for "well-being" are resolved. The "common sense" appeal is incredibly dangerous. For example, if one were a medieval peasant, under that societies system of education and propaganda, would it be "common sense" that "savages" living in another continent should be indoctrinated to believe in Christ, since that "obviously" will bring them well-being??? The same issues apply to modern techno-industrial society. Morality is to a large extent the product of education and propaganda, and these things brainwash people into what should be considered required for "well-being" according to "common-sense."

[Anonymous No.12611109]

>>12610796
The second best joke by a Scottish Jew.

[Anonymous No.12611122]

>>12610825
not an argument.
>>12610829
not an argument.
>>12610841
not an argument.
>>12610852
not an argument.
>>12610855
not an argument.
>>12611109
not an argument.

>>12610991
>>12611001
>>12611042
not an argument.

is this the best that the anti-Harris shills have to offer?

[Anonymous No.12611130]

>>12611122
>here is a source which provides an argument
>not an argument
top showing m8

[Anonymous No.12611135]

>>12611122
saying "not an argument" is itself not an argument. Combat what you've been given.

[Anonymous No.12611241]

>>12611042
It is hard for us to figure out what "well being" but that doesn't mean it is impossible for us to be less certain or more certain about what will make a being have better or worse experience within the context of all other beings' experiences. It is difficult to make these claims, but with enough discussion and discovery, we will continue to know more and more how to live good lives. For example, we know that being addicted to opiates will never allow for a human to flourish. This is something we know we can make claims about. Now, there might be exceptions to this (think P.O.Ws who are being tortured day in and day out) The amazing thing about the moral landscape is that it is based in particulars. It is about constantly seeking out more and more information so we can make a better judgment.

Sorry for rambling, but I really believe we can make gnostic progress on this topic and to claim otherwise is to discount emotion and our own experience, eventually plunging us into an unintelligible world.

[Anonymous No.12611256]

>>12610796
No academic paper would publish anything from him. He's essentially a nu-atheist propagandist. He's a budget version of Richard Dawkins who actual has done real scientific work.

Doesn't it seem weird that he got a PhD and then disappeared from academia only to write pop books? It's because he's a hack. Scientific Journals which are overwhelmingly comprised of atheists wouldn't even publish his work.

As an atheist, I absolutely hate nu-atheists cucks like this. Where do you think all the fedora tipping memes and atheists being douchebags comes from?

Sam is essentially what an idiot thinks a smart person looks like.

[Anonymous No.12611259]

>>12611241
I think we can certainly come up with a science of human flourishing that has a basis in reason, but whether it would generate moral facts is another question entirely.

[Anonymous No.12611262]

>>12611122
Sam Harris is a stupid white nigger who knows nothing about ethics/morality outside his little field. Stupid niggers write who know nothing about ethics come up with shit moral theories.
Moral Landscape is a book about Sam Harris's moral theory.
Books with shit subject matters are likely shit.
Therefore the Moral Landscape is probably shit

[Anonymous No.12611272]

>>12610796
it's wrong. he never solves the is-ought problem, just dismisses it.

[Anonymous No.12611306]

>>12611259
Pedantically speaking, we can never have absolute facts about anything. But anyone who says my feet don't have toes is not someone I want to talk to. Some things just are and there is no getting around it because we are trapped in this human experience.

Given that you value your existence we must grant some facts about what it takes for that existence to be good. It is a fact that if you want anything good to happen in your life ever again you have to keep breathing and your heart must continue beating.

>>12611256
Thank you, Jesus!

[Anonymous No.12611310]

>>12611272
Where does your ought come from?

[Anonymous No.12611315]

>>12611306
>Pedantically speaking, we can never have absolute facts about anything.
Wrong. We can a priori facts. See math. If we have any knowledge about ethics, it will be a priori. If you can discover a "mathematical" approach to ethics, then you can consider me a follower. Good luck with that though!

[Anonymous No.12611327]

>>12611315
Math and logic aren't facts, they're contingent on specific axioms. Everything is contingent.

[Anonymous No.12611328]

Waht is utilitarianism?

[Anonymous No.12611354]

>>12611310
Ought comes from the fact that he's using science (an is claim) to solve ethics(ought claims)

[Anonymous No.12611356]

>>12611256
Leaving academia is a sign of intelligence though

[Anonymous No.12611409]

>>12611356
Ah, you took the bait. The pic that guy posted is literally Jesus.

[Anonymous No.12611419]

>>12611354
You have confused me. Can you reform the sentence so it makes sense? Are you saying what Sam's ought is? Where the guy I asked ought comes from? You really didn't answer what I asked.

[Anonymous No.12611428]

>>12610796
Hypocritical since he holds double standards for his ingroup vs everyone else

[Anonymous No.12611444]

>>12611356
Not if you are trying to bill yourself as a "scientist" who hasn't actually done any science work.

[Anonymous No.12611447]

>>12611428
so vague, what the hell are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.12611453]

>>12611409
It's not bait, I just like posting pictures of White Jesus

[Anonymous No.12611471]

Anyone with morals will always be at the behest of those that do not and those who are too stupid to understand them in the first place. This guy thinks the game is chess while in fact it's fist to cuffs. It's low-level and tedious. You are criticizing the foundation of the building while paying no mind to the fire as it burns down the rest of building around you. The theory of the Illuminati style control of the masses is fundamentally correct, but that particular application of power is incorrect as it's not sustainable.

[Anonymous No.12611488]

>>12610796
Main problem is the pretense of universality rather than overlap, much like Molynuts' UPB. Sam's a neolib so he'll never admit that the wellbeing conditions of divergent human populations could be genuinely incompatible to some degree.

Other than that it's sound, but not really new. We've had utlitarianism since at least Epicurus. Why not just implement rule utilitarianism now instead of waiting on some fancy-schmancy moral algorithms? Personally I think it would be like a Tay situation and Sam would be horrified at what is algorithms came up with.

[Anonymous No.12611536]

>>12610796
He makes zero arguments indicating how science can solve the is-ought distinction and doesn't prove anything of substance.

[Anonymous No.12611541]

>>12611122
This is bait. You have the audacity to someone a shill?

[Anonymous No.12611559]

>>12610796
Why would I read something written by an idiot?

[Anonymous No.12611626]

>>12610991
>The tl;dr of Harris's book is that, one day, thanks to neuroscience, we will have a science of morality that will be able to algorithmically solve moral problems by determining the outcome that increases the well-being of humans,
So, he argues for automated utilitarianism carried out by an AI god?

[Anonymous No.12611644]

>>12611626
basically yes

[Anonymous No.12611658]

>>12610811
Hahahahaha
I couldn't hold it.
So based anon

[Anonymous No.12611851]

>>12611453
hahahhaha!!

[Anonymous No.12611861]

I haven't read the book so I have no opinion one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.12611893]

>>12611861
very reasonable take. I think you speak for the most vociferous of us here

[Anonymous No.12611899]

>>12611893
kill urself faglord

t. epic dabbing graffiti skater

[Anonymous No.12611902]

>>12611644
>>12611626
what are you going to do when the ai says humanity is better off without you

[Anonymous No.12611917]

>>12611902
implying it would take more than a nanosecond to decide humanity needs to be eradicated.

[Anonymous No.12611927]

>>12611902
Although it might be true, the AI will realize that I would still take everybody down in flames with me so the best solution would be to service me in a cubicle with endless entertainment so I stay locked away from the real world until I die without meddling with its plans or breeding

[Anonymous No.12611968]

>>12611899
what is this "t." business?

[Anonymous No.12611974]

>>12611917
>>12611488
>>12611471

[Anonymous No.12612008]

>>12611122
Sperg-tastic post. Slit your fucking throat.

[Anonymous No.12612013]

The biggest question in ethics is: what's the ontological status of normative statement?

[Anonymous No.12612049]

>>12610796
The Moral Landscape is a critique of Landscapes

[Anonymous No.12612053]

>>12612013
what even is an "ontological status" supposed to be?

[Anonymous No.12612281]

>>12611310
my dick

[Anonymous No.12612335]

>>12611471
I >>12611974 am objectively correct, and so much for replying without Ad Hominem, huh?

[Anonymous No.12612369]

>>12610796
Ayo, get this cracker-ass honky off my board and get a REAL black scientist up in here

[Anonymous No.12612417]

>>12612335
>admitting to that post
You're a moron who hasn't read Hobbes. A person without morals is a helpless individual at the mercy of those with morals who can thus work together.

[Anonymous No.12612434]

>>12610796
His proposed science of morality is predicated upon equating morality with well-being and furthermore, well-being with a lack of suffering. His thesis departs from the axiom 'the worst possible suffering for all people is bad'. I see no problem with that and can envision a 'science' of sorts based on that. Doesn't solve the is-ought gap, but I mostly find that masturbatory drivel, so I have no problem with it.

[Anonymous No.12612445]

The author provides no metaethical justification for his utilitarianism. The book has no foundation.

[Anonymous No.12612460]

>>12612417
I read plenty of Calvin & Hobbes back in the day kiddo

[Anonymous No.12612470]

>>12610811
don't know why but that was funny af anon

[Anonymous No.12612579]

>>12610991
>>12611001
Harris doesn't care about philosophy, which is why he avoids engaging with the literature, but rather just wants to be right and "make sense" to the common folk. He doesn't want to dig into these ideas seriously because that'd mean challenging his own views; it's a lot easier to just handwave everything and preach your own ideas as gospel, then smile smugly when people who have youtube-tier understanding of philosophy think you're an intellectual

[Anonymous No.12612598]

>>12612579
>my criticism derives from my supernatural ability to detect the exact contents of people's minds, down to the very last unstated intention

[Anonymous No.12612606]

>>12610796
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Sam Harris is a dumb person's idea of a smart person, when in reality he fails to answer some of the most basic and well established questions in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12612612]

>>12610796
>entire argument is a giant appeal to nature fallacy sprinkled with some utilitarian noise
there's nothing here to refute, it was also destroyed years ago by people like Nozick

[Anonymous No.12612614]

>>12612434
Suffering = bad is a giant fucking leap of logic that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.12612636]

>>12612598
Are you suggesting we should never draw conclusions from the actions of an individual? Furthermore do you think two paragraphs unravel the "exact contents of people's minds down to the very last unstated intention"? Because I'd argue there's not a single person simple enough for that

[Anonymous No.12612641]

>>12612636
I'm suggesting you should engage with the contents of his work. But that obviously requires reading.

[Anonymous No.12612679]

>>12612641
I read his book and I'm not going to summarize what's wrong with it because so many have already done so, even a meme youtuber here >>12610984 got the gist of it, or this anon >>12610991

I don't think you've actually read his book, or if you did you were too much of a brainlet to see the underlying issues. Argue that video or that anon, go ahead. Defend a phrase
>Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy ... [but] I am convinced that every appearance of terms like ‘metaethics,’ ‘deontology,’ ‘noncognitivism,’ ‘antirealism,’ ‘emotivism,’ etc. directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.
or explain to me how it's not but hubris of a pseud

[Anonymous No.12612681]

>>12610796
He is a vapid apologist for western imperialism

[Anonymous No.12612851]

>>12611354
>We've seen these oughts produce these values for x,y,z.
>We have no freewill
>We can't use language to define our moral landscape, only logic and mathmatics
>therefore we ought for we can do not otherwise

?

[Anonymous No.12612910]

>>12610991
So this.
https://youtu.be/XMm7QA7icbs
Just less entertaining.

[Anonymous No.12612916]

>>12610796
Sam Harris a fucking bell-curve touting racist who believes in racial profiling. He can go to hell.

[Anonymous No.12612946]

>>12612369
Mein Gott! Pure scientism!

[Anonymous No.12613047]

Fatalists are fucking morons. They aren't saying anything new, they just drive bunch of conclusions from fields of science they don't even work in, and think to themselves "i'm so smart, this shit in irrefutable", without realizing everything they write about has been debunked 200-300 years ago. Fuck you could argue from the beginning of philosophy, since the roots of philosophy is give meaning to the fatalistic mindset. Their writing is dry, and uninspiring, reads like a wikipedia article. Their ideology can only lead to self-defeatism, and therefore is egoistic from a writer perspective, as to Harris and Dawkins just bragging how somehow they found some secret truth about the world nobody thought of earlier.

[TSJ !ujoY1xUXb. No.12613061]

>>12613047
I rate this post an 8/10, simply for not providing examples. Over all bretty gud though.

[Anonymous No.12613106]

>>12610796
Cuck Philosophy debunked this idiot.

[Anonymous No.12613173]

>>12610796
>thing good
>thing bad
>because I say so
>support Israel

[Anonymous No.12613207]

>>12610796
He is a kike

[Anonymous No.12613215]

His whole idea of there being peaks to moral well-being is retarded tbqh.

What if a serial killer gets marginally more well-being from murdering people than people get from eating chocolate?

This would imply that murder is more moral, or at least it would imply some kind of moral pluralism, e.g both eating chocolate and serial killing are good ways to reach peaks of moral virtue.

[Anonymous No.12613218]

>>12610796
Doesn't account for latent neoliberal assumptions which are fundamental to his concept of good and wellbeing. Or should I neocon (zionist) ambitions of making the world in his image.

[Anonymous No.12613223]

>>12610796 (OP)
Doesn't account for the latent neoliberal assumptions fundamental to his concept of good and wellbeing. Or should I neocon (zionist) ambitions of making the world in his image.

[Anonymous No.12613229]

>>12613207
t. Israeli

You're probably a racist too even though Arabs are good neighbors compared to Mexicans.

[Anonymous No.12613235]

>>12610796
Doesn't account for the latent neoliberal assumptions fundamental to his concepts of good and well-being. Or should I say neocon (zionist) ambitions of making the world in his image.

[Anonymous No.12613240]

>>12610811
based

[Anonymous No.12613242]

>>12610796
This is lit, not pol. Gtfo

[Anonymous No.12613249]

>>12613215
Lel, imagine not being able to grasp even grasp ben stiller's work

[Anonymous No.12613257]

>eating a slice of pizza at the local pizza shop
>a large man enters.exe
>"anon is that you?"
>realize it's a guy who went to the same college as me years ago
>didn't recognize him at first as he's gained considerable weight since the last time I saw him
>he sits down without ordering and tells me about how he's been through an existential crisis since dropping out of college but now he's found a way to end his suffering
>"anon, have you read the greatest breakthrough in philosophy, the moral landscape?"
>mentalsigh.webm
>he begins to tell me all about how Sam Harris, "the greatest thinker of our time" explained moral dilemmas can be solved through science. He's even solved the "is-ought" dilemma
>tells me how all humans desire well-being and it's possible to achieve this if we all just read the book
>ask him to define well-being
>"anon, just put your hand on the stove"
>tell him that's not a definition
>"you just need to read the book. It might be 2deep4u so you can watch his debates with another great thinker Jordan B. Peterson. Your mind will be blown."
>I give him a nonanswer
>he finally orders two slices of pizza "with the works"
>I tell him that might not be good for his well-being
>he accuses me of fat shaming
>tells me it makes him happy and it doesn't hurt anybody
>I tell him you 'ought' to find other sources of happiness, maybe a gym membership
>he becomes angry and starts sweating profusely
>"f-fuck you anon!"

Seriously though Sam Harris often resorts to extremes to make his point and doesn't deal any nuances. It makes sense why he's only concerned with the peaks and valleys.

[Anonymous No.12613280]

>>12611327
Everyone missed this most important of points. Could someone prove me wrong or at least have a discussion about it?

[Anonymous No.12613323]

>>12613249
lel, imagine not even having arguments.

[Anonymous No.12613411]

>>12613323
You don't understand his premise and definitions. I doubt I'd have anything to gain from an exchange with someone who can't even comprehend ben stiller so I'm fine with simply insulting you.

[Anonymous No.12613426]

>>12611354
>science (an is claim)
oh lordy you people are stupid