O noes! The theme is gone!

Nothing wrong with hate reading. That’s how I’ve approached most of this thread! 😝

I’m guessing it’s in the Religion/Spirituality category because Sam Harris came to fame as an atheist and harsh critic of religion in the years after 9/11. And writing that explanation made me realize that it makes even less sense. But there isn’t a Non-belief category, so…

It’s been a long time since I read the book, but I’ll try to distill the main thesis in a few steps, from what I remember.

1. Questions of morality are, at their core, questions about happiness (Harris uses well-being) and suffering of conscious creatures. In the extreme case, we should all agree that a worst-possible-misery-for-everyone scenario would be bad. Objectively bad, no-way-to-argue-it’s-actually-good bad. If you can’t agree to that first principle, then you might as well stop reading.
2. Granting 1, you then have that well-being and suffering/misery are states of consciousness, and consciousness arises from the brain, and we can measure and study the brain. Hence, we can try to understand well-being and misery using the methods and tools of science.
3. Putting 1 and 2 together leads to the conclusion that we can use science to understand morality.
4. Finally, the “Landscape” analogy shows that there isn’t one perfect answer, no single guiding morality that applies to everyone, but there are peaks (well-being) and there are valleys (suffering) that we can identify, and we can use science to plot our course through this moral landscape.

That last point I think is how you can have your cake and eat it too. Morality can be objective while also being relative. You could have a society that uses technology to cure disease, increase everyone’s life expectancy, and generate massive wealth that can be shared for the benefit of all. You could also have groups of people that are off-grid, live off the land, and are self-sufficient and one with nature. Both of those could be peaks on the moral landscape. Which one is higher? Hard to say. But if we know what the peaks look like, we also know what the valleys looks like (slavery, racism, etc. ad infinitum).

Give it a try. You’ll probably disagree with a lot of it, and might hate most of it, but I promise it’ll give you something to think about.

Vater:

I think I mean--and I could be wrong...

No. I meant, I don't even know what I mean with the philosophical perspective comment.

...that there are people who find that a lot of science disproves the existence of a higher being. I don't.

Oh, absolutely not. It's two different things. I think morality skews more towards religious discussion than scientific. There's a reason morality isn't just a simple matter of scientific result. Because it can't be. (Until I read this book, at least)

Pushing further on, I'm the old Atheist/Agnostic cliche. Even if we proved God tomorrow, the idea of religion is still laughable to me. It's such a self-centered concept.

Like an existence of such higher level of consciousness would give a second thought to the garbage produced by the afterthought of one creation.

How's that for nihilistic?

And if God themself (and how's that for progressive?) showed up tomorrow and said any of the religion nonsense we humankind subscribe to had any hold in reality, well, you would be able to consider my panties quite bunched and my bottom a bit exposed.

Bakeman31092:
But if we know what the peaks look like, we also know what the valleys looks like (slavery, racism, etc. ad infinitum).

But I'd argue that none of those peaks or valleys are absolute. And until they are, it's subjective.

I know. You're just the messenger. Go read the book.

Thanks for the off-ramp, but I do advocate for that thesis. After all, the very first thing I said in my first post in this thread was that morality is not subjective.

I'd be curious to know, within the 1-4 framework that I outlined (or that Harris outlined, and I badly regurgitated) at what point you disagree such that you can say that slavery isn't an absolute moral valley. Human suffering is bad, yes? Chattel slavery will certainly produce human suffering, yes? And the humans that practice it have agency so as to be able to choose not to practice it, in order to avoid that suffering, yes? And if there was any doubt (though there shouldn't be), we probably have to tools to wire up the brain of a slave and measure their level of misery, yes?

Trust me, I'm not trying to rope in you in to defending slavery. I'm just genuinely curious.

You're good. And you know I'm dumb enough to go there. So as simply as I can put it:

Someone is potentially benefitting from that suffering.

Reducing one's suffering at the expense of another's. (and there I go again making it sound zero sum - it's not.)

Is all suffering bad? I don't think it is. Again, talking in generalities - there are levels - wearing a mask during Covid vs being forced into the sex trade, for example. (and don't get into the stupid specifics here, anyone, y'all know what I mean)

Which is weird, because I feellike in saying so brings me a little closer to your ideals in an odd way because I see it as the individual suffering for the greater good.

If I'm understanding correctly, that is something a few of you guys (not directed at you Bakeman) seem like you get behind in general. It seems we're measuring in large swaths - majority rules sort of morality. What benefits the most?

If that's the case I can argue a 51% ruling class using the other 49%. But I may be misunderstanding.

If the goal is to reduce suffering to zero. Slavery is a pretty bad path.

If the goal is something other than that - "trading" suffering to create an even greater good (and, again, mental excercise, I can't dream up an example right this second and if I did, we really are starting a cult).

So where do I disagree?

Crap. Looks like #1. I think one could argue for instances where human suffering results in greater good.

I am not that person. ☺️

EDITED - I type fast, I spell bad.

Also, masochists. 😉

Bakeman31092:

Human suffering is bad, yes?

Would everyone agree with that? At face value I think most would say they don't agree with suffering, but those same people use products in their daily lives that came from suffering, or the products they use further suffering in some way. So going back to the 2020 thread I recall someone saying that "it wasn't some far away thing that affected people they didn't know" or something along those lines. So maybe the suffering is just fine as long as it isn't right up in the forefront of your existence, or affecting those immediately around you.

So Maybe... Self/Family Not suffering > Products I want/need > Some random Asian kid suffering > RRR?

Bakeman31092:

After all, the very first thing I said in my first post in this thread was that morality is not subjective.

So, are you saying that all right and wrong is objective? Or just that there are some absolute, objective rights/wrongs? If its the latter, are there a large number of them or few?

TheMillenniumRider:

...but those same people use products in their daily lives that came from suffering, or the products they use further suffering in some way.

Very good point. I can see future humans looking back on what the humans of today were up, in terms of consuming food that was the product of factory farming, or using devices/wearing clothes that were produced in sweat shops by children working for essentially no wages, the same way that (most) humans today look back on the humans that practiced slavery a few hundred years ago. It was still wrong then, but they did it anyway. They did it until they grew out of it--remember that moral progress ratchet I mentioned in my first post. I'm comfortable in saying that wearing Nikes that came from a squalid sweat shop is immoral, and I'm gonna do it anyway. Just because we're doing it anyway doesn't mean it's right or moral.

GoBucks89:
So, are you saying that all right and wrong is objective? Or just that there are so absolute, objective rights/wrongs? If its the latter, are there a large number of them or few?

What the hell am I saying? Well, um...

First, let me qualify suffering a little bit. Self-imposed suffering doesn't count. Strenuous exercise is a form of suffering. Staying up until 3am cramming for a test is a form of suffering. But in those cases, it's something you are choosing to do, ostensibly for the betterment of your long-term well-being. Morality, on the other hand, concerns the effect that one's actions have on other people (and other sentient beings, in the end). In that regard, it may be easier to understand morality by defining what is immoral: causing the suffering of another person against their will, when you could have done differently, and when you were in a position to understand that your actions would cause said suffering.

At the micro level, then, I do think that all right and wrong is objective. If one person knowingly does harm to another person that didn't ask for it, when they could've done differently, that's objectively wrong. I'd love to hear a dissenting argument on just that level, but that's where I stand (I think). Now, does that framework scale to whole societies? Well, maybe that's where subjectivity comes in, although again I prefer to think of it as moral relativism than subjective morality. And this is where I feel like we start to venture into Trolley Problem territory.

Getting back to Gonch's response about slavery: yes, there's an argument to be made that people benefitting from that enterprise results in an enhancement of their well-being, and thus there is some moral good to be found. But getting back to the landscape analogy, aren't we still in the valley? Using thousands of slaves to construct a monument to honor a single person has to be the very bottom of the valley, no? Using slaves to harvest crops that can be sold and consumed, thus enriching the lives of the land owners and the consumers, would be "better," meaning we're starting to climb out of that valley, but it is still abhorrent, because of the immense suffering of the slaves. Finding people that will voluntarily harvest the crops after we promise to compensate them for their labor, well that's better still, isn't it? That's not moral relativism or subjective morality; that's moral progress because we objectively know which direction to head to get out of the valley and to the top of the mountain. After all, in this scenario, aren't we just weighing the good and the bad? How can we weigh it if we don't objectively know what's good (people acquiring wealth and getting sustenance = greater well-being) and what's bad (people forced to work against their will with no compensation, often suffering great physical pain the process)? Just because there are situations where we have to weigh the good and the bad doesn't mean morality becomes subjective. It just means we need to try to have more of the good and less of the bad.

Does the magnitude/scope of the harm or the cost of avoiding it come into play in the determination of right and wrong? In the law, there is the Hand Formula (after Judge Learned Hand). Very simplified: Cost/benefit analysis. If the cost of avoiding the harm outweighs the benefits of avoiding it, you are not negligent if you allow the harm to happen. Ford performed that analysis with the Pinto and its fuel tank problem. But they underestimated the benefit of avoiding the harm (largely when plaintiffs found out about the analysis that had been done in advance). Many people were shocked by placing a value on a human life though as a society its done every day.

Statement about viewing wear Nikes from sweatshops is wrong but you will do it anyway seems to indicate there may be some type of cost/benefit analysis. If so, is there some subjectivity to those wrongs we turn a blind eye towards versus those which we don't?

ApolloAndy:

to suggest that he is comparable to King David is the worst form of mental gymnastics, hypocrisy, and short sightedness.

I will never understand how Trump became some sort of savior for the evangelicals? Dude is a fake Christian who panders to them.

Because so many Christians are also fake. Kind of a slap in the face to the ones who actually try to follow the book that their whole religion is based off of.

Now I DO really miss that talking trash can at Electric Umbrella.

Here's another thought as we reach the end of the week and likely get close to putting this one to sleep for now.

Does someone have to suffer for an action to be immoral? We all just sort of accepted that as a condition. I think we did as an attempt to have a quantifiable measure of morality.

But...

1. Can something be immoral while not causing suffering?
2. Can something cause suffering and not be immoral?

GoBucks89:

Very simplified: Cost/benefit analysis.

And there's the professional way of looking at what I was trying say (as an average lug) about 'spending' suffering to 'purchase' good.

If so, is there some subjectivity to those wrongs we turn a blind eye towards versus those which we don't?

And which moral shortcomings disqualify you from being president and which don't? Because letting people in other countries objectively suffer so we can sit on the toilet and argue about this doesn't seem to be one of them.

Honestly, "sliders" is the answer to everything.

Indeed it is.

Well, if you have to take an oath at inauguration to protect the constitution and you are super famous for trying to undermine the constitution with violence, that’s not a great start.

Bakeman31092:

Indeed it is.

We currently live in a magical golden zone that has both White Castle and Krystal. Is that common? I feel like that's not common. We've lived in both White Castle areas and Krystal areas, but this is the first place we've ever lived that both were a viable, reasonable choice. (in terms of convenience and not accounting for taste)

Is it immoral to eat fast food? Or is it cool to just be like, "**** the cows. Some life is product."

The president is a McDonald's whore.

The end.

Lord Gonchar:

The president is a McDonald's whore.

Also, Putins, Kim's, Elon's, and whoever else gives him the cash or time of day.

I figure this picture sums it up nicely, absolutely love Kim's face, total moment of WTF you doing buddy.

Lord Gonchar:

Or is it cool to just be like, "**** the cows. Some life is product."

My daughter is in her last year of vet school. She has been a vegetarian since she was about 5. Sometimes wears a t-shirt that says "Good doctors don't eat their patients."

I would add a footnote before I wore it that said "unless they taste good cooked over an open flame (or really any heat source)."

PETA = People for the Ethical Tasting of Appetizers

Lord Gonchar:

We currently live in a magical golden zone that has both White Castle and Krystal.

I have never heard of Krystal; had to Google it. Looks delectable.

This sounds similar to when I lived in the Cincinnati area, and you had your choice of Skyline or Gold Star chili. And it kind of felt like once you chose one, you weren't really allowed to have the other.