/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6000474]

Daily reminder that science found objective morality when it worked on it, whereas philosophy spent thousands of years toiling and got no where

>My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics

>Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim Algebra, we will see tht there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality.

>Despite our perennial bad behavior, our moral progress seems to me unmistakable.

[Anonymous No.6000510]

I don't understand. You say there are right or wrong answers to moral questions, Christians and Muslims are wrong and we seem to be making progress. Where is the link to where objective morality is found?

[Anonymous No.6000514]

>>6000474
Sam Harris literally the cuckmaster

[Anonymous No.6000535]

>>6000514
This
>>6000474
Go back to r/atheism

[Anonymous No.6000550]

>>6000474
>progress is objective
>what's more, progress is moral AND objectively right
so much for "le question everything xDDD"

[Anonymous No.6000553]

>objective morality

[Anonymous No.6000559]

>>6000550
>>6000553
>U CANNOT KNOW NUFFIN!!!!111

[Anonymous No.6000579]

>>6000559
Rules for Rationalists: question everything except that which gives the formulation of questions and interpretation of answers fundamental consistency. Which means: do not question beyond the scope of consciousness, even false consciousness. Which means: question only what THEY tell you to question. Which means: Obey.

[Anonymous No.6000591]

>>6000559
>>6000579
>If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.

[Anonymous No.6000599]

>>6000474
>there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics

[Anonymous No.6000609]

>>6000599
>butthurt Christfag objects
Didn't see that coming at alllll

[Anonymous No.6000629]

>>6000474
LOL AMIRITE? WHERE MY CHRISTBROS AT

[Anonymous No.6000632]

>>6000579
Oops, I meant:
>question only what THEY allow you to question
subtle change, but I think that's more accurate. Government (as a technique/verb, not as a (particular) institution/noun) is not something often done explicitly (that is, in accordance with its classical, blatant forms) nowadays.

[Anonymous No.6000645]

>>6000609
>implying I am a christfag

Actually, a fundamentalist christian would agree with your claim that there's an objective morality - just not yours. I'm laughing at you because I'm an agnostic moral relativist. Nice strawman though.

[Anonymous No.6000661]

>>6000645
>muh liberal arts says morality is relative so I must reject science
You might as well be a Christfag

[Anonymous No.6000672]

>>6000661

[Anonymous No.6000676]

guys...this is some pretty weak b8 to be falling for.

[Anonymous No.6000677]

>>6000661
i haven't seen a single scientific argument from Sam Harris master philosopher.

[Anonymous No.6000686]

>>6000661
>You might as well be a Christfag
>implying any sect of Christianity beside weird and quite possibly extinct mystic-heterodox sects would accept anything other than the unitary and objective morality of the Book, which art the Word of the Lord.
lack of an argument aside, that's such a flagrant false equivalence I don't even know if I can call it a false equivalence anymore. It's more like a frustrated outburst more than anything.

[Anonymous No.6000700]

> just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics

rofl

[Anonymous No.6000728]

>>6000474
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/other/3

[Anonymous No.6000741]

ayy lmao

[Anonymous No.6000748]

>>6000728
I cringed. Are all liberal arts majors so autistic?

[Anonymous No.6000752]

>>6000728
10/10

[Anonymous No.6000763]

>>6000728
this is amazing

[Anonymous No.6000779]

>>6000728
this could be a documentary.

[Anonymous No.6000788]

>>6000728
Sam Harris btfo

I still agree with him though

[Anonymous No.6000790]

Who /Christian/ here
>implying morality can exist without God

[Anonymous No.6000791]

>>6000728
I suppose drawing this slop is easier than reading, researching, and arguing an actual point.

I not a fan of Harris, but this comic is a special kind of useless self-suck.

[Anonymous No.6000794]

>>6000788
On what? Torture? The justifiability of a nuclear first strike? Begging-the-question utilitarianism?

[Anonymous No.6000796]

>>6000791
It's pretty funny though. And surely everyone with a modest knowledge of ethics is aware of Humean skepticism?

[Anonymous No.6000797]

>>6000791
what point, there is no internal consistency in Harris' argument.

The comic takes Harris' argument about as seriously as Harris' takes everyone elses.

[Anonymous No.6000809]

>>6000794
That science can determine which actions we should consider ethical.

[Anonymous No.6000812]

>>6000790
Why couldn't it? The Gods have values, but they are beyond good and evil. Moral values can be forged of many things, certainly you do not need God to have slave morality, or even master morality, you only need God for Godly morality, and then it's more of the perspective of the Gods than Godly rules.

[Anonymous No.6000830]

>>6000728
I like this website because if you don't get the comic you can click the button at the bottom that says "Didn't get the joke?" and it'll explain it.

[Anonymous No.6000845]

theme for this thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D-9X3ooFvo

[Anonymous No.6000849]

>>6000728

[Anonymous No.6000850]

>>6000809
>should

[Anonymous No.6000875]

>>6000796
>It's pretty funny

/lit/ will always be a joke as long as you guys curtail actual difficult and time-consuming analysis for the fun an funny

[Anonymous No.6000891]

>>6000875
>deconstructing harris's sophism
>difficult and time-consuming

[Anonymous No.6000894]

>>6000891
Go ahead, then.

[Anonymous No.6000904]

>>6000849
Sam Harris btfo 2.0

Logic and Reason is the best special attack[\spoiler]

[Anonymous No.6000905]

One thing that pisses me off is when Sam Harris tries to pass himself off as a scientist. He has a degree in fucking cognitive neuroscience. Basically, the field is a subfield of psychology. It involves make some predictions, sticking people in an MRI, and saying WOW LOOK AT THEIR BRAIN LIGHT UP WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT XYZ, THAT MEANS IM RIGHT!! There is no mathematical rigor at all. It's complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6000914]

>>6000850
>should
Well of course we could do otherwise, but it would not be in our best interest.

[Anonymous No.6000920]

>>6000905
Literally has a Bachelors in Philosophy and calls himself a Philosopher. The dude is definition Hack.

[Anonymous No.6000921]

>>6000905
What other pseudo intellectual piss you off?

[Anonymous No.6000939]

>>6000905
He has a PhD in cognitive neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.6001045]

>>6000905
Sounds like evolutionary psych

[Anonymous No.6001079]

>>6000914
Says who?

[Anonymous No.6001098]

>>6001079
If you can determine which actions are in our best interest, then by definition doing otherwise would not be in our best interest. Science lets us determine which actions are in our best interest.

[Anonymous No.6001138]

>>6001098
Who do you mean when you say "our"?

[Anonymous No.6001193]

>>6001098

Not him but this:
>>6001138
Also, what or who gives it the right to determine which actions are best? Are we even in control of our own lives anymore if it's telling us what to do?

[Anonymous No.6001208]

>>6001138
Humanity.

[Anonymous No.6001216]

>>6001098

>Science lets us determine which actions are in our best interest.

Whose? And how? Science is a term used to refer to observation and experimentation using the scientific method? What can this method tell us about human interest in the personal and social sense?

[Anonymous No.6001232]

>>6001216
Humans are a part of nature, our brains are physical objects, pain is a physical state. We can calculate which actions are likely to result in pain and which will increase well being.

[Anonymous No.6001238]

>>6001098
No, it can't. If I want to commit suicide, can science tell me whether or not that's in my "best interests"?

[Anonymous No.6001243]

>>6001208
Since when is "humanity" a collective? And how would such a morality deal with conflicts such as killing groups of people because they are holding back a majority?

[Anonymous No.6001249]

>>6001232

>Humans are a part of nature, our brains are physical objects, pain is a physical state.

What is nature? Why are our physical brains the only agent involved in the precept of pain?

We can calculate which actions are likely to result in pain and which will increase well being.

Pain isn't the opposite of well being, and well being isn't universally defined.

How does science define well being and pain? Using subjective referents? How can a subjective study of precepts be carried out in a strictly physical environment?

How did you solve the hard problem of consciousness?

[Anonymous No.6001250]

>>6001232
Pain, particularly as struggle, is part of the deeper feeling of well being.

>to enjoy bodily warmth, some small part of you must be cold, for there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself. If you flatter yourself that you are all over comfortable, and have been so a long time, then you cannot be said to be comfortable any more.

[Anonymous No.6001255]

>>6001238
Hm. I can tell you, without doubt, that it's in /lit/'s best interests if you commit suicide. Does that help?

[Anonymous No.6001262]

>>6001255

Outing yourself as having zero argument under a blanket of assumptions

[Anonymous No.6001282]

>>6001262
I'm not even the guy you were talking to. Just trying to help out.

[Anonymous No.6001288]

>>6001255
No, not really, since I'm not concerned with /lit/'s best interests, as /lit/ is not concerned with mine.

Agamemnon: In everything, I see, men labor for themselves.

Odysseus: For whom should I rather labor than myself?

[Anonymous No.6001289]

>>6001238
It would depend on your state, are you in constant pain? What is the probability this pain with abate?

>>6001243
Humanity is the set of all humans. Killing people for holding back a majority is irrational if there are other means to achieve your objectives.
>>6001249
Nature is what exists. Pain is an experience which results from not being in a state of well being. Well being may be universally defined for humans. It may encompass a great deal of states.
There is no hard problem of consciousness.
>>6001250
This is existential rubbish.

[nokosage No.6001292]

>>6001282

Fair.

[Anonymous No.6001298]

>>6000474
>objective morality

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

would kek again/10

[Anonymous No.6001299]

>>6001208
>being this ignorant of the class struggle

[Anonymous No.6001300]

>>6001289
>This is existential rubbish.
That's not an argument. Feeling of relief, contrast and sense of accomplishment are all aspects of pleasure which require pain.

[Anonymous No.6001307]

>>6001289
>It would depend on your state, are you in constant pain?

Perhaps I am not in any pain at all.

>What is the probability this pain with abate?
I don't know, I don't think you can reasonably predict that, judging by chaos theory.

[Anonymous No.6001310]

>>6001289
> Killing people for holding back a majority is irrational

By what metric? A purely utilitarian ethic would hold that the means that uses the fewest resources would be the most rational, regardless of what the action was. There's nothing inherently irrational about murder.

[Anonymous No.6001320]

>>6001208
Spooky as fuck, m8. There is no action which befits the interests of many without impacting the interests of many. You should say "the majority", it would make more sense, although even that would be an imperfect category, since you and I are not sure to always be in the majority to win or lose for every action, in fact it's more likely that we won't be.

[Anonymous No.6001325]

>>6001289

>Nature is what exists.

Metaphysical garbage

>Pain is an experience which results from not being in a state of well being.

Pain and well-being are not mutually exclusive, and are not polar opposites. Suffering is maybe the word you're looking for, but you're still wrong about your definition by exclusion

>Well being may be universally defined for humans. It may encompass a great deal of states.

Define it and demonstrate how it can be defined as such

>There is no hard problem of consciousness.

When I feel sad, where, physically, does that feeling of sadness lie? Can it be observed scientifically? If I imagine a triangle, is there a physical correlate of atoms forming an actual triangle that floats in my brain? How is this possible through cognition alone? What is a phenomenal experience physically and how might it be quantified?

are you really this dumb or just trying to sound correct on the internet

[Anonymous No.6001329]

The closest thing to an analysis morality (I prefer the term ethicality, since it lacks the connotation of conventionality inherent in the term morality) the natural sciences can provide us with is an evolutionary biological/psychological/neurological explanation of those propensities within us towards actions that might be characterized, universally and cross-culturally, as right/moral/ethical/what-have-you. It can explain to us the psychological impetus for those actions we can all agree are good, but it cannot even in principle tell us anything like what good actually IS. The only way one can approach ethics through non-subjective means is to do the philosophical analysis that's been done for millennia - yes, that which you so must despise. And indeed, these problems are never really solved, but it's the best we've got. The fact is that there is no science of ethics; only a science of the origins of ethical practices. Deal with it, bruv. There isn't a final answer to everything.

[Anonymous No.6001340]

>>6001307
If you are not in any pain then it is not in your best interests to commit suicide, and you won't.
I suggest you read up on Bayes' theorem.
>>6001310
There is nothing inherently irrational about murder, in same cases it is a rational action.
>>6001300
accomplishment does not require pain, it requires working towards reaching objectives and subsequently achieving them.
>>6001299
What has class struggle got to do with it?

[Anonymous No.6001362]

>>6001340
>There is nothing inherently irrational about murder, in same cases it is a rational action.
So then what lead you to say:
> Killing people for holding back a majority is irrational

What is the difference between rational and irrational murder? What metric is there to put a value on a human life?

[Anonymous No.6001372]

>>6001325
>metaphysical garbage
fine, nature is what science tells us exists.

Explain how an individual can be in a state of well being and a state of suffering?

Your sadness lies in the brain. It can be observed. Your brain has the ability to generate images of triangles and to understand what a triangle is. This is the essence of cognition.

[Anonymous No.6001378]

>>6001340
>If you are not in any pain then it is not in your best interests to commit suicide, and you won't.
That's not necessarily true, I might simply be satisfied with my life so far and think it is an aesthetic time to acquit.

[Anonymous No.6001380]

>>6001362
It is irrational if other means are available. You example does not even make sense, the majority would have no need to kill off a minority in order to meet objectives, unless those objectives are kill off the minority.

[Anonymous No.6001381]

>>6001340
>What has class struggle got to do with it?

Your belief that humanity is somehow a united whole with common interests is blatantly ignorant of it. The working class and the owning class have nothing in common.

[Anonymous No.6001385]

>>6001378
Yet you won't.

[Anonymous No.6001396]

>>6001381
Class is an economic division, not a biological one.

[Anonymous No.6001400]

>>6001372

>Explain how an individual can be in a state of well being and a state of suffering?

What is masochism or any remotely complex set of associative acts outside of autistic binarism?

You didn't answer any of my questions, friend.

>sadness is in the brain

When I feel sadness, the actual feeling is located within my brain and the precept can be observed? Wow, that'd be amazing if it wasn't bullshit.

Knowing the physiological correlates of a subjective percept =/= observing the percept itself

Call me when you've finished with grade school

[Anonymous No.6001401]

>>6001380
Why if other means are available, and not the lowest cost method? There are a number of reasons a majority may have their best interest in killing off a minority. That minority could be a drain on resources that would be of greater benefit to the majority if put somewhere else, for example. You're arbitrarily defining murder as something to be avoided as being irrational while simply stating a definition and not citing any metrics to back up the claim.

[Anonymous No.6001405]

>>6000728
>Daniel Dennett
>power of behaviorism
>Dennett
>behaviorism
Comic disregarded. I don't care for the Nu Athesits either, but you're too dumb to live if you mistake Dennett's nuanced view of "stances" for primitive behaviorism. Please, go be a ditch-digger and never attempt anything intellectual ever again.

[Anonymous No.6001409]

>>6001396
And?

[Anonymous No.6001427]

>>6001385
I won't, but people have committed suicide for reasons other than finding life disagreeable. Surely, for instance, Mishima did not commit suicide for reasons of depression.

[Anonymous No.6001435]

>>6000474

noice bait

[Anonymous No.6001449]

>>6001405

Oh, well, I suppose it figures. These are "Existential" Comics, so naturally the author is anathema to anything resembling nuanced and rigorous philosophical argumentation, as that is against his religion of Nietzsche-worship. He's not any better than the Nu Atheists. They are all part of the Cult of Unreason, as I see it.

[Anonymous No.6001475]

>>6001401
I take the universal metric to be individuals seeking to maximise their well being. The reason we take certain concepts (genocide for example) as unethical a priori, is that it is not the most rational course of action for any individual to undertake to maximise their well being.

[Anonymous No.6001484]

>>6001449
Karl pls

[Anonymous No.6001497]

>>6001427
You may commit suicide, that does not make it a rational act.

[Anonymous No.6001507]

>>6001484

Which Karl are you imploring?

[Anonymous No.6001516]

>>6001475
So basically you're taking assumptions into your "objective" morality because it is by definition not the most rational course of action? There are a number of groups who a purely rational society would simply dispose of such as career criminals, the mentally ill, the chronically homeless. It doesn't have to be genocide based on arbitrary classifications. There's nothing inherently irrational about genocide, anyway, you're simply taking as a tautology that killing a minority group is irrational if other avenues are available.

[Anonymous No.6001517]

>>6001497
"Rational" it the "Holy" of Scientism. Reason is a tool, not a cause of itself.

[Anonymous No.6001566]

This thread: /lit/ keeps commenting on how wrong the guy is without having read him.
Harris hasn't claimed he's got a complete philosophy. :>

10/10 bait

[Anonymous No.6001581]

>>6001516
I don't think it is an assumption to observe that individuals act according to self interest. This is a scientific fact.
With sufficient information we can determine which course of action will be likely to achieve an individuals self interests.

[Anonymous No.6001608]

>>6001517
Science can determine what you value. Rationality dictates which actions you should take to achieve or maintain those values.

[Anonymous No.6001617]

>>6001497
How would ascertain whether it was rational or irrational without appealing to is/ought justifications.

[Anonymous No.6001621]

>>6000474
Top cuck

[Anonymous No.6001626]

>>6001507
Popper

[Anonymous No.6001633]

>>6001626

Oh, I wasn't aware Popper shared my extreme distaste for existentialism. I mean, of course he was an Analytic, and indeed he's a philosopher whom I like very much, but I've never read anything by him dealing with this. Can you link me to something representing what he has to say?

[Anonymous No.6001644]

>>6001475
Is it the most rational course of action to embezzle loads of money if you have a negligible chance of being caught?

[Anonymous No.6001648]

>>6001617
We can determine what an individual desires and in turn what they value. Suicide may be a rational act in some cases, for example if you are in constant pain and it is unlikely to ever be reduced.

[Anonymous No.6001674]

>>6001644
I don't know, I don't think you have provided enough information to determine.

[Anonymous No.6001679]

>>6001674
Well, what kind of information would tip you one way or the other? It's an opportunity to maximize personal gain at minimal cost, what else would factor in?

[Anonymous No.6001697]

>>6001679
What are the consequences for the individuals you are embezzling?
How unlikely is it that you will be caught?
How much do you gain?
What is the opportunity cost?

[Anonymous No.6001703]

>>6001633
I don't think he ever wrote anything specifically on existentialism (which, imo, is highly based) but his popularity on this board and your emphasis on rigorous argumentation made me think of him

Also, I can't find the image of him saying "I am enlightened by my superior definitions"

[Anonymous No.6001726]

>>6001581
And, the best course of action would be to euthanize all of the invalids because they put a massive drain on resources.Then we have more resources for the majority.

[Anonymous No.6001736]

>>6001697
>What are the consequences for the individuals you are embezzling?
You are embezzling from a large faceless corporation which will find a few numbers gone from its profit margin.
However, unknown to you, the lower profit means that the company lays off one worker next year who dies because he is unable to afford medical care for a sudden fatal disease. This will never affect you and you will never find out about it.
>How unlikely is it that you will be caught?
I already said it's negligible. For the purpose of this exercise assume it is zero.
>How much do you gain?
It's embezzling, so it is literally up to you. Let's say up to one million dollars.
>What is the opportunity cost?
There is no opportunity cost. You can transfer the money with a click of the mouse.

[Anonymous No.6001740]

>>6001697
Not that guy, but OK, if I can get away with crime, then it is fine.

I can cheat on my girlfriend with any number of women and men, but as long as she doesnt find out, it is moral. Because she will feel no pain, and my happiness will increase.

Are we on the same page here?

[Anonymous No.6001748]

>>6001608
>Science can determine what you value
lol? They can, but I'm the one who decides it, and it is not fixed or constant, but a nuanced, flowing concern, altered by moods and new information.

[Anonymous No.6001775]

>>6001736
What are the consequences for you if the corporation has a reduced profit margin?

[Anonymous No.6001777]

>>6001748
On top of these, one can hold CONFLICTING values for myriad reasons, and qualifying which is more valued in some autistic, one-dimensional sense of valuation, is far from simple or even possible in many circumstances.

[Anonymous No.6001790]

>>6001775
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You're in a position sheltered from changes in profit margin as small as the amount you're embezzled.

[Anonymous No.6001801]

>>6001790
Then in your scenario it is a rational action.

[Anonymous No.6001810]

>>6001801
But if everybody embezzled from their employers then business would be difficult to function. Is this form of morality objective yet not universal?

[Anonymous No.6001815]

>>6001748
Your values are pre determined. What you can enjoy is a result of how your brain is structured.

[Anonymous No.6001832]

>>6001810
But it would be impossible for everyone to be in the scenario you gave. In fact your scenario is impossible to achieve in reality, i.e. the reduced profit margin having 0 impact on you.

[Anonymous No.6001859]

>moral realism
>meliorism
Can't tip fast enough.

[Anonymous No.6001877]

>>6001832
It's very possible, or at least it is for the impact to be negligible. And in any case, the money you directly gain from embezzling far outweighs any indirect losses in salary that may incur. Remember, the whole company shoulders the loss but only you shoulder the gain. That is the setup that makes embezzlement possible and indeed attractive. It's a very real and serious problem in many corporations and governments all over the world today.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130514005402/en/Marquet-Embezzlement-Report-Reveals-Highest-Rate-Employee

[Anonymous No.6001910]

>>6001740
Gee, I wonder why sam isn't answering this one.

>pro tip: he can't

[Anonymous No.6001912]

>>6000579

based critical theory blowing shallow rationalists the fuck out

[Anonymous No.6002060]

>>6001740
You can't guarantee she won't find out. The pain she will experience as a result of you cheating would be fairly significant.

[Anonymous No.6002154]

>>6000809
"Torture isn't always torture" - Sam Harris 2014

Science and reason have proven that torture yields failed results and is functionally useless, but Harris supports it because he gets a boner for killing brown people.

[Anonymous No.6002172]

Daily reminder that a good half of all "Christians" on /lit/ are trolls.

[Anonymous No.6002413]

>>6001815
True, yet entirely irrelevant since chaos theory applies here.

[Anonymous No.6002520]

>>6000629

[Anonymous No.6003272]

>>6000474
Last time I looked science was telling me that you can't define right and wrong as absolutes, you can only define the probability of an instance or condition conforming to one of those labels.

[Anonymous No.6003728]

>>6000629
You have opened my eyes.

[Anonymous No.6003768]

Yeah, so basically David Hume > Sam Harris. Is-ought gap, and all that. We get it.

I still think utilitarianism is pretty plausible though, at least in some ways.

Also, I don't get all the hate for atheism. Religious beliefs are unjustifiable and unjustified beliefs have pernicious consequences. Sure, morality can't be derived from science; but if we have a clear-eyed view of reality, a fair amount of consensus can arise, and we can make the world into a place most of us would prefer to live in. I think most people would agree that secular developed countries are nicer places to live than Islamist theocracies.

I really tire of these faggots with their "Scientism is for gays! Muh continental philosophy! Look at this humorously exaggerated MS Paint comic!"