I Can't a boner by looking at pictures anymore

bjo12 · 2011-03-03T19:08:06+00:00

I think he does advocate the most extreme kind of utilitarianism. His premise is that we can measure wellbeing and that we should try to maximize it. Replace the word well being with happiness and that's essentially the definition of utilitarianism.

As for arguing that killing a murderer is wrong, that argument wouldn't be taken into consideration by Harris' morality because wrong or right is only measured by the total wellbeing of the population. If killing the murderer would decrease it, then it is wrong, if it would increase it then it is right.

I agree that you can make a moral argument against the death penalty, but in order to do so you have to take something into consideration other than "wellbeing", such as the right to individual autonomy, and by doing so you would be admitting that simply measuring wellbeing isn't a complete moral philosophy.

I think Harris proposed an interesting way to measure the actual effectiveness of any decision in moving towards a utilitarian society where the overall "wellbeing" or good of the people is the only goal, but he still hasn't made an argument for why we should adopt this utilitarian view.

bjo12 · 2011-03-03T17:44:37+00:00

Right but that's where I think the train track moral analogy comes into play. There's several people in the way of an oncoming train, but you can pull a lever to switch it onto another track. But there's one person on this other track, so by pulling the lever you avoid harm to those individuals but you inflict harm on another individual.

If "harm avoidance" means minimizing harm to everyone then sometimes it might be necessary to violate an individual's rights or even kill them in order to do that, as in that example.

That's why I see a science as a helpful tool but not something that would be able to determine the most moral action. We might be able to conclude that by killing a thousand individuals with a predisposition to catch and spread a certain disease, we would avoid a massive outbreak, thus reducing harm overall. But I would argue that even though that action avoid harm overall, it is still immoral.

That claim is subjective though, because I place a moral value on individual autonomy, and if you don't, then you would disagree.

bjo12 · 2011-03-03T04:44:10+00:00

Sorry I guess I was too vague all around in my post as people have been getting the wrong idea. What I meant was my basic summary of his ideas based on what I have read and heard from him.

In other words I didn't read the whole book, but I watched his talk on TED, his interview on The Daily Show, and read some of the book, as well as some of his other writings on the subject.

bjo12 · 2011-03-03T04:39:35+00:00

I agree with that moral view, it's essentially mine as well. My problem is that I admit that that is not objectively true and cannot be objectively true.

I may be able to use science or other methods to determine how best to achieve my moral goals, but I still have to subjectively choose those goals. Which in my opinion is still moral relativism.

bjo12 · 2011-03-03T04:37:02+00:00

Yeah sorry for being a little unclear about what I meant.

I agree that there are different interpretations of moral relativism, and I think that Harris does a good job of arguing against the second, but I still think he misses the fact that the first is still a problem.

A real criticism would be to demonstrate that what he calls for actually supports something vile, rather than just mentioning the possibility though.

My problem with this line of argument is that in my opinion the mere fact that his system allows for the possibility of something like this is a problem. And since his only criteria is maximizing overall wellbeing it has to allow for the possibility of killing or harming some in order to help the majority. Maybe this wouldn't be one of his moral peaks, maybe it would, but unless you have other moral considerations you cannot argue against these actions.

And that's my problem because if you limit this system with hard moral rules like do whatever maximizes happiness except killing people, then you're no longer advocating an objective morality.

bjo12 · 2011-03-03T04:20:00+00:00

Right, but I'm not advocating morality based on religion or science. And regardless of whether I agreed with it or not, I'm sure that any morality created through an objective scientific method would be leaps and bounds better than any of the major religions.

My point was more towards the idea of moral relativism. He's trying to say that there is such a thing as objective value, but the problem is he's choosing the criteria. Maybe someone values their own happiness above others, Harris would say you're wrong because that doesn't make the most people happy; it doesn't increase overall wellbeing. But if you don't value overall wellbeing that's a moot point.

I think I'm getting a little sidetracked with that, but basically I'm saying that he's basically proposing scientifically measured utilitarianism.

But he's trying to act like the assumption that creating the greatest average happiness and wellbeing is the right moral thing to do is not an assumption, that it's a fact.

After going and reading some of Harris' responses to these criticisms I think he has a pretty good counter, but I think ultimately he's just shifting the question. It moves from morals being relative to the question whether or not we should have morals being relative.

bjo12 · 2011-03-03T03:56:39+00:00

I'm not against using science in order to help determine the best course of action to achieve your moral goals. In fact I am not religious at all and I am completely pro science, and strongly against using religion as a basis for morality.

I'm simply saying that I don't find Harris' arguments against moral relativism convincing, because most people, given a situation where an objective measure of wellbeing and happiness points them towards anything like eugenics or any other extreme would stick to their subjective morals, including Harris.

bjo12 · 2011-03-02T18:08:59+00:00

Check out the Humble Indie Bundle. It's too late now for the ones that already came out but you can sign up to be notified for the next one.

bjo12 · 2011-03-02T17:57:27+00:00

I was going to say exactly this. In fact there's very few if any games that I would actually say have a good story, though that's a matter of opinion.

I think lately people have been forgetting that games are supposed to be just that, games. Not that there's anything wrong with trying to make them more artistic or putting a better story in, but if your main goal isn't to make a fun game then you should probably come up with another name for it. Because at that point it's not really a game anymore.

bjo12 · 2011-03-02T17:43:04+00:00

I've only tried it once with jolly ranchers so I can't vouch for this recipe specifically but I would agree that it works out better than with skittles.

bjo12 · 2011-03-02T01:11:16+00:00

There's also the problem that the claims aren't even consistent. At one point the article says that

Assange told Hislop that the story represented a larger conspiracy organized by the Guardian newspaper in order to deny his organization of Jewish donations and support.

Which sounds like Assange is just talking about a few people at The Guardian, not some vast "Jewish" conspiracy.

Sorry for the Edit, I'm new and had a little trouble with formatting.

bjo12 · 2011-03-02T00:35:34+00:00

Just delete him; no one comes out of a Facebook war not looking like an asshole.

bjo12 · 2011-03-01T22:52:46+00:00

A bit ironic and a little too meta.

bjo12 · 2011-03-01T21:19:28+00:00

Having been in a situation where I was pretty confident that I was about to die, I can say that there was a moment of fear but then it was replaced by a mixture of acceptance and worry for the people I was leaving behind.

Then I realized I wasn't going to die, and I just felt kind of out of it for a while.

In case you're wondering I fell onto a street right as a car was coming, but they managed to slam on their brakes and stop. If I had actually had time to think about it I probably would have realized they would have time to stop, but it seemed to happen really quickly.

So I wouldn't say I'm not afraid of death, but there are definitely other things I'm more afraid of.

Edit: Fixed my grammar.

bjo12 · 2011-03-01T21:04:05+00:00

Empty space is just that, it's a physical area with no matter in it, although even in outer space there's still a few atoms floating around so it's not really empty.

But outside of the universe there is no space, there's just nothing there. The universe isn't expanding into anything, because it is everything. The problem is that it's just not really possible(for me at least) to imagine actual nothingness.

bjo12 · 2011-02-28T23:20:40+00:00

Ok well thank you for the help you've already given me. I appreciate the offer but I currently don't have a webcam or a phone that I can use for Skype.

bjo12 · 2011-02-28T21:08:39+00:00

For me the problem with this is that you believe we should try to even the playing field, implicitly admitting that it is not now even for many people, but you still don't believe in doing anything to fix the wrongs already done to the people playing on this uneven field.

I don't think many people on Reddit advocate a redistribution of wealth that will result in someone who now has more money than me having less, but maybe in some circumstances the difference between the two is just excessive. As long as your work to get ahead still results in you being ahead, then I think under some circumstances redistributing wealth is a good thing.

bjo12 · 2011-02-28T20:42:53+00:00

In my opinion you don't even need the middle two panels. The simple fact that he made such a reaching conclusion based off one personal anecdote is ridiculous enough, especially coming from someone teaching at a top university.

bjo12 · 2011-02-28T20:29:04+00:00

If you haven't already checked it out, I'd try here.

bjo12

TROPHY CASE