Of Mice and Men
Posted: 12 October 2010 10:44 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2010-10-12

In Sam Harris’s latest talk which was posted on “centerforinquiry” youtube channel. He sparked my interest with a comment he made about rats and squirrels. He made a comment that both rats and squirrels have the same capacity for conscious experience, yet one is ugly while the other has a cute fuzzy tail. This has an impact on how we view these organisms. He later posits that morals can be objectively deduced and quantified. So we would develop a sort of moral law equation, where you take a situation and all it’s variables and plug it into this equation. We can then empirically deduce whether this decision was write or wrong.
 
  He then goes on to say that there is a spectrum of good to bad. ‘Bad’ being every conscious entity experiences the worst possible suffering for as long as possible and ‘good’ being every conscious entity experiences the most happiness and comfort for as long as possible. While everything else falls in the middle of this spectrum and there are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways to navigate this spectrum. Lets analyze the concept of rats and squirrels again. Well it’s not as simple as he leads us to believe… it’s not just about the tail. Rats carry and spread harmful diseases, while squirrels may carry these same diseases, they are less prone to spread these diseases (doesn’t matter if this is factually correct or not it’s an idea). Lets now apply the formula to this example…

Squirrels don’t cause suffering;
Rats are <1% of conscious entities;
Rats cause 5% of conscious entities to suffer;

Therefore: The elimination of rats will optimize happiness while minimizing suffering.

This is a perfectly logical statement based on the assumptions, being; bad is lots of suffering, better is less suffering. Which is perfectly fine when we apply it to mice… but what of men?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2010 05:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2010-10-11
morethanharry - 13 October 2010 02:44 AM

In Sam Harris’s latest talk which was posted on “centerforinquiry” youtube channel. He sparked my interest with a comment he made about rats and squirrels. He made a comment that both rats and squirrels have the same capacity for conscious experience, yet one is ugly while the other has a cute fuzzy tail. This has an impact on how we view these organisms. He later posits that morals can be objectively deduced and quantified. So we would develop a sort of moral law equation, where you take a situation and all it’s variables and plug it into this equation. We can then empirically deduce whether this decision was write or wrong.
 
  He then goes on to say that there is a spectrum of good to bad. ‘Bad’ being every conscious entity experiences the worst possible suffering for as long as possible and ‘good’ being every conscious entity experiences the most happiness and comfort for as long as possible. While everything else falls in the middle of this spectrum and there are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways to navigate this spectrum. Lets analyze the concept of rats and squirrels again. Well it’s not as simple as he leads us to believe… it’s not just about the tail. Rats carry and spread harmful diseases, while squirrels may carry these same diseases, they are less prone to spread these diseases (doesn’t matter if this is factually correct or not it’s an idea). Lets now apply the formula to this example…

Squirrels don’t cause suffering;
Rats are <1% of conscious entities;
Rats cause 5% of conscious entities to suffer;

Therefore: The elimination of rats will optimize happiness while minimizing suffering.

This is a perfectly logical statement based on the assumptions, being; bad is lots of suffering, better is less suffering. Which is perfectly fine when we apply it to mice… but what of men?

Are you really convinced that the elimination of rats will maximize well-being?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2010 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  500
Joined  2005-02-22

If you are shallow and superficial enough about anything, it will sound stupid.

I’m sure FOX Mews will make a similiar case.

 Signature 

Delude responsibly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2010 02:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2010-10-12
Nhoj Morley - 13 October 2010 01:21 PM

If you are shallow and superficial enough about anything, it will sound stupid.

I’m sure FOX Mews will make a similiar case.

Completely irrelevant address the question.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2010 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2010-10-12

@Leela

No I’m not. It’s a theoretically ideal situation. I’m using it to prove a point. Science may be able to help us understand the nature of animal behavior; however it’s a slippery slope. Science aids in approaching the solution to the problem, it is not an end all be all. I in fact completely agree with Dr. Harris’s posit.

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed