Sam Harris, gives a talk at Ted, about how he thinks we need to start applying scientific thinking, and scientific principles of observation, and determining facts, to adreess, and answer moral questions, and ultimately to create a new more universal moral code for humanity.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html?awesm=on.ted.com_8DEm

It is about fifteen minutes long, and does raise some interesting points, and being Sam Harris, it is naturally dismissive of religious views on morality, as is only right. ;)

mozzaok wrote on Mar 27^th, 2010 at 6:15pm:

naturally dismissive of religious views on morality, as is only right. ;)

That's a great opening gambit.

bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla


See? You have been right all along, champ.  That's the advantage of  making up your mind in advance. Whatever is said will only confirm what you thought at the beginning. Too easy.

I probably wouldn't have listened to it barring Soren's ear muffs on the head ...na na na response.
That says to me that there's some reasonable content worth listening to.
;D

I wholeheartedy agree, that if we were to eliminate all religious influence that the world would be a much better place.
We should set about it right now.


I'll take care of Soren. I reckon I can take him no worries.

Haha... you need to admit that that your views are worthy enough of killing another human being.
Do you think so ? I do. We already do it directly or indirectly, but don't build a rational behind it.

Same as it ever was. You are no better, nor I , nor them.

Kill'em all, let God sort 'em out.

Well I could pretty confidently predict that Soren would not have watched it Ammad, which is surprising seeing he is so concerned about challenging preconceived notions, lmao.

He would have especially loved the bit where Harris talks about the morals of a man who makes his daughter live in a big cloth bag, and whose first impulse, if she should ever be raped, is to kill her for bringing shame on him.

That was oneaspect of his talk, that we can recognise moral imperatives, and not everybody's view is as equally valid as the next man's.

Isn't it strange that the people in society who claim morality as their stock in trade, ie; religious folk, are the ones whose judgement is so obviously distorted on so many issues, like the example he gave above.

It is an interesting subject though, and one I am sure we will hear more of in the future, even if theists resist it.

I don't tend to watch videos, especially if they are put forward as a contribution to a debate. Does this guy make any sense?

Every time I have seen someone else make this argument, they have simply shown themselves to have zero understanding of science, morality, or both. Either that or they just carry on with vague waffle and then burst into tears and reveal that a priest raped them.

Well I had not actually ever heard anyone ever make this argument before, and I had not seen or heard Sam Harris before, but when I saw responses from theists condemning him as another atheist, like Dawkins, and Hitchens, who had no idea of what morality even was, because he denied god, then I decided to watch it.
I subscribe to TED, and it has fantastic talks from brilliant people on all the topics you could ever think of, and they are not biased in any particular ideological way, with one of the hosts throwing some questions to Harris at the end which put a case for theistic morality.

I posted it because after hearing it I do think it is something we are likely to be discussing more and more in our near future, as it seems that much of the world is concerned with what seems a bit of a breakdown in morality, and so many refuse to have religion dictate what morality is, so who will be defining the new morality?

If Harris is right, then science will be a big part of it, and scientific moral experts will be the ones making the judgements about what is acceptable for communities.

Can you give us the basic principles?

mozzaok wrote on Mar 29^th, 2010 at 10:59am:

If Harris is right, then science will be a big part of it, and scientific moral experts will be the ones making the judgements about what is acceptable for communities.

Well, I haven't watched it yet, but if he is saying anything like this, then he is dead wrong, and if you think this is the way, you are dead wrong too. Scientific moral experts??!!?? Making decision about what is acceptable for communities?  

I hope you are joking.

Soren wrote on Mar 29^th, 2010 at 10:22pm:

mozzaok wrote on Mar 29th, 2010 at 10:59am: If Harris is right, then science will be a big part of it, and scientific moral experts will be the ones making the judgements about what is acceptable for communities. Well, I haven't watched it yet, but if he is saying anything like this, then he is dead wrong, and if you think this is the way, you are dead wrong too. Scientific moral experts??!!?? Making decision about what is acceptable for communities?   I hope you are joking.

Would it be true to say that prior to WW2, science and scientists were perceived and venerated as passionately as religion with scientists as a new priesthood?

With the mechanisation of war, the atomic bomb and the sheer production line efficiency of the "Final Solution" culminating in a fear of science and the scientist, no longer venerated religion and a priesthood, but potentially lethal black art; the scientist - ultimately driven mad by it.

What is so fundamentally abhorrent about science playing a big part in the rendering of a new morality?

Quote:

What is so fundamentally abhorrent about science playing a big part in the rendering of a new morality?

I don't think 'abhorrent' is the right term. It just doesn't make any sense. You can't derive morals from the scientific method. The people, sure, but the fact they are scientists adds no credibility to any claims they make regarding morality.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 30^th, 2010 at 6:40am:

What is so fundamentally abhorrent about science playing a big part in the rendering of a new morality?

Only that it is stupid idea (and so dangerous) in the extreme.
DO you or Mozz conduct your human relationships on a scientific basis? Which science would that be - psychology or sociology? Or chemistry? Biology? I couldn't decide which one is worse.

The French tried the Cult of Reason after the Revolution - a complete disaster.

Well for those too bandwidth limited to be able to watch the video for themselves, I will try and share the basic principles that Harris talked about.

First off, everyone has their own personal morality, and we know that these vary greatly, in what people do, and consider as morally justifiable, including bad people, and bad deeds that are rationalised away by various methods.

Harris contends that this makes a moral landscape, which is portrayed like a relief map of moral highs and lows.

He then contends that there are some moral imperatives that most people can agree on, ie; the peaks.

He then contends that all people's abilities to recognise these moral imperatives are not equal, and some have better abilities to discern right from wrong, and he contends that we need to value their judgements more, as we would judge a neurosurgeon more capable of working inside your skull than the local mechanic.

The scientific method of examining the evidence for why people choose certain actions can be examined and then broken down to basic moral imperative steps, to see how valid, or not, any justifications may be, and that way a more considered view of moral actions can be deternmined.

So the basic aim is to have a more broadly accepted moral landscape, which seeks to disempower those ideas which are used to justify  the troughs of human morality, like the example of the father who would kill his daughter from being raped, and instead have the better defined moral peaks available to all.

I should apologise to Harris for over simplifying or misinterpreting his ideas, but after a single viewing a few days ago, that is the best precis I could come up with.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 30^th, 2010 at 11:00am:

He then contends that all people's abilities to recognise these moral imperatives are not equal, and some have better abilities to discern right from wrong,

Is this a scientific or a moral judgement?

If human actions and relationships are fully explainable scientifically, what scientific judgement does an earthquake make? A falling tree? They are mechanical interferences with brain chemistry, just like ultimately all human behaviour.
Why even bother with 'moral imperatives' and the varying ability to recognise them? Aren't these only brain states anyway?

Quote:

mozzaok wrote on Today at 11:00am: He then contends that all people's abilities to recognise these moral imperatives are not equal, and some have better abilities to discern right from wrong, Is this a scientific or a moral judgement?

Are you fair dinkum?
Do you really need to ask if the guy who is strapping a bomb to his body may not have a poorer understanding of what is right, than the doctor who is trying to save his victims?

Would the actions of Jack the Ripper be as worthy of emulating as that of Ghandi?

So obviously it is a judgement based on straight forward common sense, and inspired by a desire to see humans find better ways to incorporate moral values into their lives.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 30^th, 2010 at 2:07pm:

Quote: mozzaok wrote on Today at 11:00am: He then contends that all people's abilities to recognise these moral imperatives are not equal, and some have better abilities to discern right from wrong, Is this a scientific or a moral judgement? Are you fair dinkum? Do you really need to ask if the guy who is strapping a bomb to his body may not have a poorer understanding of what is right, than the doctor who is trying to save his victims? Would the actions of Jack the Ripper be as worthy of emulating as that of Ghandi? So obviously it is a judgement based on straight forward common sense, and inspired by a desire to see humans find better ways to incorporate moral values into their lives.

A moral one, then. It is certainly not a scientific judgement.

Harris is arguing for a scientific basis for morality BUT he argues from a moral premise. AND you are asking me if I am fair dinkum???

Out of curiosity - if you are happy to go along with this crazy idea (lets make scientists the arbiters of human interactions), on what grounds do you appeal to common sense? Is THAT not a ready application of non-scientific morality? Even calculating utility is based on a moral judgement when it creates the hierarchy of what goods should be enhanced and what diminished.

This is all a very muddled sort of idea but obviously the guy is clear-sighted enough to discern that there are enough people to  whom this sort of thing appeals so he wrote a book and made a small fortune out of credulous people. Happens every day.

Quote:

Well for those too bandwidth limited to be able to watch the video for themselves, I will try and share the basic principles that Harris talked about.

Thanks Mozz.


Quote:

The scientific method of examining the evidence for why people choose certain actions can be examined and then broken down to basic moral imperative steps, to see how valid, or not, any justifications may be, and that way a more considered view of moral actions can be deternmined.

In what way is it scientific? To me it sounds like the opposite of the scientific method. It sounds like moral absolutism dressed up as relativism.


Quote:

Do you really need to ask if the guy who is strapping a bomb to his body may not have a poorer understanding of what is right, than the doctor who is trying to save his victims?

Of course he does, but it has zero to do with science.


Quote:

So obviously it is a judgement based on straight forward common sense

Sure, if you compare Ghandi with a sucide bomber, it seems very straight forward.

It seems to me that this idea has nothing at all to do with science, and is a fairly juvenile approach to morality. How would this help us resolve the difficult moral decisions we face, like abortion?

It is scientific in the fact that it is seeking to identify moral imperatives that would be constant across religious and cultural boundaries, and prejudices.

It is an attempt to create some uniform guidelines, by studying behaviour, and attitudes, and by having people other than religious leaders alone being accepted as capable of telling society what should and should not be acceptable behaviour.

How abortion would come out of the study I could not predict, and I agree that there is a large part of it which is simply moral relativism, but it is more than just that, it is more along the lines of it is time to get serious about just what, how, and why, we consider and define actions as moral.

Quote:

It is scientific in the fact that it is seeking to identify moral imperatives that would be constant across religious and cultural boundaries, and prejudices.

How is that scientific?


Quote:

It is an attempt to create some uniform guidelines, by studying behaviour, and attitudes, and by having people other than religious leaders alone being accepted as capable of telling society what should and should not be acceptable behaviour.

Maybe that's what he is really getting at - that non-religious people have morals to. Though it is a very roundabout way to make a simple point.


Quote:

How abortion would come out of the study I could not predict, and I agree that there is a large part of it which is simply moral relativism, but it is more than just that, it is more along the lines of it is time to get serious about just what, how, and why, we consider and define actions as moral.

I can see the what aspect, but I can't see any mechanism here to get at how and why we consider and define actions as moral. I am pretty sure there are plenty of people around who do study this sort of thing seriously, and they would be a long way of head of 'let's try asking people what they agree on'.

I fundamentally agree with your last statement FD, we already do have moral questions examined in a more scientific fashion, in "Ethics", and it is studied along philosophical lines.

I have watched the video again, so I will have another go at putting across what Harris actually said, and will quote him in some places.
  --------------------------------------------------------
My precis of what he said, take two. :D

FACTS & VALUES are not necessarily belonging to different spheres, we derive our values from observing facts.

He defines "Values" as "Facts" about the wellbeing of conscious creatures, and that all values are reducible to a concern about conscious experience.

The condition of the "consciousness of wellbeing", can be observed through a "continuum of facts".
Observation let's us observe truths we can agree on.
These truths revealed by observation, show us that there are right and wrong answers to how humans flourish.
He then goes on and describes the moral landscape as having many peaks and troughs, so there can be more than one "right" answer to questions.
He uses nutrition, and health as analogies, with nutrition he points out there are an abundance of good foods we can choose, not just one, so because we may be able to define many positive moral precepts, does not mean we cannot identify negative ones, which range from foods that are just not as good for us, through to things that are poisonous, and these negative values occupy the moral troughs, and do not aid humans in flourishing.

He then says how religious demagogues agree with him that we need a universal conception of human values, but they declare their values are from divine sources, and he thinks we could do better by using critical analysis of observation, by utilising a "domain of expertise".
The domain of expertise term, is saying that not everybody's opinion is as valid as the next guy's, he asks if we would consult the Taliban on questions of physics, and asks is their attitudes to advancing human wellbeing any more worthy of consideration in the field of morals, than their knowledge of physics is to science?
In all fields there are those who stand out as leading experts, and morals should be no different, in recognising, and valuing their opinions more highly.

He finishes his talk with graphics showing both extremist muslims and christians each holding up placards depicting violent, hateful messages, and says we have been told we need to respect and understand different cultures, and different societies, but we cannot allow that to then stop us from addressing whether or not what they are offering is right or wrong.
To demand tolerance for what we know is wrong makes no more sense than demanding we tolerate no disease control standards for society.
To address that we must first agree that we can define what is right or wrong, that we are capable of defining the answers to moral questions.

This is starting to sound more like where Robert Pirsig is going with his Metaphysics of Quality.

Quote:

and will quote him in some places

Yes this is one of the most annoying aspects of videos in debate. If you want to make a serious point, put it in writing.


Quote:

He defines "Values" as "Facts" about the wellbeing of conscious creatures, and that all values are reducible to a concern about conscious experience.

I think he would lose a few followers there.


Quote:

These truths revealed by observation, show us that there are right and wrong answers to how humans flourish.

Whether they flourish does not necesarily have anything to do with ethics or morality.


Quote:

In all fields there are those who stand out as leading experts, and morals should be no different, in recognising, and valuing their opinions more highly.

I don't think that gets you anywhere. You just have a bunch of 'experts' or 'respected people' disagreeing over the same issues the less noble disagree on. I disagree that recognising the contribution of experts will help. As far as the academic experts go, I don't think the field of study has progressed to a point where it can actually contirbute anything useful.


Quote:

He finishes his talk with graphics showing both extremist muslims and christians each holding up placards depicting violent, hateful messages, and says we have been told we need to respect and understand different cultures, and different societies, but we cannot allow that to then stop us from addressing whether or not what they are offering is right or wrong.

True, but hardly a revelation.


Quote:

To demand tolerance for what we know is wrong makes no more sense than demanding we tolerate no disease control standards for society.

I am starting to suspect that this is merely an underhanded attack on religion, by equating the religious with extremists and their apologists. He is imagining a problem that needs to be overcome, but the problem does not actually exist. There is genuine disagreement on moral issues, but it has nothing to do with extremists and their agendas. It comes from moderate, rational people trying to calmly overcome genuine moral quandries.

True, it is difficult to try and convey a whole fifteen minute video, which does not have a transcript to copy, in a few sentences, and I appreciate that some people may be limited in bandwidth, but they are relatively few, with the plans now available.

I do agree that he is definitely putting religion in his sights as being worth questioning if the moral definitions they provide are still the best option for modern society, and mankind in general.
He proposes they are not, and I agree.

I do not think most of what he proposes is very groundbreaking or new, it is a lot like a less esoteric version of philosophical ethics as far as I can see.

I als agree with his point about everyone's opinion on morals as most certainly not being equally worthy, and I do think that having a domain of expertise which can examine major questions would be beneficial.
The alternative is what we see now, with every ratbag with a bible or koran pontificating opinions about politics and sexuality which are morally reprehensible, and they should be qualified as loons whose opinions are less than those of men of high integrity who have built life long reputations on their judgement, perception, and integrity.

As far as the whole Values and Facts bit, he is merely saying that from observation of the continuum of human experience we can deduce many facts about moral values which all sane, decent people can agree on.

The bit about societies flourishing, is referring to the satisfaction/happiness level of people within society being better where we have moral precepts that are conducive to providing that.
It is not about the economic of technological advancement, which can flourish in totalitarian societies with low levels of individual happiness and contentment.
We expect people to be happier/more content, in societies where they have greater feelings of security, and prosperity, for example.

So hopefully one day you can visit a friend with a decent broadband connection and watch it for yourself.

In the meantime, I expect it will be an issue that continues to receive attention, and that is why I raised it here, because I do not think he is a lone voice, with a dubious contention.
I think he is just enunciating what many have felt for a long time, that while religions argue about gay marriages, or teaching intelligent design to school kids, much greater moral issues, with far greater potential to impact on human experiences, are comparatively ignored, because religions do not seek to incite followers to care about them nearly as much.

So as the non-religious gain a greater voice, we will hear calls for these other moral questions to be dealt with, in a more scientific, less dogmatic way, than that which we have seen employed by religious leaders.

Quote:

The alternative is what we see now, with every ratbag with a bible or koran pontificating opinions about politics and sexuality which are morally reprehensible, and they should be qualified as loons whose opinions are less than those of men of high integrity who have built life long reputations on their judgement, perception, and integrity.

This is what makes me think his use of video was aimed at assisting the association fallacy, or maybe just preaching to the converted. I see plenty of loons trying to use science to justify morally reprehensible positions, and religious leaders combatting it. But to frame the debate in terms of 'scientific loons' vs 'religious people with integrity' would be deceitful and unethical, just as it is to equate the contribution of religion or religious leaders with fanatics as this guy has done. It seems less like a genuine attempt at morality and more like a cheap shot at religion. His treatment of ethics and morality is juvenile and superficial and seem like just another way to get his message against religion out under some kind of banner that gives him credibility.

You still haven't explained how his methods are in any way scientific. He seems just as dogmatic, but under a different banner.

Am I right that by asking those people who are considered to be moral leaders, he really just means asking non-religious people, and that non-religious people get to decide who the leaders are? Or is that just your spin on it? Because otherwise he just reintroduces the same quandires he is trying to avoid. Or perhaps he means that morality should be a democratic thing, and that once non-religious people become a majority they should take over deciding what is right and wrong? Whatever his position is, he seems to be putting morality second to his quest against religion.

Personally I think that morality has to disassociate itself from religion.

Morality needs to be above religion, we do not live in the dark ages any longer, so the mish mash of good morals stolen from earlier philosophers, along with a not insignificant amount of repugnant morals contrived by ancient middle eastern men, which we find in all the major religious tomes, is most certainly not the best guide for any rational society to employ.

Quote:

Personally I think that morality has to disassociate itself from religion.

Doesn't the fact that we can use the two terms without confusion indicate that this is already the case? Is this just the old argument that atheists can have morals too?

If anything I would assume it implies that atheists would have superior morals, having no obligation to associate any value to the bad morals that all religions teach.

Sounds like circular reasoning to me.

If this guy is claiming to be scientific, perhaps he should firmly establish this assumption first.

You can't base morality on science. If you don't want to base it on religion, you have to base it on something like it. Philosophy comes closest. But it is only a small step from philosophy to ideology, especially if you want to achieve some sort of common ground.

The idea of god is inexhaustible, it can bear endless interpretations while still bringing common hunmanity to the centre. Nothing else does this. It is the earliest, non-mathematical recognition of Godel's theorem.

No Soren... you are wrong Morality should be based on science  ::)
let's choose biology and lets use survival of the fitest as a model.
We can now go an kill off all those unfit people keeping us down.

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:15am:

You can't base morality on science. If you don't want to base it on religion, you have to base it on something like it. Philosophy comes closest. But it is only a small step from philosophy to ideology, especially if you want to achieve some sort of common ground. The idea of god is inexhaustible, it can bear endless interpretations while still bringing common hunmanity to the centre. Nothing else does this. It is the earliest, non-mathematical recognition of Godel's theorem.

You would not be the intelligent man I believe you are if you actually believed that the concept of god is less dangerous than philosophy.

When you say philosophy, do you include things like Nazism?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:20am:

Soren wrote on Apr 2nd, 2010 at 10:15am: You can't base morality on science. If you don't want to base it on religion, you have to base it on something like it. Philosophy comes closest. But it is only a small step from philosophy to ideology, especially if you want to achieve some sort of common ground. The idea of god is inexhaustible, it can bear endless interpretations while still bringing common hunmanity to the centre. Nothing else does this. It is the earliest, non-mathematical recognition of Godel's theorem. You would not be the intelligent man I believe you are if you actually believed that the concept of god is less dangerous than philosophy.

Metaphysics, including the personal god idea, is evidently very fertile. We have, whether you like it or not, travelled on a metaphysical road to where we are as a civilisation. It harnesses creativity and destructiveness very well. Monotheism has proved the most fertile and powerful idea among theisms.

Philosophy in itself is harmless because it is only personal. It becomes dangerous when dressed in the religious rituals of worshipping metaphysical notions (but not necessaily god), learned from religion - das volk, ultimate victoriousness of the proletariat, Gaia and the like.

The god idea has the advantage over all the others of being a catalyst for BOTH intense personal, inner transformation and outward, social action, both for the better. There are people who have lived saintly lives. And even as there have been monstrosities committed in the name of god and religion, people do recognise that these are false beliefs, false interpretations.

I am defending the inevitability of metaphysical thinking in general and also the particular metaphysical tradition (Christianity) that has made us. We cannot, in good conscience, deny that we are functional Christians, even if we deny god.

Unbelievable!

mozzaok wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 2:17pm:

Unbelievable!

Meh... what isn't?!

It just occurs to me - for some people it is anathema to believe in anything. They wish to purge the very concept and want to speak as if they based all their fundamental understandings about the world on carefully examined facts.

They speak as if science was not only covering every aspect of life but was covering them suufficiently - wehatever was not covered by science is a potential or actual error. But it is not possible to develop a scientific morality sine science is a mere method. It does not supply value.

Soren wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 9:02am:

It just occurs to me - for some people it is anathema to believe in anything. They wish to purge the very concept and want to speak as if they based all their fundamental understandings about the world on carefully examined facts. They speak as if science was not only covering every aspect of life but was covering them suufficiently - wehatever was not covered by science is a potential or actual error. But it is not possible to develop a scientific morality sine science is a mere method. It does not supply value.

Do you really believe that not a single one of "those people' to whom you refer are not capable of, say, being optimistic about the future? Or of believing in their family, or that good will triumph over evil? Just how flat do you imagine everyone is who is not your kind of theist?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 2:05pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 3rd, 2010 at 9:02am: It just occurs to me - for some people it is anathema to believe in anything. They wish to purge the very concept and want to speak as if they based all their fundamental understandings about the world on carefully examined facts. They speak as if science was not only covering every aspect of life but was covering them suufficiently - wehatever was not covered by science is a potential or actual error. But it is not possible to develop a scientific morality sine science is a mere method. It does not supply value. Do you really believe that not a single one of "those people' to whom you refer are not capable of, say, being optimistic about the future? Or of believing in their family, or that good will triumph over evil? Just how flat do you imagine everyone is who is not your kind of theist?

Oh, I do think they believe in all that - which just goes to show how much they have retained from the culture they were born into.

'Those people' could not believe in any of that 'scientifically'. What they do believe in, they would not say.

While certain people here may not be good definitions of science, they do share a major characteristicwit it, that of being a tool. ;D

mozzaok wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 7:00pm:

While certain people here may not be good definitions of science, they do share a major characteristicwit it, that of being a tool. ;D

Is this an attempt at wit or is it unselfconscious?
;D


Mozz, you probably sense by this stage in the discussion that you too  are standing on the back of a turtle whose legs go all the way down.

I think I've figured out where the 'scientific' aspect comes in. They have figured out how to create an entirely new morality devoid of religious influence using science and magnets. Soon they will be able to fine tune these magnets and attach them permanently to control people's morals, finally ridding the earth of the scourge of religion.

Magnets Can Alter Moral Judgement By Changing Brain Activity

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=156&pst=1135279

US scientists have discovered that appyling a magnetic field to a particular place on the scalp can alter people's moral judgement by interfering with activity in the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) of the brain. They said their finding helps us better understand how the brain constructs morality.

You can read about the study, led by researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the 29 March online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS. The research was led by Dr Rebecca Saxe, assistant professor of brain and cognitive sciences at MIT.

Lead author Dr Liane Young, a postdoctoral associate in Saxe's department, told the media that because people are normally very confident and consistent in making moral judgements, it comes as surprise to learn that their ability to do so can altered like this.

"You think of morality as being a really high-level behavior. To be able to apply (a magnetic field) to a specific brain region and change people's moral judgments is really astonishing," said Young in a statement.

She said the study reveals "striking evidence" that the right TPJ, which sits on the surface of the brain, above and behind the right ear, plays a crucial role in making moral judgements.

When we make moral judgements about other people we often need to infer their intentions. For instance, when a hunter on a hunting trip shoots a fellow hunter, did he mistake his colleague for prey, or was he secretly jealous?

This ability has been termed "theory of mind", that is the ability to attribute mental states such as beliefs, intentions, and other qualities to oneself and others, and also to understand that other people's mental states can be different to one's own.

Ten years ago Saxe identified that the TPJ played a role in theory of mind and wrote about it in her PhD thesis in 2003. Since then she has been using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that the right TPJ is active when people are asked to make moral judgements that require them to think about the intentions of others.

Other studies have also shown that the TPJ is highly active when we think about other people's intentions, their beliefs and their thoughts.

For this study, Saxe, Young and colleagues wanted to investigate what might happen if they could actually disrupt activity in the right TPJ.

In this case, instead of the usual fMRI, they did two sets of experiments where they used a non-invasive method called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to apply a magnetic field to a small area of the skull (on the scalp) to create weak electric currents that stop nearby brain cells from firing normally for a while.

They found that this was enough to impair subjects' ability to make moral judgments that involve an understanding of other people's intentions: as in for example, a failed murder attempt.

In the first set of "offline stimulation" experiments, they exposed volunteers to the TMS method for 25 minutes and then asked them to take a test where they read about several scenarios and then had to judge the actions of the characters portrayed on a scale of one to seven (from "absolutely forbidden" to "absolutely permissible").

For example, for one scenario they were asked to judge how permissible would it be for a man to allow his girlfriend to walk across a bridge he knew to be unsafe, even if she does eventually cross it safely. In such a scenario, judging the man solely on the outcome would hold him blameless, even though he apparently intended harm.

In the second set of "online stimulation" experiments, the volunteers underwent a 500-millisecond burst of TMS at the point when they were asked to make a moral judgement.

In both experiments, Saxe, Young and colleagues found that disrupting the right TPJ resulted in volunteers being more likely to judge failed attempts to harm as morally permissible.

They suggested this was because they were relying more on information about the outcome than inference on intention, since the process that normally helped them get information on intention was disrupted by the electrical current from the TMS.

"It doesn't completely reverse people's moral judgments, it just biases them," explained Saxe.

The researchers also found that when they applied TMS to a brain region near the right TPJ , the volunteers' judgments were nearly identical to those of volunteers who received no TMS at all.

They concluded that:

"Relative to TMS to a control site, TMS to the RTPJ caused participants to judge attempted harms as less morally forbidden and more morally permissible. Thus, interfering with activity in the RTPJ disrupts the capacity to use mental states in moral judgment, especially in the case of attempted harms."

I am pretty confident that you very well know that this is nothing to do with the subject of using scientific principles of observation to help define and highlight moral imperatives that can be universally applied.

Your continual obtuse pretense at not understanding the principle involved when discussing topics that touch on religion in any way is getting rather tired.

Well if that's not it, I am still at a loss to find any kind of link to science.

I would have thought SCIENCE is neither good nor evil in the morality stakes.

That only comes into it when discussing or deciding what uses the SCIENCE is put to.

You are right Grendel, science has no moral values, it was just started from a link to a TED talk by Sam Harris, who was proposing that by using scientifically developed rules of observation, we can examine types of behaviour, and link them to probable consequences, and so develop a more universl moral framework.

It is just an extension of the metaethics that we already see, on a more practical level, as far as I can tell.

But Harris apparently is known as an outspoken atheist, and so he links a lot of the obviously immoral behaviour sanctioned by religion (here he uses Islamic nuttiness as prime examples) as a motivation for exploring this option.

Quote:

by using scientifically developed rules of observation

What are these rules, and how was the scientific method used to develop them?

Scientific fields are commonly divided into two major groups: natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and social sciences, which study human behavior and societies. These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[3]
From;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Asking pointless questions repeatedly never seems to bore you it seems FD.

Rather than actually discuss meaningful aspects of a subject, instead you seem determined to concern yourself with quibbling over minutiae of terminolgy instead, in some petty attempt to gather imaginary points in some debate of logics that seems to exist in your imagination.


The whole point of the original post was to bring up for discussion the proposition that we, as evolving, thinking, people, may be able to better understand morals, and moral questions, and in doing that improve the experience of all people.
That seems like a decent enough objective to me, and the fact that some people instead choose to focus on some vague concept of protecting religious organisations from losing total authority over the subject of morality, seems small minded in the extreme.

It think it was extremely petty to turn it into a silly science vs religion debate, by pretending science had something to offer and by making childish attacks on religion.

But that is what he wanted, isn't it? It's a bit late now to claim the moral high ground.

Soren wrote on Mar 27^th, 2010 at 10:02pm:

mozzaok wrote on Mar 27th, 2010 at 6:15pm: naturally dismissive of religious views on morality, as is only right. ;) That's a great opening gambit. bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla See? You have been right all along, champ.  That's the advantage of  making up your mind in advance. Whatever is said will only confirm what you thought at the beginning. Too easy.

On this I have 100% to agree with you.
This “lecture” is just another example of the “intellectual power” of ready made Disneyland surface society. Everything what he said is anti-intellectual, non-creative and designed for Big Mack brain consumers.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2010 at 8:59am:

It think it was extremely petty to turn it into a silly science vs religion debate, by pretending science had something to offer and by making childish attacks on religion. But that is what he wanted, isn't it? It's a bit late now to claim the moral high ground.

Well duhh! As long as religion keeps declaring itself the font of all moral knowledge then it is only natural that those who absolutely reject such ludicrous claims would be put into an imposed adversarial position with religion.

Religion does have some degree of control in this regard.
STOP MAKING BS CLAIMS.

The simple fact of the matter is that relgiously contrived morality is appallingly incosistent, and albeit they untruthfully (read once more they are absolutely liars) claim the golden rule as their own, they in fact teach their followers to not treat others as they would wish to be treated, they demonise and marginalise and seek to punish those who do not mirror their contived idiocy.

So for those of us who think that humans are capable of developing much more universally applicable moral imperatives than the ones that religion dishes out, we applaud the fact that working towards that end has begun.

What moral dogma is devoid of inconsistency?

Religion can claim the moral high ground because at the moment it is the moral high ground. If he wants to replace it with something, he should come up with something better. Attacking religion is not going to produce anything worthwhile, just piss off potential allies.

That's the problem with the golden rule - it's only as good as the person who is saying it.

Would you want a masochist to do unto you what he would have you do unto him?

Quote:

Would you want a masochist to do unto you what he would have you do unto him?

There is no such thing as a masochistic religious person helian. ;D

Doesn't common law fit the bill of what this guy is asking for? With a few exceptions:

1) Religious people were not specifically excluded from its formulation, even in secular societies. This alone should demonstrate how silly this guy is for pretending religion is some kind of barrier to what he proposes.

2) It isn't universal. Judges are not averse to borrowing from across jurisdictions, but I suspect they would be to borrowing across cultures. However, any lack of universality is going to be an equal problem for a moral code.

3) It is detailed. However, morals, like values, inevitably conflict, and it is the resolution of this conflict that poses the tricky questions and puts our morals to the test.

4) Common law reflects changing societal values over time. I'm not sure how this differs from morals.

Quote:

There is no such thing as a masochistic religious person helian.

Well that's not right.