Sam Harris

The claim that what humans value the most is well being is the foundation for most of The Moral Landscape, however you can easily see how human and animal well-being has had no value for many tribes and cultures.

People sacrifice animals. People kill, mistreat, hurt each other. If we valued well-being over all else, this wouldn’t happen, not so much.

We value our SELF well-being, that much is true, but the well-being of others? Not really, not unless under an imaginary utopia of all people living in harmony or something of the sort.

I’m just confused about this. I’m struggling to understand. Any comments deeply appreciated.

Are you saying that you don’t value the well-being of others as much as your own well-being, or are you saying that you don’t at all value the well-being of anyone other than yourself? (Or more likely, something else, right?)

I noticed in a neighboring thread that you seem to value the life of your cat more than the lives of human strangers. What is your reference position—that is, are you referring to your visceral feelings (visceral morality, in a sense), or to your intellectual take (considered morality, so to speak)?

Soooo the only description of morality you would subscribe to is one that miraculously, or by convoluted design, describes precisely the way people happen to behave anyway? As if the only valid description of morality is one in which it is impossible to behave immorally?

This is kind of similar to the view people have of international affairs. People just say “thats not our business because its their country…how does it affect us?”. There is only 1 planet and 1 human race. We are connected. Imaginary international borders don’t change that.

When you think about something like people mistreating people you think about it in a very insulated benign way. “Why shouldn’t you mistreat others?” But thats the wrong point of view. A better point of view is “do you want to be in a world where it is OK for people to mistreat people??”. When you put it in real terms it is very different. The system can be fair or unfair. Most of the ways of it being unfair are cruel to you. Few of the unfair systems are disproportionately generous to you. If you endorse a world where mistreating people is OK, you will get mistreated. You endorse a world where its not OK and you wont. And no-one will.

Bahamut - 10 February 2011 11:31 PM

The claim that what humans value the most is well being is the foundation for most of The Moral Landscape

Sam’s argument is that you *should* value the well being of all conscious creatures, not that you do. Now, I don’t find your confusion that surprising, because Sam’s argument isn’t particularly coherent. But the fundamental broad claims are that there is a single objective morality, and that the Well Being of Conscious Creatures provides the standard by which one judges whether an action is good or bad; that which increases WBCC is good, that which decreases it is bad.

Sam is actually trodding down a path travelled with much more agility and vigor by Ayn Rand. I don’t agree with Rand either, but she makes a credible attempt to bridge the is ought gap, while Sam does not. If Sam were really aware of Rand’s argument, no doubt he would be appalled at the similarity, and embarrassed at how poorly he does in comparison.

nonverbal - 12 February 2011 03:51 AM

I noticed in a neighboring thread that you seem to value the life of your cat more than the lives of human strangers.

Most people with pets in the developed world do. We spend enough on food, medical care, and grooming of one pet to feed a poor family, or a few, in the undeveloped world.

buybuydandavis - 24 April 2011 09:07 AM

nonverbal - 12 February 2011 03:51 AM

I noticed in a neighboring thread that you seem to value the life of your cat more than the lives of human strangers.

Most people with pets in the developed world do. We spend enough on food, medical care, and grooming of one pet to feed a poor family, or a few, in the undeveloped world.

And what exactly would you do about that?
Mao raged against keeping dogs and had his people kill them for food.
It is easy to rail against the perceived conditions of the world and offer simplistic solutions.
Are you a Democrat?

toombaru - 24 April 2011 09:38 PM

buybuydandavis - 24 April 2011 09:07 AM

Most people with pets in the developed world do. We spend enough on food, medical care, and grooming of one pet to feed a poor family, or a few, in the undeveloped world.

And what exactly would you do about that?

I pointed out that most people routinely violate maximizing WBCC, or “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”. I didn’t say or even imply that *I* considered these actions a problem, and certainly gave no indication that Something Must Be Done about it.