Sam Harris

My fundamental question is this: For every single moral human dilemma, is there a universal response or action that is universally “correct”? Let me throw a few questions out:

1. Is it ever okay to rape a woman?
2. An Islamic pedophile woman sexually abuses babies but can not be executed since she is a virgin. Is it okay for the Islamic Guard to rape her so she can be executed the next day? After all, she deserves to die right?
3. If there is only one man and one woman left on Earth and for the survival of our species it is paramount they reproduce, but the woman vehemently rejects the man’s approaches, is it okay for him to rape her to ensure the survival of our species?

If anyone wants to take a stab at the questions please, be my guest. My next point encompasses cultural relativism and how that all ties in with morality. Is there a morality that transcends all culture or should we always approach morality through the context in which it applies? In other words, do we have the right to tell a Venezuelan Shaman for example, that he should not allow children to snort DMT in order to enter a “spiritual plane”? Let me relay two similar but differing scenarios to illustrate what I am getting at:

Scenario 1
The Shaman provides DMT—the most powerful psychedelic on the planet—to his grandson in order for him to enter the “spiritual realm” ; this is part of his grandson’s training

Scenario 2
The American father provides MDMA (ecstasy) to his son because it will allow them both to experience the football game in a way neither of them have ever experienced it before, one filled with togetherness and love.

Even if we can come to a conclusion here, who has the right to administer this morality? Who holds the key?

My fundamental question is this: For every single moral human dilemma, is there a universal response or action that is universally “correct”? Let me throw a few questions out:

This sounds like some sort of karma theory or philosophy. If so, then I can may partially agree to say yes since I’m not sure what you mean by “human dilemma” and the base principles of such theory.

1. Is it ever okay to rape a woman?

Subjectively yes, objectively no, metaphysically neither. Humans are animals and inherently may have such strong desires and perhaps their own justifications for such action, but some may restraint this action once they realize the nature of it’s effects or results which may deter them not to do it and thus labels it as “wrong” action.

2. An Islamic pedophile woman sexually abuses babies but can not be executed since she is a virgin. Is it okay for the Islamic Guard to rape her so she can be executed the next day? After all, she deserves to die right?

Same as above.

3. If there is only one man and one woman left on Earth and for the survival of our species it is paramount they reproduce, but the woman vehemently rejects the man’s approaches, is it okay for him to rape her to ensure the survival of our species?

Same as above.

If anyone wants to take a stab at the questions please, be my guest. My next point encompasses cultural relativism and how that all ties in with morality. Is there a morality that transcends all culture or should we always approach morality through the context in which it applies? In other words, do we have the right to tell a Venezuelan Shaman for example, that he should not allow children to snort DMT in order to enter a “spiritual plane”? Let me relay two similar but differing scenarios to illustrate what I am getting at:

There is no objective morality that transcends all culture and yes we should always approach morality through the context in which it applies based on current state of conditions.

Scenario 1
The Shaman provides DMT—the most powerful psychedelic on the planet—to his grandson in order for him to enter the “spiritual realm” ; this is part of his grandson’s training

Scenario 2
The American father provides MDMA (ecstasy) to his son because it will allow them both to experience the football game in a way neither of them have ever experienced it before, one filled with togetherness and love.

Both are the same as above.

Even if we can come to a conclusion here, who has the right to administer this morality? Who holds the key?

Morality is stems from individual philosophical ethics, so it’s the individual.

If morality stems from the individual then why do we have laws? By your logic we should all be able to govern and police ourselves. When the time comes to explain why I murdered someone I could simply place the murder in the context of primal survival and claim I killed the person because I was hungry…

Let me coin a question: Is it okay to sacrifice your child because the Bible says it’s cool? Of course it isn’t. In this instance then there is a universal morality that transcends all culture. Simply mutter the words “Sacrifice your child” and you should get the idea.

FreeWillFlowChart - 14 June 2011 08:27 PM

If morality stems from the individual then why do we have laws? By your logic we should all be able to govern and police ourselves. When the time comes to explain why I murdered someone I could simply place the murder in the context of primal survival and claim I killed the person because I was hungry…

Because laws are meant for people to conform. Laws or norms are socially created based on individual principles. An individual can govern himself/herself based such self guiding principles and additionally, external conditions or state of affairs.

So if you live in cave and be self sufficient, you will never have to bound by any social morality or just morality for short. Morality means to be in the sphere of society. The term social means human interaction, but that is a choice. You don’t have to interact.

Again, yes you can make that self justification and be deemed acceptable by at least you, and even perhaps those within the circle of similar state of affairs in which they too are hungry and must kill others to eat. There are tribes of cannibalism that exists.

Human beings to some society are deemed as a source of food as much as others societies who think livestock are.

FreeWillFlowChart - 14 June 2011 08:35 PM

Let me coin a question: Is it okay to sacrifice your child because the Bible says it’s cool? Of course it isn’t. In this instance then there is a universal morality that transcends all culture. Simply mutter the words “Sacrifice your child” and you should get the idea.

Just as i posed the answer in your original post, so “okay” is subjective to the individual and those that belong to such group, but “not okay” is objective within the boundary of current human state of affairs.

FreeWillFlowChart - 14 June 2011 04:57 PM

My fundamental question is this: For every single moral human dilemma, is there a universal response or action that is universally “correct”? Let me throw a few questions out:

[Q1]1. Is it ever okay to rape a woman?
[Q2]2. An Islamic pedophile woman sexually abuses babies but can not be executed since she is a virgin. Is it okay for the Islamic Guard to rape her so she can be executed the next day? After all, she deserves to die right?
[Q3]3. If there is only one man and one woman left on Earth and for the survival of our species it is paramount they reproduce, but the woman vehemently rejects the man’s approaches, is it okay for him to rape her to ensure the survival of our species?
[clip of text]
[Q4]Is there a morality that transcends all culture or [Q5] should we always approach morality through the context in which it applies?
[Q6]In other words, do we have the right to tell a Venezuelan Shaman for example, that he should not allow children to snort DMT in order to enter a “spiritual plane”?
[clip of text]
[Q6]Even if we can come to a conclusion here, who has the right to administer this morality? Who holds the key?

Answers:

1. No.
2. No.
3. If either or both are too ugly or stupid to mate voluntarily then maybe it’s best that humanity die off.
4. Yes.
5. No.
6. A combination of the positively progressing & evolving moral zeitgeist and the general consensus of the social group. A balance between what makes a normal individual happy with what’s best for the group as decided by the group, with normal being defined as the most commonly held proclivities of individuals in a group.