*solves ethics using science and logic*

You would be surprised at what these people seriously believe

>based on human flourishing
Incorrect. Harris' moral system is based on human well being.
Human flourishing is Aristotle, who is based.

What's his evidence that human well-being is a moral good?

Nice, but I'd prefer to move them all to one track, and then I'd move the trolley down that track
>get yeeted on

It's self-evident, like qualia.

The most duplicitous person alive, after maybe Michael Moore.

Trolley problem is unironically pretty easy so long as you know the artistic, mystic or intelligent value of the individuals in question. For example if the 1 person on the track is a Shakespeare, Jesus, Rumi or Plato, then he's worth not just 5 ordinary people but 10,000 of them.

reddit.com
here you go

Since morality is an evolutionary social strategy, it has only persisted because it has provided some advantage to our survival/well-being... That is its purpose. By that standard then, well-being is obviously the good and maladaption is the bad (and more specifically, collective well-being vs. collective maladaption).

He's correct, but he misses and important conclusion: Morality -- being a function of human nature -- cannot be a truly universal landscape because human nature diverges between (and within) populations. There is plenty of overlap in our natures (which is why morality works in the first place), but there can be no set of moral formulae that works optimally for all populations.

Kill the 5, one has no right to decide 5 lives are more important than 1

>muh evolution
Cringe

>Since morality is an evolutionary social strategy, it has only persisted because it has provided some advantage to our survival/well-being... That is its purpose.
Not quite. It has its own purposes, which in turn do help long term wide scale survival. However, on an individual level morality is almost always lethal.

What is good for the community is good for the individual. A perfectly moral person would perfectly benefit himself.

Really, what are those purposes? Individual morality is an oxymoron, as morality is concerned with the effects of behaviour upon a collective.

If all the world were watching, I would rather them see me pull the lever and kill the one guy rather than letting the 5 die. If the world were not watching, then I would still save the 5, as I am more likely to be rewarded by 5 people who are about to be killed than by 1 person who wasn’t even on the path of the trolley. Very simple

>I get good thing so I do good thing
Kant frowns on you from heaven

Suppose you could only go to Heaven if everyone else went to hell, otherwise you go to hell and everyone else goes to heaven. Both choices are eternal, and your experience in either heaven or hell will not be diminished or improved by your decision. In other words, if you chose heaven, you would not be burdened by your choice, and it be a heaven just as if you had gotten there without having to send everyone else to hell. What is the moral choice, and why? What should you do, and why? What would you do, and why?

As opposed to purposely choosing the lesser good? That’s idiotic

Lesser good according to whom? How can you say just because 5 is bigger than one that you have the right to decide what lives are more worth saving than others?

Those 5 are about to die. If I were to save each, then there would be 5 people willing to reward me, or tell the world I saved them. But what would the one person say about me, or do for me? He could only say that I chose to let other people die. I didn’t save him, I merely didn’t kill him. Not only is he less likely to reward me compared to a single individual on the other track, but there are 5 of them and one of him. If I were the lone guy on the track, I would accept the choice of whoever pulled the lever. But if I were one of the 5, and the guy at the lever just stood there, I would be quite frustrated with him.

Hypothetical situations are for sub 125 IQ humans anyway.

The moral choice is obviously to save the collective, as morality is about collective benefit. I would like to think I'd have the courage to do so.

You didn't answer my question.

They can occasionally be helpful in making a point, but in general you are correct.

I wasn’t the guy you were responding to. But morality is certainly dependent on the individual. To eat or wash yourself is just as moral as giving to others. We benefit others because in many way that indirectly benefits the self. Not only do we preserve the species, the very same genes that are in our own bodies, but by giving to others, we increase the chance that we will be rewarded in the future. Also, when the community flourishes, so does the individual. There’s no good reason why anyone should choose hell over heaven. You only have the instinct to save everyone else because you expect some sort of benefit out of it. You like the idea of “saving the species” or being a hero. But no one will know your sacrifice. You won’t even remember it. You would suffer forever.

>what if the good was the good?

Read some John Gray.

Stiller repackages liberalism as Objective Truth (something the infinitely smarter (but still dumb) Comte tried and failed). He's a silly sausage.

To properly determine one moral value to be better than another, you need a criteria. To properly determine the best moral value, it has to be defined as a set constant, and for that to be the case, the criteria needs to be a clearly defined fixed goal, that the values getting determined would be the most efficient way towards.

For such system of applying the determined moral values on a society, it means the entire society needs to strive for the same goal that's used as a criteria to judge their moral values. There for for such system to be applied globally, it needs every single person in that system to hold the exact same views, and in simpler terms be a slave to the goal. For such a task to be accomplished the system would have to use eugenics, or even genetic engineering, to accomplish this sameness beneficial to the system. Of course this sameness on a global levels would lead to lower idealistic and genetic diversity, therefore making mankind susceptible to be easily wiped by any event outside the system. .

Such outside changes on the system could absolutely make the goal of the system unobtainable or not beneficial. In that case the system would either just push humanity towards extinction, or have to change the moral values and the goal used as a constant. If we go with the latter, humanity might have already been conditioned to the previous goal to the point it would have become less adaptable to change, and therefore still lead to the collapse of the system.

Or we could all follow theism with the common goal of reaching heaven

Then it wouldn't be a real theism. There's a reason why only atheist quacks write these cancer determinism books like the one in OP.

>Individual morality is an oxymoron
Well I meant living morality to its fullest extent and demands; you'd become the next Socrates or Christ.

>it wouldn’t be real theism
What are you talking about? If somehow everyone in the world were religious, then we would have a common morality and ideally everyone would follow that morality.

Or Hitler

>If somehow everyone in the world were religious, then we would have a common morality
Only if we'd share the religion as well, which is a similar pipe dream as the tower of Babel or globalization.

true. Although we cannot agree on a common morality, surely there exists an objective one out there, and some have grasped parts of maybe even most of it, but no one has a perfect grasp

>Although we cannot agree on a common morality, surely there exists an objective one out there
I don't disagree, except on the notion 'out there'; it's within all being.

sure, I only mean to say that at the moment it is beyond us, at least the whole is.

Well being, what a loaded word to use. It already assumes something is good even tho it's trying to prove good.

If it happened naturally it would be great. But if it's just used a criteria to judge moral values in creating a perfect system, it would still need to use unethical methods to lower the idealistic diversity of the population. You basically get the catholic church in the dark ages. The whole fucking point of theism is lost when you basically forced it on everyone. Theism is about discovering the salvation in yourself.

It isn't as if the individual can be sensibly considered as discrete from the collective. Nothing about an individual exists in a solitary vacuum, and especially not morality as that is a social strategy. Hypothetically, what would constitute a moral choice for a lone entity whose behaviour would never impact another being? Nothing, morality wouldn't be a thing in that scenario. Additionally, the individual vs. collective reward is not a symmetrical paradigm. Sometimes an individual does 'take one for the team' in an extreme and final fashion.

You are correct that we always act to benefit ourselves in some way (we can't help but do this). Yes, I like the idea of following through on my ideals and I value the continuation of my people above myself. They do not need to know my sacrifice for me to obtain psychological satisfaction in that moment (acting in integrity with my ideals), however transient. Of course, none of this changes the fact that people possess such notions and ideals because they manifest a collective benefit.

So your first mistake is treating the individual and collective as discrete in any concrete sense, and your second mistake is treating reason as somehow discrete from human nature. We only reason about things because we first feel some way about them. Values are not universals -- they proceed from our nature, and if you value the health of your collective, that is a fine reason to choose hell. It seems to me that you've taken abstraction to the point of unecessary cynicism.

Objectivity ≠ Universality

Morality can be an objective phenomenon while not being universal.

morality is prescriptive and thus can not be objective, in the first place

I agree

>Sam Harris book
>Promoted by Pinker
How about no

Attached: Tips Hat.webm (960x540, 2.92M)

I'm pretty sure morality can be proscriptive. Perhaps you meant 'perspective'? In which case I would say that mental abstraction is an objective phenomenon, and subjectivity is merely the perceptual result of objective differences between beings. Since I do not claim morality can be universal (as our natures are not universal), there is no contradiction.

No he doesn't. He doesn't even get beyond egoism.

Idc what this board says Peterson walked circles around him when they debated

Hypothetically speaking, why?

I am interested in Sam Harris. I have not read a single book of his yet because I'm only recently becoming aware of him. I saw him in one of his JP debates and I found myself largely agreeing with Sam more than with JP. Since then I've been looking more into Sam's work. What book of his is a good starting point? One thing that annoyed me so far about him is that he says definitely that Trump is racist but I haven't been able to find his explanation of why he can so definitively say that. IMO there is a big difference between prejudice and racist; I think Trump and many people have prejudices, but that's not necessarily racism. Anyway, I'd love to read more about Sam's thought about that and everything else. I enjoyed him in those debates.

Attached: 10471781_328426327312977_714549849_a.jpg (306x306, 36K)

I like Sam's consistency about religion overall and always being bad.

Attached: bcc.jpg (904x371, 82K)

jesus christ imagine thinking like this. how have you not killed yourself already?
>inb4 bcuz it would be bad for le species

Why materialism?

My god, you sound like a cock.

is this b8?

Fucking yikes. Scientists trying to do philosophy is like watching actors talk about politics.

Reminder that even the Cuck Philosophy guy had already destroyed this book and Sam Harris's ideas.
youtu.be/wxalrwPNkNI

Attached: 181959.jpg (183x200, 8K)

solve the chicken egg problem first

roasties please

Back to /pol/

nah

Attached: rib cage.png (506x556, 269K)

Consequentialism: Which choice will lead to the best outcome? If its random people, save the majority, better odds that some of them will be good people.

If it's some miracle worker vs 5 nobodies, you save the miracle worker. Those 5 people are going to be dead soon anyway.

Kill the old and sickly, keep the young and healthy...etc.

Nihilism: Even if you make a mistake and choose the wrong track, it's ok. Nothing matters.

No.

Either go to heaven and spend eternity scheming to kill god and steal his power to rescue your species, or go to hell and spend eternity building and leading an uprising to storm the gates of heaven and kill god and steal his power.

If god really does exist, then all of human endeavor should be bent toward finding and killing him.

I have the right because I'm the one holding the switch. Choosing not to choose is still a choice.

Decisions don't go away just because you want them to. Circumstances conspire to put your hand on the lever, no matter what you do or don't do, you are responsible. If you can't make a good choice, you can at least make the least negative choice.

Explaining that you could have done something, but didn't because you feel like its not your place to decide won't be very comforting to the families of the dead.

Don't let your particular moral philosophy distract you from the practical consequences of your actions.

Fuck off.

People make genuine sacrifices with no chance at recompense every day. I know its illogical, but humans are not driven by reason alone.

It's not difficult to imagine a parent choosing hell so that their child can go to heaven. It's not as though the bloodline is being preserved, everyone is dead. The child won't care. The parent won't remember. Total sacrifice.

Wanting to exist forever is insane.

Globalization is a pipe dream? Really?

One world government is inevitable bro. If we keep fighting wars, one society will eventually win and spread its ideology. If we broker peace in the name of prosperity, then that peace will foster universal humanistic values and a single currency and trading system will lead to the same outcome.

It is inevitable. Brain up.

Morality gets easier when you reject the dichotomy of right and wrong and replace it with a sliding scale. Actions are not right or wrong, they are simply MORE right or MORE wrong than other actions.

So, when faced with a decision, you try to pick the one that is MOST right.

Determine this by understanding which choice has the most positive outcomes and the fewest negative outcomes.

Like every system, its easy to talk about, but difficult to do.

Yeah, because it's really difficult to figure out what's good for humans.

Oh, wait, no it's not.

Being able to debate doesn't make your ideas better, it just means you're better at debating.

Please see: Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump.

Buddhism solved that 2500 years ago.

Don't do anything.

Everyone dies at one point so in the long run it doesn't really matter what you do.

this
"but what if the one guy drinks a coke and i throw a fat man but i have to suck him off first and ... etc."

This post is very embarrassing.

This. You don't want to get sued, do you?

You're right, except his ideas are better,

Is that drawing the bacteria?

This. Egalitarianism was never justified.

Genes live on. By killing someone, you’re either shortening or destroying their reproductive potential. People instinctually understand this. You must have read a lot of shit to come to your conclusion.

This is irrefutable.

I really think we place a little too much trust in science. I don't mean it's wrong, or that phones are bad, but thinking we are now advanced enough to explain something as complex as ethics with Muh Scans seems to miss the point. Just because we can see what the brain does, we still miss some of the why. Free will also gets mixed up in here. Are we all really just the consequence of some basic material starting conditions? I don't think so, but I am not sure.

I've never shared Yea Forums's blanket resentment against popular public figures, even if I don't always agree with them. I think Jordan Peterson's time in the sun has been an overwhelmingly positive thing, for example.

When it comes to Sam Harris, who's been in the public eye for a long time, I don't really see a positive effect. None. He acts like a cult leader or an atheist caricature from a Christian propaganda film. He has all the answers, all of the time, and only pretends to humor the possibility his presuppositions might be wrong as a way of disarming others into doing the same so he can talk at them some more. Sam seems to be all answers and no questions, which is a good sign that you're a bad thinker. Am misrepresenting him or does this sound about right?

Attached: Fallout.jpg (1920x1602, 431K)

the hypotheticals (what if you're killing someone who cures cancer or saving 5 criminals) could be applied to both parties equally so they're not worth thinking about, all you can choose between 5 people suffering or two people suffering, the answer is to pull the lever and live with the guilt of having killed a person

Chickens come from eggs. Eggs do not neccessarily come from chickens. The egg was first, laid by a genetic ancestor bird.

we dont know the answer yet, how about that?
ask any mathematician to count the exact number of atoms in his room and he can't give you any answer, but does that mean math is wrong?

yah

Attached: caged_animal.jpg (627x480, 40K)

And that's why now the only places that sincerely practice Buddhism are Tibet and Myanmar.

The trolly problem is good for a laugh, but thinking its a serious retort is some brainlet shit.

The answer is it depends.
Is the one guy on the track a utility monster?

Attached: peterSingersBasement (1).jpg (1000x1000, 330K)

Why do people resort to thought experiments, when real equivalents (malignant narcissists) are already so ubiquitous?

>evolutionary psychology
>human nature
>le end of history
Some big brains in this thread

>green text makes it wrong

eat shit and die, pseud