Sam Harris’s Argument For Objective Morality

post by Zero Contradictions · 2024-12-05T10:19:03.701Z · LW · GW · 5 comments

This is a link post for https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2024/07/sam-harriss-argument-for-objective.html

Contents

5 comments

Apparently, the following is an argument made by Sam Harris on twitter, in a series of tweets. Unfortunately, the original tweets have been deleted, so I relied on a secondary source.

  1. Let’s assume that there are no ought’s or should’s in this universe. There is only what *is*—the totality of actual (and possible) facts.
  2. Among the myriad things that exist are conscious minds, susceptible to a vast range of actual (and possible) experiences.
  3. Unfortunately, many experiences suck. And they don’t just suck as a matter of cultural convention or personal bias—they really and truly suck. (If you doubt this, place your hand on a hot stove and report back.)
  4. Conscious minds are natural phenomena. Consequently, if we were to learn everything there is to know about physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, economics, etc., we would know everything there is to know about making our corner of the universe suck less.
  5. If we *should* do anything in this life, we should avoid what really and truly sucks. (If you consider this question-begging, consult your stove, as above.)
  6. Of course, we can be confused or mistaken about experience. Something can suck for a while, only to reveal new experiences which don’t suck at all. On these occasions we say, “At first that sucked, but it was worth it!”
  7. We can also be selfish and shortsighted. Many solutions to our problems are zero-sum (my gain will be your loss). But *better* solutions aren’t. (By what measure of “better”? Fewer things suck.)
  8. So what is morality? What *ought* sentient beings like ourselves do? Understand how the world works (facts), so that we can avoid what sucks (values).

Before going on, let’s pause to consider that Sam Harris is a famous public intellectual, with a BA in philosophy from Stanford and a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA.

Now, let’s consider how flawed his argument is.

The argument contains the following errors:

Essentially, the argument presupposes hedonism and altruism, and then pretends to derive a combination of those two assumptions (objective morality) from pure reason plus experience.

See Hedonic Utilitarianism.

Let’s go through the argument, point by point.

(see the rest of the post in the link)

5 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Dagon · 2024-12-05T16:54:10.068Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Mostly agreed - this argument fails to bridge (or even acknowledge) the is-ought gap, and it relies on very common (but probably not truly universal) experiences.  I also am sad that it is based on avoidance instincts ("truly sucks") rather than seeking anything.

That said, it's a popular folk philosophy, for very good reasons.  It's simple enough to understand, and seems to be applicable in a very wide range of situations.  It's probably not "true" in the physics sense, but it's pretty true in the "workable for humans" sense.  

There's probably a larger gap here than, say newton to einstein for gravity, but it's the same sort of distinction.

Replies from: Viliam
↑ comment by Viliam · 2024-12-07T13:26:47.961Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

We could steelman the part about the is-ought gap: People look at the question of "what should be done" as if they are outside the universe. (As if they are talking about what should happen in some movie, especially a movie that no one is watching.) But they are not really outside, they only imagine that.

comment by StartAtTheEnd · 2024-12-05T18:59:24.493Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

If that is really his view, Sam Harris didn't think things through at all, nor did he think very deeply.

Qualia is created by the brain, not by anything external. Touching a hot stove feels bad because we are more likely to survive when we feel this way. There's no reason why it can't feel pleasurable to damage yourself, it just seems like a bad design choice. The brain uses qualia to reward and punish us so that we end up surviving and reproducing. Our defense mechanisms are basically just toying with us because it helps us in the end (it's merely the means to survival), and our brains somewhat resist our attempts at hacking our own reward mechanisms because those who could do that likely ended up dying more often.

You could use Harris Arguments to imply that objective beauty exists, too. This is of course also not correct.

The argument also implies that all life or all consciousness can feel positive and negative qualia, but that's not necessarily true. He should have written "made our corner of the universe suck less, for us, according to us. (What if a change feel bad for us but causes great suffering to some alien race?)

Lastly, if these philosophers experienced actual, severe suffering for long periods of time, they would likely realize that suffering isn't even the issue, but suffering that one feels is meaningless. Meaningful pain is not bothersome at all, and it doesn't even need to reduce further pain. Has Harris never read "man's search for meaning" or other works which explain this?

Replies from: abandon
↑ comment by dirk (abandon) · 2024-12-05T22:54:55.520Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Indeed, people with congenital insensitivity to pain don't feel pain upon touching hot stoves (or in any other circumstance), and they're at serious risk of infected injuries and early death because of it.

comment by Lance Bush (lance-bush) · 2024-12-05T21:22:03.437Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

It is a terrible argument. Myself and a couple other people reviewed Harris on this topic some time ago and offered our own objections, which you can find here: