My Problem With Sam Harris' Morality | Featuring Rationality Rules

in 2010 neuroscientist Sam Harris released the book the moral landscape in which he claimed that he could explain morality and objective moral truths using science now I've recently been reading this as you'll know if you follow me on Twitter which you can find here and you also know that I not fully convinced by it but I'm here with Stephen Woodford from rationality rule the channel which I'm sure many of you have heard of and who thinks that it does Holton there it am i right in saying understand more than fair and saying that as it currently stands I buy right so I thought it would be fun to sit down and discuss what about our differences and what we agree on and because I feel like one of the things that's lost on on YouTube particularly but even just in philosophical discussion generally like people just don't sit down and discuss whereas philosophy is a discusses topic it generally be written or composed I think discussions are always good so we have briefly spoken on this before but just to sort of make sure that we have something to talk about and so what I suppose we should start with is perhaps a few to the best of your ability if you sort of outline what usually the argument is for the moral landscape for objectively more troops sure so first things first is that I think that I have the burden of proof there because I'm saying that objective morals exist at the present and before we even go into this I should state that I'm not the most confident apologist off his argument right so I may not be as articulate as I could be and I may not have answers that I should unfortunate that will result with me go and I you've got me there I'm going to have to go think that one through hopefully that isn't the case but if it is I just want to point that out there so it's more of a conversation and then we tryna so well like why the other one so I'm not fully convinced of my not being convinced if you see I'm saying no I think this and this is a huge one to digest because if he is right that there are objective moral values it changes everything it changes everything almost to the same extent that knowing that we don't have free will changes some changes things is a huge evolution and that was first world well more accurately natural selection huge massive paradigm shift if Sam is right here then it is a huge difference so I appreciate and why do you say that it's so important I mean if we all have subjective morality anyway and and whether that manifests itself is objective and we think its objective or not and if we all understand finality regardless of its objectivity why is it so important to suddenly realize that it is objective how does that change things in your eyes because you can objectively say that it is wrong to throw battery acid in the face of little girls for the crime of reading yeah you can objectively say these things you find otherwise well-intentioned liberals especially those which are really far on the Left saying the morality is completely a construct of culture yeah so moral relative or already assumed where you kind of are at the prison well that's not necessarily the case and not not exactly because one of the one of the great things actually that I liked about fam house in smoking is what it's worth professing the discussion I think in saying that I do actually think that this book is a fantastic piece of academic work I do actually think it's a great book in that to me what it does is it removes cultural relativism because even if even if I don't agree with the underlying premise of the morality being objective if we can understand morality in the same way that sam harris does here and we can act as though it is objective then that gives us the right to go to other cultures and say no it's wrong to forcibly you know to force women to wear burqas under to throw acid in people's faces so i do think it has that merit yeah the only thing the only difference I have is the basis for which sam Harris is is giving himself the authority to do that sure by me I mean and hopefully I can make that case to you exactly though I suppose it's best to do that now why why is it that some house feels and you feel I assume that morality can be said to be objective like a fact of nature fantastic question and that is the question you know sam says that values are a certain type of fact and he denies and or at the very least says that Hume is wrong with saying that you can't get them all from a news or sound says and what I agree with is that you could you can only talk about it is by embracing certain oughts science has always been in the value business it's just we don't look it which is ironically a cultural construct right so these are things I'm going to delve into further I think the first thing to do would be to present the argument in a logistic form and to proceed through there and we can point out where you have the most disagreement with it and then I can hopefully try and tell you why I currently am convinced that that's not a problem would that probably be best yes great doesn't look great on camera but I'm going to use my phone to do it I can't memorize but I really like when I read books I have I make notes and I should have brought my notes with me that I had to do that show would have had some good quotes but yeah no yeah yeah I have a series of quotes on here which I'm a they banter between that Roberto will bring them out so he's put is an argument across in many ways there's not a single syllogism but this is the one that I'm most comfortable to work with okay premise one morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe premise two conscious minds and their stakes are natural phenomena of course fully constrained by the laws of nature whatever these end whatever these end up being in the end clem is free or conclusion therefore there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science right so that's the syllogism you're more than willing to look at it if you if you like you have to and I'll probably tip and get them up on the screen as well absolutely yeah starting with the first premise their morality and values depend on the existence of conscious Minds now I don't disagree with that we're aware I do disagree with you is is that surely to me there seems to be definitively subjective to say that something is dependent upon consciousness independent upon the mind yeah doesn't that imply subjectivity in the sense that the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun we can say that's an objective fact because it has nothing to do with our brain it doesn't matter if there's consciousness about huge receiver you can't you're already relying on subjectivity well yeah but it was looser it would still be a fact if we didn't perceive it it was a really happening is happening exactly does and consciousness subjectivity human minds have absolutely nothing to do with it and that's how you define objectivity so to say something as subjective is to say that it's dependent upon the mind it's dependent upon consciousness and so in the first premise saying morality has to definitively come from consciousness yes does that is that not the same as saying it's subjective no when say so if so for example me and you experiencing what we're experiencing here the water if you break it now where is it all coming from it all comes from the brain would you accept that that seems to be what the evidence show I would say I mean our perception of it comes from the brain yeah even if we didn't perceive it surely it would still be still be here so what I mean is like all of your experiences all of them you could possibly have this conversation yeah that relates back to that is your part of your consciousness and your consciousness as part of your brain okay your brain the brain is you can evaluate it it's obvious is a PDA yeah yeah yeah so I see what saying yes so I would say that the fact that it's it's just a different type of fat it's just it's still related still natural phenomenon so whatever is happening is happening right as not as not you know I might agree with you in the sense that the way I'm talking about subjectivity I think you've you've cleared this up to me and for instance if I say that this water tastes nice and that that reasoning that that opinion is a product of objective thing of my of my consciousness whereas morality you're saying is is not a product of the brain but it is a part of consciousness it's what according rain it all breaks down to consciousness again you follow it back to its roots now this is this is the important thing though no this is the argument as I understand it it is saying that morality comes from consciousness which is a product of the brain which is measurable so in a sense you can measure consciousness you can measure you can measure why you have any of your feelings at least in principle yeah well that's the thing I was going to make a point Sam Harris yeah it's strong in his distinction between answers and principle and answers in practice so for instance the example he uses which i think is fantastic is if you ask the question how many people were bitten by mosquitoes in the past hour yeah neither of us could possibly know yes so there is there is an answer there is an absolute repelling people then he draws that parallel with help doesn't he says that there's week there are answers that we may not ever know the answer to but it doesn't change effectively doesn't show you long as there aren't still answers about the well-being of creatures except yeah so that's where he's going to further I think with with heresy saying even if we can't achieve full understanding of the intricacies of moral dilemmas for instance another example he uses he says something along the lines of should we spend our next billion dollars curing racism or curing malaria yes I mean that's that's almost an impossible question and even if we can't answer those things what we we can do is answer the more broader questions with more distinctive moral and if you did want to answer those questions you have to appeal to people's values yes which themselves are determined by the brain but this is that this is a thing yet this is this is what it comes down to the fact that the argument relies as I was saying morality stems from consciousness which stands from the brain and we can say that an action is good or bad depending on how much it affects the well-being of the consciousness correct of the creature so so in all names you may wish you may say that as long as you accept that assumption yes it works that's the assumption I think we disagree okay look the majority of this book it's spent saying okay so we've accepted that well-being is a good thing now let me spend the rest of the book arguing how we can know that there are objective select about how to achieve well-being that's the crux of of the book but that first assumption which the rest of the book relied upon to me full flaps what is it about well-being that should constitute it to be the objective starting point of morality why should we value well-being objectively to be called so I think that is the best question the most important question to ask with when it comes to this when it comes to the syllogism when it comes to his argument now it also happens to be a question that a lot of people have asked most of the criticisms that he received to be quite blood crap but this one had the most grip on me and it was the hardest for me to get over which I'll explain to you how I have and then you can tell yeah I think I'm in the same position yeah yeah exactly you can tell me and where I went wrong and hopefully if you do so than excellent I work you have to go away and think of three more or go around go cheers Alex you show me that it is not objectively wrong to say that throwing acid in the face of children which is just an inconvenient truth I thought some these don't comment on usually it says something like throwing acid is wrong in some people's eyes ha ha ha cute so yes and I only I have a little bit of Thurmond script if you don't mind yes one or the other you convey it in the best way possible that to it is it's like I said it's it's an objection a lot of people have yes and I think it's because you're looking at morality and you're just you're demanding more of the science of morality and you demand of any other branch of science so so I'll just stick with me yeah you you get that okay sure so I'm just going to clarify what your position is and you can just tell me if it's wrong so I want to basically with what I do with my videos I want to steal man the objection that you have okay so I absolutely understand it before I run off so don't be it happened under people I want to grapple for not rapid yeah Rappaport's rules of argument yet cool I wasn't worried about Alistair okay no it's a it's a nice little that Daniel Dennett uses it a lot and it's one of the things that Harris is criticized on they had an argument and not very well but he says that one of the most important things you can do when arguing is to put the other person's position as clearly as they could yeah so that they can't say that you misunderstand it or anything and they would let you understand so look just so you know like if I was in a debate I would be doing it to contour and whereas here I'm just I just want to understand it so that I can see that you're on the same bridge parlor I was on yeah well I'd like to show I am because I'd love to be convinced that I am really work or she would it completely removed like I say cultural relativism it would have changed your debate Ruth Turek oh he what yeah yeah me so I still probably would have done all right but oh you would have asked but yeah I like it definitely would have changed because I one of the main things I've talked about on my channel so far is morality in saying that it's not objective because exactly this is this as an argument for God and if I am a witch moving to you what a wonderful thing to see you who feel that project I'm going to add a little elight Jerry if you convince me that I'm wrong awesome excellently going to be yeah I think it'd be good I haven't I have more to lose but to solidify your position okay it seems that you accept that forms of morality are fundamentally based on well-being yes okay okay that that and we can always come back if you actually can we come back to that that well-being is a natural phenomenon and that therefore there must be right and wrong answers to moral questions but your contention is that you don't see why you should all ought to value well-being in the first place you would say that despite the fact that every form of morality is at its most fundamental level based on well-being it's still an assumption to say it is based on well-being yeah so would that be an accurate and fair representation yes where you in in the sense that I mean I'm sure that he would agree that safe EFT is wrong in those circumstances now as long as you assume the well getting part yes now this is that what I was going to say is that if we rounded up if we questioned every single person on the planet there would be some people who said that they didn't think it was wrong that was happened yes but even if it were the case that everybody agreed that a hundred percent of people decided it was wrong that still wouldn't mean its objective you know that just means it's a subjective fact that we all agree on so just sense the term on morality of based upon well-being I I concede that but I'm saying that even if everybody agrees on that it doesn't make it objective if you if you see a limp Center or I'll gladly put your position down no I think you have as far as here is my angle if I don't again you just let me know yes so I'm going to do what Sam does and quite as you quite often compares morality and well-being to medicine and yes because medicine is something that people don't criticize but they do morality and he has a problem of it and my current state of mind is that I do as well so just as all forms of morality are based on well-being all forms are emissive areas all forms of medicine are based on health and so to say Y or Y value well-being is the same as saying Y or Y value health it seems to me that if you want to say that there are right and wrong answers about medicine for example that homeopathy is objectively wrong then you also have to say that there are right and wrong answers about morality for example everyone's suffering for as long as possible is objectively wrong and on the other hand if you want to say that basing morality on well-being is a mere assumption then you also have to say that based on medicine on health using their assumption okay so I'm actually fine with either conclusion right but I just want to highlight that is logically inconsistent to demand that the science of morality overcome this objection while not demanding that the science of medicine also overcome yes I understand with other science and what I would I would probably say and what I am going to say would be that the read the purpose of medicine is to improve health that's an assumption isn't it well that I mean that that's what it sets out to do editions well this is what I think Sam Harris kind of does is rather than explain how morality can be objective he sort of redefines morality in the sense that we define medicine or good medicine or bad medicine based on how well it improves or detriments our health yeah what Harris is trying to do is you say okay we should do the same thing for morality we should say that morality should be defined by how well it affects our well-being if you've done the same way that medicine is defined by health yeah marty is defined by well-being but the thing is and because we we define medicine by by health you're right but the health itself is still an assumption because again why do we value health now the first attempt should be made only the purpose of medicine is to improve health so it's in mind if that's how you're defining medicines and that's a fine thing to say but then you couldn't say that homeopathy is so is objectively wrong you could just say that it's objectively wrong if your assumption is that you want better huh exactly you can't say that it's just it's just wrong and this is what I think is the contention here we're not when when Harris says you know throwing acid in someone's face is objectively wrong what he's really saying is assuming that well-being is a good thing it's objectively wrong which is which is true we refuse to Helen you wanted to say that it's objectively wrong but homeopathy homeopathy is objectively wrong yes you do have to make the assumption that the estimate of a storm but the reason the reason that we value health here is because if we're in good health then we've improved well-being but that's still an assumption is the same kind of an assumption but this is what I'm saying why why are we making this assumption because like I say I wouldn't say I wouldn't I wouldn't say that any form of medicine is objectively morally right or wrong I wouldn't say that it's right so as a fact of yet the universe I would say that it's right you do people you do say to people what they ought to do yes but again are you a we wouldn't late your friend hey drink some elements no but I lumen American I will concede I would concede that that subjective so yeah but I do get things like do the same thing of the morality of what you've done as you said you're now in a position where you go okay there is no objective morality and there is no objective medicine they both depend on an assumption so the thing is yet most people do this what they do is they speak about medicine without ever demanding that itself justify this assumption but they never ask the same of morality now all medicine all of it when you break it down whether is African voodoo or homeopathy or Western surgery they all break down to health but that is in that sense of the word of an assumption it is what sam says is that almost all Sciences I think he says all Sciences do have basic assumptions you know like how just talking having rational discourse you can't prove reason variants and you've heard all of this there are axiomatic assumptions that everybody makes at all times it's just that we notice it more in the discourse of morality that's what Sam's point is and that's where I'm thinking that Easter cakes okay so if you're going to say that okay that's an assumption and therefore it's not objective you have to say that medicine is an assumption in ergo it's not objective but I could I could say this is the this is a thing medicine in its nature is practical and so I would argue it is morality it's practical in nature so what do you mean by practical well in the sense that medicine the purpose the reason it was invented everything about it is for practical purposes so it's really critical to prove it yelling Yankees in the all business isn't all yeah well societal yeah and so he's morality and but I'm saying what what what Harris is doing is he's he's taking away the the practical argument he's not just saying practically speaking morality can be judged because we all assume that well-being is a good thing so once we've had that assumption let's practically go about seeing how we can best attain that going further than that and saying well this assumption that we all have I can prove why this is an objective fact of nature what once you've made the assumption yes but this one should make the same thing thing about medicine yeah it doesn't matter that medicine is subjective at its basis of health but because we will agree and nobody is going on we all agree when it comes in around nobody's going out there saying that they can prove that health good health is an objective fact of nature that good health is a good thing nobody's saying that then just saying because in a way that no one's doing well yeah what is doing no but if you demand that they do that with well-being and not demand that they do that with health well I will requiring more from the cyano allottee than the science of health I don't think I'm demanding that people do that of morality sure what I'm saying is that Sam Harris is trying to do that with morality I did you know I didn't ask it to and but he seems to be trying to do that and I think that he hasn't done it you know I don't feel convinced by it so you know if if sam harris were to say well look actually I've had a think and turns out the well being can't be objectively proven to be true but that also means that health being a good thing isn't objectively true either and I say yeah I agree fine it's all subjective so this is like my point now I'm trying to make it and that is that I don't want people to have the cake inning it to because that's what people were doing like you're right if you want to now go around saying that there are no right and wrong answers when it comes to medicine homeopathy is just as right as African voodoo and just as right as Western surgery then at least you'll be inconsistent by taking over split it depends on a goal it's so for instance when I'm discussing are these a goal one assumption yes it's a doubt the thing but when I'm discussing morality with someone that says that opposite racist person what I would do is I'd find the common ground that sounds like an impossible task but it's not trust me so I'd say okay why why is it that you were that you discriminate or that you intrinsically hate and a certain ethnic minority say and they might say well I think that they they do no good to humanity and okay so what and they say well you know I value I disagree with that so I say okay so go further what why do you think that and I say well because I value a value well Ben and I think that these people are detriment in well-being okay well hold on because I value well-being too so on that level ground yeah I I would concede that is entirely subjective I value well-being key values well-being yep subjectively but once we have that assumption I can then make objective points I can say you are objectively wrong and being a racist if you're trying to get reweld B it's okay but still and that's why I'm saying it's a good book yeah once you've got it I found out it's the value that you see it yes she means you meet someone which is ironically everybody but says that the morality is based on well-being you can have that condition actually which is why unicellular low its objective yes which is why you can have the same conversation when it comes to health yeah no matter what medicine people putting forward you know chiropractors etc you can have a conversation and you can say that something subjective because you both are running on the assumption or you're both having the same value behind it of being health yes well that's the same with morality so we debate the Christian and he's saying that his morality is Christianity and it's given to him from God when you go why why why why why you always get to well-being yeah and as you just said there are right and wrong answers about well-being that will mean if we don't know the answer there is so only your problem is actually only on a philosophical level exactly that took us under today the point being is that you will meet no one hmm the does their morality doesn't eventually potentially like Narnia so for all intents and purposes you can have conversations about with them saying that you're objectively wrong about this in exactly the same way that you have conversations with people about medicine because there you know that they have been sumption you know that they have the value of health yeah but you never go around saying means right I value health and that's not nothing new but that's that either cult that's in a practical sense you know I would be there and in a practical sense you don't always need to philosophically injecting sometimes it's not the best thing to do for instance you know technically we're all just atoms and advanced pre-debate but if somebody got shot in the arm and they were in great pain and I could just say you know oh well when you think about it you just innate that's not helpful but it's true yeah so it is purely philosophical but this the philosophical argument okay I don't deny that practically speaking doesn't he doesn't know this is what he uses the word how science can determine values not why philosophy from deserve okay so I would disagree with you I would say that but there is if this is this is the problem I have at the book is that he seems to be doing something great and fantastic but it's not what he says he's doing so there is a philosophical I think I honestly think that you're asking more of him than what he has proposed to do I don't think that because because no one asks this of somebody with health yeah he what he's done in this book is he's tried his best to explain that we are looking at this the wrong way that we are asking the science of morality to justify itself in a way that we ask no other branch of science to justify itself which to me it means that either one you make you you apply it to all the sciences and you end up with one hell of a situation where nothing's true or you go fine from if I'm except in medicine is based on health I do have to accept that morality is based on well-being and if we move away from the philosophical realm and we go to the practical application or just knowing things your well-being you have different morals than me I assume like do you leave me I do so I don't okay so it's just a moral difference okay I'm not going to preach no I I actually finally enough agree that I I can't be the Soviet leader fendi ting me I've said before I hope to be a vegan one yeah I mean I I'm vegetarian Mumbai how to believe in myself but you're and I can't defend it but the point being there is that the reason that we can have a debate is because we do a shoot no matter who's who you meet if you meet a racist if you meet a Christian often they're the same if you accept is a joke stick if you meet hell's a terrible joke the point being is if you meet anyone nor morality and you really do break it down to the fundamental level it's the thing practically speaking it's based on well-being all you have to do is coming to a discussion with somebody somebody get them to admit that the morality is ultimately based on well-being and then you can say you want objectively wrong yes so with it being a philosophical book people in it been the philosophy err when really it is purely in the man --tx almost because you know it's like you know person a is saying well look we all admit the maratti is based upon well-being all of our morality is so there are objective fact you know and I'm like yeah but all I'm saying is that just the code we all know one assumption to say the it's bill an assumption that we should value it like so what if I haven't made this clear I agree with you right go know what I gave you right I didn't actually I I wasn't oh I agree with you that it's an assumption okay however the same assumption is made in other Sciences such as medicine not almost like a 2 o'clock fallacy to say you know well that's doing it too and we and we give that a free pass so should we get this a free pass not so much so what you've got is you've got two branches of science and one of them you say and you accept and you you go around with a prescriptive statement you tell people what they ought to do you ought not take homeopathy because it is objectively wrong but you don't with this now what I'm saying is that the relationship between morality and well-being is almost from a foundational perspective identical to medicine medicine medicine relation to health so unless you can tell me how there's fundamentally different in some way you need a justification and treat this like it's facts and go around treating it like going around making the assumption yes the medicine space well but not making the Assumption here it seems like you treat this like a practical prescriptive science and you won't allow this to come out of this philosophical year the urban or state area and I understand that I think it's a cultural thing and morality is a hard thing to get behind and it's deeply rooted but it seems to me as you can see from what I'm saying here when you really break it down it's not if there is a science of morality and even if you ignore that as you as you've said with as you agree with me whoever you talk to it is based on morality it is based on well-being so for all practical purposes it's definitely right philosophically you could say it has got an assumption but to just reiterate it really reiterate that again same is true of medicine and health okay so that's why I can't be accept it because I accept I accept that medicine can tell me what I want to do despite the fact that it makes that assumption about health and so I accept that morado you can tell me what you're almost saying is that yet an assumption but it makes no practical difference so we can we can make practical arguments about my are the objective practical arguments and we can sort of ignore the philosophical underlying and we can talk about it as a field of interest as we're doing now but when we leave this table we have our moral standards which we believe we can prove objectively because we both assumed well-being yeah and another way to put it is when I say to you your morality once you speak to me and you read and I say to you if you say to me Steve is your morality based on well-being and I said yes you now if you now admit that you can you tell me that I'm objectively yet and wrong absolutely that's all you need yes because couple that with the fact that every single person's morality fundamentally breaks down to well-being whether they know this or not all practical purposes you have objective morality but then in the same way that you have all gates of empathy it's only medicine say that yeah the only difference I have is that's added underlying objectives that underlying principle that well-being is a good thing yeah now it's an objective fact that everybody's morality eventually comes down to well-being Kip but what it really comes down to is is the want to improve well-being Yeah right and all I'm saying is that that's just an opinion and opinion we all share but it's subjective and carbon proven to be object with the medicine example yes I would say that it is objectively true that medicine improves your health if you accept but I wouldn't say that medicine is objectively good I just say it objectively will improve your health you see what I'm saying sorry so so so kind of this I'm saying the saying medicines objectively improves your health there's no doubt about it or like good medicine or you you can make objective claims about medicine that relates only you can only say that it's good you can only say that it does anything really once you've already injected a value but all I'm saying is that it improves health objectively good metaphor you increase health but effective medicine improves how you still have to have already defined in order sees or display the fight when how good what health yeah you've already must have defined as something absolute so this is the angle where I was calling for a long time yes and I have tried to hit it from every angle and I cannot find a way to break that that chain if you see where I'm coming from yes and I also know about not to articulate the matter that you need true of every science yes so it's not just medicine it's crazy but once I realized that we make axiomatic geomatic assumptions about every field of science that is when I realized that it is logically inconsistent of me to demand that the science of morality overcome an impossible objection that I do not simultaneously demand of other sciences and that leaves you in a position where you either have to say that nothing works which no one can actually do but it also means a reason rationality doesn't work yeah or you have to say there is a science of morality and this is just on a philosophical plan if you go down to a practical plane the game is already set and one but I do think as I would say not allowing allowing special rules almost like a reverse special pleading allowing special room for all of the sciences and not for morality is how you play tennis with other than that yeah it's yeah no I see but I do still think that morality is different in its nature to the other scientists in the sense that take the science of medicine medicine is defined by health in its definition I'm sure you don't know let's not bother but if you looked it up on in the dictionary who's to say it should be well no but this is the thing like like no no I mean to interrupt you so you know that that's fine but I say that I do a thing what I'm saying is that medicine the aim of medicine we've decided that the aim of medicine is to relate to health now health being a good thing is is still subjective but I mean that when I'm making claims about medicine because definitively medicine has to relate to health we can talk about medicine and just assume it relate to health but morality the definition of morality isn't that which concerns well-being is that which concerns good and bad thinking whilst well-being is like you say well-being comes from and consciousness well-being comes from the mind it can be measured it can be scanned and put on the screen good and bad can't their concept and because my feeling good or bad reasons or losses well be yes but nothing but not that's that's the thing that's an assumption in itself yeah the thing I would say the same to a little help good and bad our concepts and I don't really but it's the feeling whatever you defined it to do whatever this is think the good doesn't have a clear definition and so because morality is based upon good and good and bad are subjective that makes morality itself subjective whereas medicine is definitively based on health so I would also say that yes healthy and good thing is subjective but I don't know how to articulate this morality doesn't have well-being in its definition so whilst there are objective facts to know about well-being yeah it's not necessarily linked to morality morality is just linked to good or bad which is entirely subjective whereas medicine is definitely linked to health which there can be fact known about do you do serum saying all I see is that as a culture we've recognized and we now unanimously label medicine completely recognize a relationship between and we make the assumption those with morality we're not there yet that that's whether you speak to people you mind that it all goes to well-being so the point being is that yes we don't know these stuff we don't know morality well yeah but the same could be said of health if you have someone that thinks that smoking is good and it or even better than that you know like they're defining medicine to be else out there something else one you can't really have a conversation here just is it there's just more acceptance offer as a cold and we make those assumptions but we don't make those assumptions when it comes to morality news for ye that in almost so many words that's almost what I said at the beginning in the sense that I think that some house is redefining morality which is a good thing so would you say that people will redefine to medicine to mean well no I think the difference there is that medicine from the beginning pertain to health morality at the beginning pertain to good and good and bad and perhaps we're on the path to changing the definition of morality to refer to well-being which I think would be a fantastic thing to do because again if we do this because you can be born and not recognize it yes the way that we are born doing the nicely important it because it removes culture relativism sam harris makes a good point that oftentimes if we go into you know if I went into Somalia and said you shouldn't be putting women in bags they'd probably say yeah they leave they would accuse you of I think he uses the term cultural imperialism which is a fair point that is done so if we do redefine morality to mean well-being then we can go in and say morally speaking you're wrong yeah so I think it's a good thing to do so it is an interesting question when it just comes to practical purveyors let's say what way example did you use you used more country to give you Somali if you go into Somalia yeah and you was able to have a conversation unlikely yeah if you were able to have a conversation with them and you was able to get them to break down why they're doing what they are doing whatever it's based on as you've admitted it will break down to well B so you can make object to state games they won't accept it they will be impolite to say the least yes but there being but if they are think that you you have changed my perspective on this editor slightly I still think that there is a philosophical case to be made that the basis that we all assume is still subjective so for instance when you go and abate some of my Franchi wreck when you debate somebody who says morality is objective because it comes from God well being is objectively a good thing because God says it then I can say well okay that link that you're making once we've broken it down to assume that we both want well-being I say that I want well-being because well I can't help it evolutionarily it's been instilled into me that well-being is a good thing you want well-being because you think it comes from God that's where the philosophical discussion light so we can still have arguments and say well you're wrong because well-being being a good thing isn't an objective fact it's subjective then when we get into the practical ground when we get to actually having discussions about what we should do the court then so not philosophically you know what's the what's the not working on the assumption what's the grounding for morality when you're talking about what we should do in terms of gravity we can then they connected that so long as we all assume well-being which ultimately we do so I think I think that the the task would be then when we're trying to make moral judgments and have discussions about it first thing this would be what I've taken from this discussion whenever I now go and talk about morality or something the first thing I think I'm going to do every time is make sure that we've both entirely clear that both of our positions are based on well-being yeah I think once we do that absolutely I can 100 you one read that this book has merit and that there are objective facts to know about how morality works excellent I think I think that's I think that's a fair and summary of my position now that's great I don't know if you agree with that is that um yes so I go to sit further and first of all hats off to you know it's great and if you go away and you end up finding another objection just let me know maybe another conversation or one off I think what you've put there is a great point any kind of conversation with anyone that wants to talk about morality you can get them to break down their morality and they can be wrong by the way in how they think it breaks down so for example if somebody says to you I want for you uh sorry I want well-being well-being as my values because God has told me well beings my value if they're wrong I would actually say that why if you break it down further they want to be in heaven and not hell and they think that's the best way to improve well-being yeah so once you get them to admit that well-being is what they're talking about and here's the thing everybody all morality is break down to it you've got an objective argument to be had in the same way as soon as you get everybody to admit that their concept of medicine is based on health you can objectively say shove your homeopathy a bit but you're wrong I don't think this is what frustrates me you can do do it with medicine they don't do it morality and it's because they haven't recognized the relationship I think the more that people can tie tie morality with well-being and show its relationship to be just as just as similar as medicine and health do the quicker people get to that but you're completely right and and I think that's the exact way that I will start moral questions as well moral arguments I will immediately get them to admit that it's on well-being and then that's a French dynastic point that even if you're saying your morality comes from God why would you then adhere to that well because you want to be in good God's good out why because you will go to heaven why because it's what well they always break down to it so yeah yeah practically speaking I'm still I'm still holding my philosophical convention still reserving my right to - yeah you know defending the idea of moral subjectivity but in a practical sense when we're talking about morality when we're talking about Ward's although we can't necessarily visit philosophically defend these walks we got philosophically say that something is objectively wrong we can practically say that something is objectively see so you see it you see it as that that's what I think is that how you see medicine yes they think okay thing but is that how you see all science I guess you have to because that hey go take the science of medicine you just show me you say you have to make this my hospital in it hopefully but it's still an assumption yes so great agreed agreed philosophically I can't decide I can't stand medicine so the point I cannot do it but I can practically defend medicine til the cows come now it's great I mean all I would say to two points I would say is that one is that if you try to recognize that you do not even though you recognize that there's assumptions made in health you do not operate you do not conduct your life of that assumption in mind you conduct it with that you say that assumption is what it is let's move from here I would say that to be logically consistent you do need to do the same with reality and the other thing is that there's actually two more things the other thing is one of the things is people have change our ideas during conversations so like if you'd said something that hood rattled me as you have performing that one we've had conversations your minds either changed or you managed to support it in a different way like going away and digesting it just seems to be that's the way that the human mind works yeah or if you're a theist you never change you when I when I kiddin / - kidding I can try to be respect there are moaning code but I'm only Johnson that yeah my channel I think is that I I so many jokes you wouldn't believe how many don'ts like thrown out just because they I'm trying to keep it I mean you know you are you're very much you're very firmly atheist in that Cermak um yeah no I am definitely a little bit more cantankerous I'm only meaning as a little joke yeah I think I think when it comes down to is that we both practically agree philosophically I think there's still some contention but I think I think that's a fantastic state now at least a discussion yeah I do as well I'm Greek yeah I think one of the most interesting things about this is going to be seeing what these guys think yes so I can tell you one thing and that is that I am in the minority here so I expect well it you you are it's bizarre that it in the grand scheme of science I think most scientists are I don't say moral relativists but they don't believe in objectives you know be bouncy but in the field of like philosophy entirely though in the fielder's atheism and the sort of people who would read Sam Harry in that a majority who agree with him well I might be surprised Niels though in the grand scheme of things I'm them I'm the majority and in in this sort of Steve means me are still the Iowa on this channel it will be it will be more the majority I'll be very interesting to see yes everything that I've noticed is that it's not the case like people just couldn't not get in the head room that they don't accept at all I'm differ on you know that was you're totally cleared by the either way like it's important that they know that you know it's just a conversation we're friends is all good I'm very interested in hearing what now yeah all if you have to say so absolutely if you've enjoyed this discussion do let us know and also any opinions you have on this yeah or to leave them down I'm going to try and sort of discuss with some of you guys because I do want to have my mind change and it's always good fun and but also before we go I want to briefly mention that this coffee is the moral landscape that we have on the table we're going to be giving away we're also giving away a copy of free will and which is another sort of sources interesting discussion which we're going to continue to talk about absolutely do that over on your channel the ugly and so if you want to see a discussion on free will which I think will be probably slightly more agreeable and I assume so very interesting like the sort of module and but it always was gonna be yeah yeah definitely have much of a choice in the matter yeah the moral accountability and a journalistic will that kind of stuff we're going to talk about that over in your channel and rationality rules the links of course will be in the description but yes we'll be giving away a copy of each of these books if you want to win all you have to do is make sure you're following both of us on Twitter so that we can contact you that's not just a blog but hey you look at us is one thing why not and just tweeted us something amusing something to do with the discussion that we've been having anything that you think will be of interest and relevance and use the hashtag cosmic rationality I think that we can yeah we can be sure that nobody else is going to be using like doubt so yeah so if you use that hashtag tweet there's something that you think is of worse and we'll go through and whatever sort of really strikes a chord with us we'll send you a verbal message ooh we can sign it if you want even I've always a magic incredibly existence particular senses yeah I find it weird but the same again delicious yeah this book can be yours and so go ahead and do that you can find both of our social medias on the screen now and of course a link to always be in the description but for our discussion on free will which I'm very excited for now and pop over to Steve's channel which will be in the description and but in the meantime thank you for watching don't forget to subscribe to my channel I'll see you in the next one awesome awesome okay want that oh great another different even cut about yeah well cut that

Channel: CosmicSkeptic

Views: 368,978

Rating: 4.8675127 out of 5

Keywords: Alex O'Connor, cosmic, skeptic, cosmicskeptic, rationality rules, moral landscape, sam harris, free will, philosophy, morality, objective morality, stephen woodford, book, atheism, debate, discussion, conversation, in conversation with, evil, good, subjective, objective

Id: Lyp3tHpGxw4

Length: 46min 29sec (2789 seconds)

Published: Fri Jun 30 2017

Reddit Comments

[u/Nazi_Zebra]

I enjoy this channel. Can't stand most youtube sceptics/atheists, but this guys channel just went from 0 to 100 so fast. Not long ago, he was making videos in his room about fairly basic atheist arguments (not a bad thing), now he appears on radio debates and interviews people like Lawrence Krauss.

[u/LL96]

Really enjoyed that video. However I think there is a pretty glaring fallacy in the analogy between morality and the science of medicine. I should preface this by saying that I know I'm not saying anything new.

One of the claims that the man on the right is defending is that if you believe that morality is subjective, you are logically bound to also believe that medicine is subjective, and that there "are no right and wrong answers when it comes to medicine". Yet what does he mean by the claim that medicine is subjective? If one thinks that the guiding standard of ethical behaviour is not well-being but some other value, that does not logically entail you to disregard the facts that medicine has learned about biology. The descriptive account of the human body, how it works, how it can develop and spread disease, and how interventions could ease or stop the symptoms of those diseases, is completely independent from whether any of those interventions are ethically desirable. All that is being shown by naming health as the defining concept that drives medicine is that as an empirical discipline, it arose in a society that valued things like human life and human well-being and hence allocated resources to try to maximize these. When we say homeopathy is wrong, we're saying that the biological processes it claims to describe are false, and not borne out by empirical inquiry, while the processes that medicine describes have.

Therefore, if you are defending the claim that morality is subjective, you are bound to defend the claim that the moral righteousness of using medical interventions to improve health is subjective as well. But there is an entire domain of facts that the science of medicine has acquired which remains untouched by this. Remember that the original idea of equating the science of medicine with the science of morality is to stipulate that there exist moral facts in the same way that there exist scientific facts. But they are qualitatively different, and are not logically bound together in the way that was portrayed. It seemed to make a big problem out of this seemingly difficult dilemma (people are getting away with "having their cake and eat it to"), that if you say this "science" of morality is subjective, you must say this other science of medicine is also subjective, which somehow commits you to saying homeopathy is "just as right" as modern medicine. It merely stems from a muddying of descriptive statements with normative statements, as if denying the latter group's objectivity and universality also brought into question the former.