/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17326175]

People give him a lot of flak but what contemporary philosopher offers a rigorous ethical philosophy that's as coherent? Singer and co are looney

[Anonymous No.17326188]

>>17326175
An actual genius.

[Anonymous No.17326189]

>>17326175
>early life

[Anonymous No.17326536]

>>17326189
>implying Harris holds biases
If he argues for his views in logically sound way and you agree with the premises from which he constructs the arguments, his reason for making the arguments aren't really relevant are they?

[Anonymous No.17326588]

>>17326175
Literally the NPC par excellence, watched his debate with Peterson on morality a couple of years ago and was shocked that this little dweeb simply can not comprehend that some people feel no obligation to "act morally" no matter how ironclad or "rational" your morality is. Such a basic limitation on the experience of the human condition is an instant disqualified when it comes to "philosophers".

[Anonymous No.17326709]

>>17326175
Coherent ethics died with the Kantian project and rightly so. At some point during the development of analytic philosophy, ethics ceased to be a rigorous philosophical inquiry. Bertrand Russell and Frank Ramsay are most responsible for this, both of them realized that moral language adds no logical value to what we are saying. For instance let's take a look at the logic of Islamism is wrong according to Sam Harris:
>Let "I" be Islamism
>Let "w" be that it is wrong
>The way to write it using typical logical formula is that in every case of Islamism, it is the case that Islamism is wrong
>Or simply; If I, then I(w)
>This way we express moral ideas in our language has no inherent logic to it. Anything can be a case of w (i.e. you can say that anything is wrong, and this adds no logical value to say)

You can try to say that Sam Harris really means that enslaving women is wrong, and Islam is a case of enslaving women, therefore it is wrong, but this is actually a false syllogism. All you've done is concealed the faulty premise, which is perhaps upsettingly, that it is wrong to enslave women. It is never right or wrong to do anything, because moral language is nothing more than cheers of approval, or boos of disapproval.

Logically speaking, the Islamist has a better time of it, only because in his logic, the Quran is the word of God, and it is always the case that God's word must be obeyed. Thus the Islamist can create a coherent ethics, or at least an ethics that he thinks is coherent, because the structure of language actually shows you a lot about the way the world really works, and it so happens that all ethical systems are incoherent and philosophically irrelevant. In terms of religion, Moses and Joshua at least understood that there was no inherent conflict between slaying your enemies, and practicing morality so far as the community is concerned.

Therefore the most coherent meta-ethical statement is Deuteronomy 5:33 "Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess." In other words, morality is useful to getting along with your fellow man, who because men are no more than beasts, will demand your death if you transgress their moral expectations. Outside of the community however, morality is an irrelevance.

[Anonymous No.17326734]

>>17326588
I listened to those debates too, but it was a couple years ago and I don't remember Harris's specific arguments. In general I feel like he's pushing for a change in norms, and for the resulting norms to be based on rationality. Society doesn't rely on people's need to act morally; it restricts peoples abilities to act immorally. Harris argues that we need examine our virtues society wide.

Like, as a leftist I am quick to support disparaged groups. So if somebody is critical of Islam my knee jerk reaction is "don't be racist". But if Muslims are disparaging another group, shouldn't I also be critical of that? Can't we shift the norm here?

[Anonymous No.17326770]

>>17326175
He is an atheist Zionist.
Fuck this filthy subhuman.

[Anonymous No.17326783]

>>17326175

I am an AI researcher and make it a point to call everyone a dumbass who insists on pretending they have "solved" Hume's guillotine and that human morality can be put in terms of utility functions and made optimal in any means whatsoever. Sam Harris is a dumbass

[Anonymous No.17326841]

>>17326734
Suck a cock faggot

[Anonymous No.17326861]

>>17326709
>because moral language is nothing more than cheers of approval, or boos of disapproval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressivism#The_Frege%E2%80%93Geach_problem

[Anonymous No.17327579]

>>17326861
You need to look at that again before you think you understand it
>It is wrong to tell lies
>IF it is wrong to tell lies, THEN it is wrong to get your little brother to lie
>Therefore, it is wrong to get your little brother to lie
The problem here is that the IF part of the conditional is not proven by Premise 1. There is no real distinction between the IF conditional here and Premise 1. Peter Geach is not claiming that expressivism is not true, he is claiming that it doesn't explain how moral conditionals work (I agree, it doesn't). But either way it's a false syllogism because nothing exists that will prove that it is wrong to tell lies in order to satisfy the conditional.

[Anonymous No.17327591]

>>17326175
>not the heckin femerinos
Not even a MGTOW type but pic is cringe.

[Anonymous No.17327611]

>>17326189
every time

[Anonymous No.17327670]

>>17326175
>>17326734
Did Harris ever stop to think that since women are not a minority population that it is most likely a plurality, if not majority, of Muslim women consent to and uphold Islamic tenets?
>inb4 brainwashing
Like society is a brainwash if you use that argument I can turn it back on you and say western women are brainwashed into whoring.