Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Facts u0026 Values: Clarifying the Moral Landscape (Episode #364)" video.

  1. ​ @pocket83squared  You opened with much strawmanning. I do believe in pure objectivity, and do believe there can be a reasonable basis for values ("reasonable" doesn't equate to objective). I'm pretty sure empiricism can handle providing objective evidence of a floor. What's the empirical, objective, evidence that I ought to value X? There is none. Valuing X entirely relies on caring (subjectivity) about X. "X is suffering" ... So what? Irrelevant, unless you care (subjectivity) about X suffering. So, everyone who eats meat, including Sam, is objectively immoral? Everyone who justifies b.mbing civilians, including Sam, is objectively immoral? Everyone who justifies t.rture, including Sam, is objectively immoral? Then you go on about religion. Even a god's morality would be based on subjectivity, it's own subjective likes and dislikes. Absolutely nobody has ever made a valid case for objective morality.
    2
  2. No. That could not be considered a scientific truth. If you're simply studying morality, the scientific truth is that people have a variety of different concepts of morality, and there is no objective, scientific, evidence that one is objectively correct. Sam subjectively picks one, measures others with the one he picked, and then rules the others wrong. That's somewhat like picking imperial and then saying metric is the objectively wrong way to measure things.
    2
  3.  @Pradeep_889  Sure, it's an objective fact that tons of species are wired to subjectively value self preservation. Does that translate into it being an objective fact that none of those species should be harmed, including humans? Including cows? Including dogs? Including chickens? Including cats? Etc. Don't we simply like ourselves, dogs, and cats more, so give them more value.
    2
  4.  @Pradeep_889  Weird, how that doesn't answer my question. Should we not harm all species that have a self preservation instinct? Yes, a newborn has to rely on the subjective caring of a parent. If no parent cares, they might get tossed in a dumpster. Objectivity has no bias, either way, by definition. It doesn't care if you're snuggled in a crib, or in a dumpster. Some species lay eggs, or spit out their offspring, and then walk away. And yet, they still have a self preservation instinct. It just literally only covers themselves. Much like a narcissist.
    2
  5. Sam didn't invent sociology. We already have a study of societies. We already measure the human condition, in all kinds of ways. There are indexes for happiness, freedom, democracy, poverty, education, life expectancy, crime, safety, etc., etc., etc. There are already existing peaks and valleys, based on those scientific measures. He also didn't invent what he agreed was already a widely understood given ... That, if you set a subjective value, there are then objectively better and worse was to get what you value, and science can help. If I value building a nuclear power plant, or a nuclear bomb, there are then objectively better and worse ways to achieve either of those goals, and science can help achieve them. Likewise, if I subjectively value human well being, or human suffering, there are then objectively better and worse ways to achieve either of those goals, and science can help. In all of those cases, objectivity and science don't care what you do, any which way. The question is all about whether science/objectivity can tell us what to value, and the answer is no. He has never actually got beyond what he stated was a given, at the start. Science doesn't care if you want to blow up the world. It will help you do it.
    2
  6. ​ @conordelaney76  Evolution doesn't demand we survive any more than it demanded endless amounts of now extinct species survive. The universe doesn't care if we live or die. And objectivity, by definition, doesn't care if humans suffer or don't. It will simply state the fact that you are, or you aren't, suffering. Sam himself makes arguments in favor of causing people to suffer, so he doesn't actually believe it's an objective fact that causing suffering is doing something wrong.
    1
  7. ​ @pocket83squared  This was Sam's starting given, accepted as widely agreed upon, when he first talked about his Moral Landscape ... "Now, it's generally understood that questions of morality -- questions of good and evil and right and wrong -- are questions about which science officially has no opinion. It's thought that science can help us get what we value, but it can never tell us what we ought to value." Right. So, if I subjectively value going to the moon, there are then objectively better and worse ways for me to achieve that goal, and science can help. Likewise, if someone were to subjectively value earthly well being, there would then be objectively better and worse ways to achieve that goal, and science could help. That was Sam's agreed upon starting point. Did he ever get beyond that point? No. Can science itself tell us we ought to value going to the moon, or value Sam's definition of "well being"? No. Sam got no further than the starting point, and therefore gave us nothing. Most of the time he's just talking sociology. Sociology already exists, with all kinds of measures of the human condition.
    1
  8. ​ @pocket83squared Rofl! You opened with much strawmanning. I do believe in pure objectivity, and do believe there can be a reasonable basis for values ("reasonable" isn't the same as objective). I'm pretty sure empiricism can handle providing objective evidence of a floor. What's the empirical, objective, evidence that I ought to value X? There is none. Valuing X entirely relies on caring (subjectivity) about X. So, everyone who eats meat, including Sam, is objectively immoral? Everyone who justifies war, including Sam, is objectively immoral? Everyone who justifies torture, including Sam, is objectively immoral? Then you go ranting about religious gobbledygook. Even a god's morality would be based on subjectivity, it's own subjective likes and dislikes. Absolutely nobody, including them, has a case for objective morality.
    1
  9. ​ @pocket83squared ​ Oh man, you opened with much strawmanning. I do believe in pure objectivity, and do believe there can be a reasonable basis for values ("reasonable" isn't the same as objective). I'm pretty sure empiricism can handle providing objective evidence of a floor. What's the empirical, objective, evidence that I ought to value X? There is none. Valuing X entirely relies on caring (subjectivity) about X. So, everyone who eats meat, including Sam, is objectively immoral? Everyone who justifies war, including Sam, is objectively immoral? Everyone who justifies torture, including Sam, is objectively immoral? Then you go on about religious gobbledygook. Even a god's morality would be based on subjectivity, it's own subjective likes and dislikes. Absolutely nobody has ever made a valid case for objective morality.
    1
  10.  @markmatson3468  What a dimwitted reply.
    1
  11. No, he doesn't. "Therefore there must be right and wrong answers, to questions of ..." artistic, musical, literary, theatrical, culinary, etc., etc., etc., ... likes and dislikes. Just because subjectivity objectively exists, doesn't mean there are objectively right and wrong answers. His conclusion is idiotic. The only difference is we subjectively care more about moral issues.
    1
  12.  @Pradeep_889  1 2 3
    1
  13. He's a complete and utter maroon.
    1
  14. Why? Harris is an idiot. "Therefore there must be right and wrong answers, to questions of ..." artistic, musical, literary, theatrical, culinary, etc., etc., etc., ... likes and dislikes. What a maroon. Just because subjectivity objectively exists, doesn't mean there are objectively right and wrong answers.
    1