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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


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.

Quote:


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.

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.

Quote:


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.