This is the first argument I have heard in a long time that actually made me think for more than a minute or two. I think its brilliant but I’m curious to see what reactions it will arouse here.
http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values
[quote]theteef wrote:
This is the first argument I have heard in a long time that actually made me think for more than a minute or two. I think its brilliant but I’m curious to see what reactions it will arouse here.
http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values[/quote]
lol
u said ‘arouse’.
I’m using all my intelligence for the pursuit of muscle.
Interesting video, thanks.
Sorry, I don’t like to delve too deep.
Skim the surface baby!
No, you’re wrong.
I’m unable to watch the whole video now because I have to go lift but the notion of values being a scientific endeavor has large ties to the philosophy of John Dewey. According to Dewey, there were no set in stone values that one tries to uphold, however, through scientific thinking and realizing that we approach moral situations like a scientist, we come to re-evaluate the values we do have in order that they become more coherent with a larger set of beliefs.
So in a society where people interact with all of their beliefs, values, knowledge bases, etc. a person’s overall perspective or overall set of values must match this large society, putting each value in a proper place. For Dewey, this meant a democratic society where people from different backgrounds came together to solve important common problems, and also meant a certain respect is given to each person, not as saying that this person is “right” but that they have right to put their belief forward in the overall pool of beliefs in order to be evaluated.
Science is a very large part of our moral development and as technology and science continue to progress our value systems must come to cohere with this progress.
Cool thread bro
[quote]theteef wrote:
This is the first argument I have heard in a long time that actually made me think for more than a minute or two. I think its brilliant but I’m curious to see what reactions it will arouse here.
http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values[/quote]
No, it is not brilliant. He has good concern about the lack of morals within the liberal community, but beyond that I wasn’t getting the vibe of “brilliant.”
I’m only deep when the wife asks me to be.
Otherwise, I just like looking at the pretty pictures. And drawing them.
[quote]Swifthawk88 wrote:
I’m unable to watch the whole video now because I have to go lift but the notion of values being a scientific endeavor has large ties to the philosophy of John Dewey. According to Dewey, there were no set in stone values that one tries to uphold, however, through scientific thinking and realizing that we approach moral situations like a scientist, we come to re-evaluate the values we do have in order that they become more coherent with a larger set of beliefs.
So in a society where people interact with all of their beliefs, values, knowledge bases, etc. a person’s overall perspective or overall set of values must match this large society, putting each value in a proper place. For Dewey, this meant a democratic society where people from different backgrounds came together to solve important common problems, and also meant a certain respect is given to each person, not as saying that this person is “right” but that they have right to put their belief forward in the overall pool of beliefs in order to be evaluated.
Science is a very large part of our moral development and as technology and science continue to progress our value systems must come to cohere with this progress.[/quote]
You mean like Germany did?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]theteef wrote:
This is the first argument I have heard in a long time that actually made me think for more than a minute or two. I think its brilliant but I’m curious to see what reactions it will arouse here.
http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values[/quote]
No, it is not brilliant. He has good concern about the lack of morals within the liberal community, but beyond that I wasn’t getting the vibe of “brilliant.”[/quote]
You act like conservatives have the monopoly on values. Did you just crawl out from under a rock?
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]theteef wrote:
This is the first argument I have heard in a long time that actually made me think for more than a minute or two. I think its brilliant but I’m curious to see what reactions it will arouse here.
http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values[/quote]
No, it is not brilliant. He has good concern about the lack of morals within the liberal community, but beyond that I wasn’t getting the vibe of “brilliant.”[/quote]
You act like conservatives have the monopoly on values. Did you just crawl out from under a rock?
[/quote]
And its off to PWI forum.
[quote]Swifthawk88 wrote:
I’m unable to watch the whole video now because I have to go lift but the notion of values being a scientific endeavor has large ties to the philosophy of John Dewey. According to Dewey, there were no set in stone values that one tries to uphold, however, through scientific thinking and realizing that we approach moral situations like a scientist, we come to re-evaluate the values we do have in order that they become more coherent with a larger set of beliefs.
So in a society where people interact with all of their beliefs, values, knowledge bases, etc. a person’s overall perspective or overall set of values must match this large society, putting each value in a proper place. For Dewey, this meant a democratic society where people from different backgrounds came together to solve important common problems, and also meant a certain respect is given to each person, not as saying that this person is “right” but that they have right to put their belief forward in the overall pool of beliefs in order to be evaluated.
Science is a very large part of our moral development and as technology and science continue to progress our value systems must come to cohere with this progress.[/quote]
That’s basically the exact opposite of the speaker’s point. He is stating that just because someone believes something, or even the entire society believes it, it doesn’t make it right.
He then goes on to make a philosophical proof of why this is the case, which centers on the idea that a scenario which maximizes the quality of consciousness for the most creatures is what is right.
He is saying that just because people believe something doesn’t mean it’s right, even if those people make up the majority of that society.
Interesting video, thanks OP.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Swifthawk88 wrote:
I’m unable to watch the whole video now because I have to go lift but the notion of values being a scientific endeavor has large ties to the philosophy of John Dewey. According to Dewey, there were no set in stone values that one tries to uphold, however, through scientific thinking and realizing that we approach moral situations like a scientist, we come to re-evaluate the values we do have in order that they become more coherent with a larger set of beliefs.
So in a society where people interact with all of their beliefs, values, knowledge bases, etc. a person’s overall perspective or overall set of values must match this large society, putting each value in a proper place. For Dewey, this meant a democratic society where people from different backgrounds came together to solve important common problems, and also meant a certain respect is given to each person, not as saying that this person is “right” but that they have right to put their belief forward in the overall pool of beliefs in order to be evaluated.
Science is a very large part of our moral development and as technology and science continue to progress our value systems must come to cohere with this progress.[/quote]
You mean like Germany did?[/quote]
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]Swifthawk88 wrote:
I’m unable to watch the whole video now because I have to go lift but the notion of values being a scientific endeavor has large ties to the philosophy of John Dewey. According to Dewey, there were no set in stone values that one tries to uphold, however, through scientific thinking and realizing that we approach moral situations like a scientist, we come to re-evaluate the values we do have in order that they become more coherent with a larger set of beliefs.
So in a society where people interact with all of their beliefs, values, knowledge bases, etc. a person’s overall perspective or overall set of values must match this large society, putting each value in a proper place. For Dewey, this meant a democratic society where people from different backgrounds came together to solve important common problems, and also meant a certain respect is given to each person, not as saying that this person is “right” but that they have right to put their belief forward in the overall pool of beliefs in order to be evaluated.
Science is a very large part of our moral development and as technology and science continue to progress our value systems must come to cohere with this progress.[/quote]
That’s basically the exact opposite of the speaker’s point. He is stating that just because someone believes something, or even the entire society believes it, it doesn’t make it right.
He then goes on to make a philosophical proof of why this is the case, which centers on the idea that a scenario which maximizes the quality of consciousness for the most creatures is what is right.
He is saying that just because people believe something doesn’t mean it’s right, even if those people make up the majority of that society.
Interesting video, thanks OP.[/quote]
I do not disagree with the notion that just because a person believes something makes it right. However, if a community of people are to flourish then each person must be given a certain respect. This means they are allowed to put their ideas forth. This means even the minority must be given respect. If these ideas or believes are bogus or outright immoral, they will no doubt not last long in the overall picture. However, if a minority puts forth a belief that holds strong, then eventually that belief may come to shape that community. A pedophile trying to get laws to changed in order that he may do what he wants will be met with a swift beatdown. However, a reformist trying to get equal laws for a minority may be heard.
It is this notion of a democratic faith that allows for differing people to come together in a community and come to know what is right. In this way, a quality of consciousness for people can be formed. This would not result in a Nazi like society where certain peoples are erased from being a part of the community.
I don’t know too much about that. I just like to keep to me blacksmithing!!
[quote]theteef wrote:
This is the first argument I have heard in a long time that actually made me think for more than a minute or two. I think its brilliant but I’m curious to see what reactions it will arouse here.
http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values[/quote]
.
This thread was doomed the second the OP hit, “submit”.
