Objective Morality

I think nobody can prove him wrong. and philosoautists should realize he has a degree in philosophy.

>>2371079
Aaand another thread that will derail into an Atheist v. Theist dick measuring contest.

>/rel/ board when?

haven't watched the debate but Harris is notoriously crappy at defending his claims about morality. His "moral theory" is just very basic utilitarianism but for some reason he thinks it's a new idea and is totally ignorant (wilfully?) of all the standard objections to it.

>>2371079
>Sam Harris
Didn't need to look any further to know the atheist lost

>>2371079

No one can prove him wrong no matter ho hard they try.

>>2371317
Prove what wrong?

>>2371317
I can

>>2371301
>His "moral theory" is just very basic utilitarianism but for some reason he thinks it's a new idea and is totally ignorant (wilfully?) of all the standard objections to it.

He's not a Utilitarian and he's literally done podcasts with people like Paul Bloom and Peter Singer where he discusses Utilitarianism (and the objections to it) in detail.

>>2371328
His morality is just
>feel good = is good

>>2371339
>having a scat fetish is good

I'll watch it but I don't think there can ever be such a thing as 'objective morality' under an atheistic view. You can certainly rationalize ethical ways for people to act, that benefit them and society, but they're not objective. The only law, if we really are in a purely naturalistic universe, is the law of nature. This is one of those things atheists just have to own, as it is an inevitable consequence of the view that we're simply intelligent animals with no inherent purpose or meaning and are no different than the other myriad lifeforms on the planet. The same lifeforms that will happily eat their own offspring to survive. There is no morality in nature, only biological imperatives to survive and pass on your genes.

Damn. WLC is wiping the floor with Harris.

>>2371358
If you say so Mr Harris

>>2371415
Check the comments, apparently not

>>2371086
>and philosoautists should realize he has a degree in philosophy.
IIRC, he mostly has a neuroscience background and a B.A. in philosophy. I really wouldn't call 4 semesters much of a qualification.

File: 131789963463.jpg (13KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 320x240px

>>2371474
>Check the comments

>>2371474
>reading YouTube comments
>ever

I'm not even trying to knock him here, but I honestly don't get Sam Harris' arguments at all. Like he repeats over and over that science can prove objective morality but I don't hear him explaining how science does that. Maybe I'm just stupid and if so I'd like someone to explain it to me

>>2371494
He doesn't. He gives up and tries to argue God can't be a standard of morality since he allows people to do evil. Which is a really dumb argument to make because it completely destroys his argument of there being any objective morality, because if God doesn't exist who is responsible for that evil? People. So you argue that God can't be an objective moral standard because he allows evil acts but then you deny God exists and shift the responsibility of that evil to people then claim that we can create an objective standard of morality ourselves?

>>2371494
>but I don't hear him explaining how science does that.
You didn't miss it. He simply never addresses the question, although he genuinely seems to think he does, while assuming some form of utilitarianism.

I actually listened to a 4 hour podcast of him where two guys desperately tried to get it out of him how science is supposed to do that, but he never addressed this main question.

>>2371491
>>2371493

Indeed.

There's only one place on the whole of in the Internet known for having lower quality posts than the Youtube comments section.

>>2371506
>>2371507
So WLC is correct for calling Sam out on red herrings? It seemed Sam's mainly appealing to emotion by just pointing out "evil" in the bible. like "clearly WLC's position is wrong, so therefore mine must be right"

>>2371507
It would be better for him to just admit there is no objective morality under an atheistic worldview. Seems like a silly hill to die on since no-one can argue that subjective morals are necessarily any worse than objective ones. It just means what is regarded as 'good' and 'bad' can change based on cultural views.

>>2371518
I actually agree with Harris on there being an objective morality (regardless of religion), but I disagree with how he attempts to derive it.

>>2371542
A naturalistic worldview doesn't allow for any objective morality. Naturalism says humans are nothing more that smart apes, morality is a construct created to bind societies together and to create a set of rules for people to abide by to fit in. There is no objective law of the universe that says that murder is bad, indeed animals kill their kin all the time in nature. Any ideas that humans have to abide by a set of separate objective rules that other animals don't is wishful thinking at best.

>>2371510
Underrated.