Sam Harris' $20,000 Challenge - The Moral Landscape

by cofty 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  In his book, "The Moral Landscape" Sam Harris argues that you can in fact get "an ought from an is".

  The split between facts and values is an illusion.

  He challenges the assumption that science has nothing to say about objective morality, which he defines as our thinking about the well-being of conscious creatures.

  Personally I found his book to be compelling; all the arguments against it that I have read so far are based on misunderstandings of his thesis.

  I hve quoted Harris a couple of times when he said to his critics that he didn't want to be wrong any longer than necessary. In that spirit he has offered $10,000 to anybody who can refute the central argument of his book in 1000 words or less. The best attempt will receive $1000 even if it fails in it's purpose. A reader of his blog has since offered to double these prizes.

  There is a debate on YouTube on the subject between Harris and Bill Craig who is at his vacuous best. Anybody who follows Craig's example is unlikely to earn 2 cents.

  Here is Harris' lecture on the topic "Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality" delivered at the Univesity of Oxford in April 2011.

  ...
• 

  Laika

  And which objective source is going to determine that the argument has been refuted? Sam Harris himself? Sounds like a gimmick.
• 

  cofty

  No it's definitely not a gimmick. It's a very thoroughly reasoned argument.

  Have you read the book or listened to the first 30 minutes of the video?
• 

  cofty

  Here is a link to the challenge...

  and a link to his previous response to his critics...

  Laika I see what you mean about the challenge being a gimmick rather than the original argument.

  Fair point, but somebody is getting $2000 for the best essay and that will expose him to any good argument.
• 

  Laika

  Honestly no, I'm interested (though skeptical) of the possibility that science has something to say on morality, so I may check it out later. His argument may be compelling but I don't think offering a bet proves much, Kent Hovind offered 250k to anyone who could prove evolution. When the person paying out is also the one who decides what is 'proof' or 'refutation' it doesn't really mean much. Edit: just seen your second reply, yes I meant the challenge, not the original.
• 

  Captain Obvious

  Laika, I understand your point but you cannot compare a clown like Kent Hovind to Sam Harris... If you've read any of his work you'll know why. I just finished reading The Moral Landscape, it is very good. You may want to pick it up, even just to consider the viewpoint he presents. Good stuff.
• 

  bohm

  Bttt
• 

  dazed but not confused

  Sam Harris I am happy to say that Russell Blackford (my best critic) has agreed to judge the essays, pick the winner, and evaluate my response. http://bit.ly/17rasV6

  Like · · 272 16 32 · 2 hours ago ·

  This is on my Facebook feed.
• 

  Xanthippe

  For those unfamiliar with my book, here is my argument in brief: Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, of course, fully constrained by the laws of Nature (whatever these turn out to be in the end).

  Therefore, there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science. On this view, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life. - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-critics#sthash.KWAkXJTI.dpuf

  What can I say,I like this man,I like his mind. To me morality is about reducing suffering and increasing happiness, for everyone. That is what morality should be about, to my mind. I studied the idea begun in Victorian times called Utilitarianism advocated by Jeremy Bentham and politician John Stuart Mill. The basic concept is bringing the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Who could argue with that? Now the problem is when you try to please all of the people all of the time.

  For example in the UK the government is cracking down on benefit thieves to increase the amount of dwindling resources to give out to the needy but sadly vulnerable people like the elderly and the disabled are slipping through the net and losing out. I cite this example because this is how it was explained to me in my degree that trying to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people is a beautiful and practical application of fact (or science) based morality without resort to religion. The devil is in the detail of course!
• 

  Hortensia

  Thanks for sharing. Amazing discussion, and very lucid.