Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "Сэм Харрис: Наука может дать ответ на вопросы морали." video.

  1. Would you refrain from going to the doctor just because you cannot define health well enough? Would you refrain from consulting an engineer from building a bridge, just because you are not sure enough where to place it? Science will never tell you how to behave, but it tells you how to behave when you want to pursue well being. Of course it can also tell you how to achieve suffering. The doctor can tell you how to best kill someone. The engineer can tell you how to destroy the bridge.
    80
  2. standev1 Why should we heal people?
    6
  3. "Perhaps some things are universal (such as murder vs kindness), while others (such as how one ought to dress) need only be defined by cultural context." No, forcing someone to dress in a certain way is an immoral action: it impedes the well being of the person. A child in the Middle East suffers just like a child in Europe.
    6
  4. You don't need to scan a brain in order to see that a rape victim is sad.
    5
  5. There is plenty of people, who agree with him, and plenty, who inspire him, or from whom he draws his ideas. He's one of my favourite public intellectuals, but not "ahead of every other human".
    5
  6. TheWeekendWar You making pointless posts doesn't count as "the conversation".
    4
  7. standev1 Are you ok with medicine as we practice it?
    4
  8. Why? Do you think suffering should be fought? Do you think happiness should be sought? 
    3
  9. Demonstrate his thesis? He shows it clearly in this video, though short it may be.
    3
  10. standev1 Do you think people being against health should be taken seriously in medicine?
    3
  11. "He did not demonstrate why science can answer moral quesition" Actually that is the only thing he did. "What if he faced a different group of audience" How would that effect the meaning of his words? Causing suffering is bad, no matter what the audience things of it.
    2
  12. Lee Newsome It is obvious enough now isn't it? It would have to be defined more exactly of course. However that's completely irrelevant. Even if we have an insufficient or changing definition of well being, science would still be the best way to achieve it. You don't go to a witchdoctor just because you can't define physical health exactly, do you?
    2
  13. It doesn't need a "higher intellect" to distinguish between happiness and suffering. What a pile of bullshit.
    2
  14. Science does not provide the morality. You have to have the goal to achieve well being. Then science is the best way to get there.
    2
  15. dirzted I guess you replied to the wrong person?
    2
  16. Matt That made no sense whatsoever. Only meaningless and contradictory claims.
    2
  17. TeamFoil What are you trying to say? You are accusing me of misleading people, yet the rest of your comment agrees with me. Make up your mind please.
    2
  18. gogerychwyrndrobwll "The word "well being" is not defined" So you go only to a doctor when the word "health" is defined? "Human brains are just way too complicated to understand in that much subjective detail." You don't have to. Improvement is all that's asked for, not perfection. "that means that if that person, say, loses both arms, it'd be moral to select someone else at random, remove their arm and give it to the worst off person." I don't see how you got to that conclusion. The peaks of suffering have to be cut off, yes, but not by creating new peaks. "What I just gave is essentially a mathematical proof" With "essentially" mean you not at all? You explained yourself and that is good enough. " 'I hope I have not shown to be a troll'  You have." Well I see you only want to bath in your own arrogance then. No reason to respond further, if you think everyone, who disagrees is a troll.
    2
  19. "convinced me in the opposite direction" How did that happen?
    2
  20. Do you have anything but ridicule to bring forth? Do you think that happiness is desirable? Or that suffering should be avoided?
    1
  21. Lee Newsome Not necessarily. Also what is your point? Weighing up for every single case comes later.
    1
  22. Lee Newsome No with a moral law giver you have no basis, but mere authority. There are different levels of well being. Someone not being able to rape others suffers less than a rape victim. Further we must look at what happens when either group gets their way.What is the result when ISIS gets their way? What is the result when one of their opponents gets their way? How will the society look like? Formulating general laws or commands is hard, pursuing well-being in general is easy. Anyways science is the better way to do so than by supernatural assertions.
    1
  23. TheWeekendWar No it isn't. The last reply is from February the 19th.
    1
  24. Do you accept that there is a range of well being: Happyness, suffering, etc?
    1
  25. ***** Indeed, that's how it's written correctly.
    1
  26. Matt What do you mean with "just" a grumpy old cat? The main point is that you used a whole lot of words to say nothing. What do you mean with not relying on science alone? That sets you up to making wrong decisions, because you no longer double check yourself. Also ethical behavior supports the well being of conscious creatures by definition. If you are making people happy and you don't consider that moral, then you are using the word moral in a different way.
    1
  27. Have you no ears? I think he was clear enough.
    1
  28. gogerychwyrndrobwll Tell what? I had only read your first comment and thought you lacked hearing comprehension. Now I read the comments below and see that you are just playing dumb. This was a short speech even with a timer. Yet he succeeded in making his point understandable did he not? Do you acknowledge that morality is objective?
    1
  29. gogerychwyrndrobwll Morality is a question of what should be done. Science is a way (the best imo) to acquire knowledge. All you have to grant is that morality is the pursuit of well being. Then you can use science to achieve that goal. The problem really only lies in the definition of morality - the pursuit of well being is arguable the only senseful one. Otherwise - why bring it up in the first place? It is indeed like medicine. The study of the human body does not imply that you must help humans: You study the human body in order to help others. It is the best way to achieve a goal. The misunderstanding I see in the comments, is mostly people mixing up the scientific method with the scientific community or people thinking that morality must somehow follow from natural laws, although that was never Harris' point. Even if you formulate your goals like well-being, health, a bridge over a stream, a way of communication in a bad way, science is still the best way to achieve it. I hope I have not shown to be a troll and that I could shed some new light on this subject for a fellow physicist.
    1
  30. gogerychwyrndrobwll "What? I said you showed not to be a troll. If I still thought you were a troll I would've simply deleted your posts." Oh yeah. Misread it, sorry. "Therefore you cannot define morality for a group without subjective input." Just saying that well being is supposed to be maximized is somewhat simplified of course. Just like with health you can stress certain aspects. You got me thinking about certain problems though.  The decision to be moral will always be necessary, to how little axioms you can reduce morality, I'm not sure.
    1