The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#41

Post by locopati » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 2:34 PM UTC

dasht wrote: post #12

I voted up this link (after it appeared on the front page) but precisely because I think it is such ridiculous hooey that it is worth commenting on. It's errors are abundant so I'll choose just one which, taken as paradigm, can be used to discover several others: The author of the article quotes Hitchens as saying (I've added emphasis ): "[C]onscience is innate," and `[e]verybody but the psychopath' has the `feeling'…

To run with your dog kicking example - that may be true of some cultures, does it hold equally in all? (an honest question that I do not have an answer to) are there other examples we can conjure that seem obvious but are culturally dependent? or, are there innate morals in the same sense that there are innate linguistic structures?

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#42

Post by mbrock » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 2:48 PM UTC

AmaroqWolf wrote: post #27

zacharyvoase wrote: post #7

My biggest gripe with this article is that the ‘solution’ is introduced in the second-to-last paragraph. I’m a big fan of Ayn Rand, and I think the ‘New Atheists’ probably do have a lot to learn from Objectivism, since it seems a lot more internally consistent—nevertheless, in articles like these it should occupy more than just a footnote.

I think the majority of this article was just intended to show that the "New Atheists" don't have any better justification for their moralities than the religious people do, and that morality must be justified with reason, not from feelings. The footnote was meant to recommend the reader to a source of moral guidance that is actually justified rationally and grounded in reality. (Objectivism.)

"There is, scientifically, a most profound break between the living and the non-living. Now life may be the spirit; the animals may be the forms of spirit and matter, in which matter predominates; man may be the highest form, the crown and final goal of the universe, the form of spirit and matter in which the spirit predominates and triumphs. (If there’s any value in “feelings” and “hunches”—God! how I feel that this is true!)" — Ayn Rand.

I don't think she seems that rational; adjectives like dogmatic, idealistic, romantic, manichean seem more apt. It is admirable to try and ground ethics in reality, but I think Rand claims much, much more than she accomplished. I can't put together her dogged insistence on a benevolent universe, the grand exaltedness of capitalists and individualists, the nonexistence of instincts, the objective life-affirming value of cigarettes, etc, etc — with the idea of sober, honest reasoning. Yet these features are actually what I like the best about Rand. I think her attitude shows someone who could have been a good poet of individualism — like a more austere and condemning Whitman — if she hadn't gotten tangled up in the business of philosophy.

(Richard Rorty's "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity" to me shines brightly with a kind of humble yet very discerning rationality, almost saintly honesty — yet he and Rand are completely, utterly at odds philosophically.)

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#43

Post by dwwoelfel » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 2:52 PM UTC

dasht wrote: post #12

I voted up this link (after it appeared on the front page) but precisely because I think it is such ridiculous hooey that it is worth commenting on. It's errors are abundant so I'll choose just one which, taken as paradigm, can be used to discover several others: The author of the article quotes Hitchens as saying (I've added emphasis ): "[C]onscience is innate," and `[e]verybody but the psychopath' has the `feeling'…

Automatic judgments like the one you described should be analyzed. An action (or inaction) isn't moral because lots of people automatically think it is true.

Suppose that pub was in Saudi Arabia, and instead of a kicking a dog, the man outside is gay and kisses his partner.

"Now, do [the Mutaween (moral police)] need to discuss what in scripture forbids such an act? Do [they] need to question whether [their] Kantian faculty for moral reasoning rings true when it signals the evil of such an act? Or do [they] just immediately agree that "That ain't right" and perhaps step outside to [arrest] the man what done it? Is anything added to [their] obvious and gut-level reaction by additional discussion of where, in principle, that reaction comes from? Or can [they] just stipulate that it was in fact wrong to [kiss the man] and that almost certainly [imprisonment and stoning] is called for?"

You claim that "we know right from wrong when we see it laid bare."

The Mutaween don't. Neither did Nazi German soldiers, slave owners, kamikaze pilots, Islamic fundamentalists, and countless other examples throughout history.

You have to think about your automatic moral judgments, and make certain that those judgments are based in reality. If you don't, you'll merely adopt the moral standards of those around you. Ultimately, those moral standards are decided by philosophy.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#44

Post by pbhjpbhj » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 3:05 PM UTC

dasht wrote: post #12

I voted up this link (after it appeared on the front page) but precisely because I think it is such ridiculous hooey that it is worth commenting on. It's errors are abundant so I'll choose just one which, taken as paradigm, can be used to discover several others: The author of the article quotes Hitchens as saying (I've added emphasis ): "[C]onscience is innate," and `[e]verybody but the psychopath' has the `feeling'…

>Or can we just stipulate that it was in fact wrong to kick the dog and that almost certainly intervention is called for?

There are many situations in which your shallow observation is going to produce a wrong inference - suppose that dog just bit the man out of your view. Right, maybe not, justifiable certainly.

>"And not all of these people know that their actions are morally wrong. On the contrary, many believe that their actions are morally justified." >None of which contradicts anything Hitchens' said.

Is a direct contradiction of his paraphrase of Hitchins (from "God is not great") saying that we all have an innate conscience; which you claim is a "fine paraphrase". If we all have an innate conscience with a high degree of equivalence in it's value propositions then it would be near impossible for people to perform malevolent actions that they themselves find internally justified.

In your last para your arguing semantics without providing us with Hitchens view, do you know it? How is an "infallible moral faculty" different from an "innate conscience [that we all share and that produces identical results in each of us; but is somehow disabled under psychosis]". They seem largely coterminous.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#45

Post by w00pla » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 3:36 PM UTC

Dellort wrote: post #38

catzaa wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Human beings have many lies that they belieeve are true, and we are not poorer for it. (E.g. Unconditional love, true love, etc...).

Because it is dangerous. People act according to their beliefs regardless of them being grounded in real evidence or not. I would say we are poorer for it as we have seen people fly planes into buildings or have tried to eradicate an entire race as a result of their beliefs.

How many people have been killed because of the campaign of atheism and "scientific materialism" as happened in many countries (e.g. Albania, USSR, etc...).

You do not understand the problem. The problem is not beliefs or ideology, but zealotory (the insane belief that your way is the one true way and that you are better/smarter/more enlightened than anyone else).

That is pretty much an apt description for New Atheism. It is just a different form of zealotery.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#46

Post by msg » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 4:01 PM UTC

mike_organon wrote: post #28

msg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read Ayn Rand's books, so I feel confident in stating with Wikipedia that for the Objectivist the moral purpose of the individual life is the pursuit of happiness or rational self-interest. I don't feel like I overstated the position. I don't think there is much space between hedonism and devil may care rugged individualism. Unless you provide a foundation for ethics, there is no way to compare my self-interest…

Hedonism and "devil may care" may be the same thing, but neither are rational self-interest as described by Objectivism. To answer your question, Objectivism does provide a rational foundation for ethics (obviously, beyond the scope here). It defines a very precise set of virtues, which are objective, based on facts and reason; which will explain why everyone's rational self-interest can be compared and work compatib…

I don't think I'm asking exactly the right question, but what makes life good, in the sense of our nature as human beings? I'm trying to understand what you take as the origin of ethics, or the final arbiter of good and evil.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#47

Post by dasht » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 4:30 PM UTC

dwwoelfel wrote: post #43

dasht wrote: post #12

I voted up this link (after it appeared on the front page) but precisely because I think it is such ridiculous hooey that it is worth commenting on. It's errors are abundant so I'll choose just one which, taken as paradigm, can be used to discover several others: The author of the article quotes Hitchens as saying (I've added emphasis ): "[C]onscience is innate," and `[e]verybody but the psychopath' has the `feeling'…

Automatic judgments like the one you described should be analyzed. An action (or inaction) isn't moral because lots of people automatically think it is true. Suppose that pub was in Saudi Arabia, and instead of a kicking a dog, the man outside is gay and kisses his partner. "Now, do [the Mutaween (moral police)] need to discuss what in scripture forbids such an act? Do [they] need to question whether [their] Kantian…

The judgment made to arrest two men for kissing is hardly automatic. Indeed, it's oxymoronic to suggest so. Examine how that judgment is arrived at:

First, there is a background of a lot of theistic teaching regarding elaborate theories of morality. Second, there are elaborate machinations of the state and the clerics that make it possible to even conceive of arresting the men. You and I, I hope you agree, would find the arrest immoral even while those performing it would insist on its high morality. The difference is that you and I have to agree on little other than what we see happening to reach our shared conclusion, while the defenders of the arrest rely on an elaborate analytics of morality.

That's actually one of Hitchens' main themes: that the elaborate analytics or morality, most especially the analytics given forth by all of the worlds theologies, don't create morality but rather often the opposite.

Do the Mutaween know right from wrong? Or the the other groups that you mention? I don't think that there is one answer that applies to the whole group just as there is no one answer that applies to all atheists. Some see it. Some don't.

As Hitchens might put it, I can not seriously entertain here, among civilized people, that such an arrest is moral. And I observe that such an arrest is a byproduct of the actions of a theology that claims for itself a unique and privileged understanding of morality.

As a (half-gruesome) thought experiment, consider presenting to a pre-verbal child of any culture the image of two men kissing, and the image of dog abuse. Which do you think will more consistently upset the child?

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#48

Post by psranga » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 4:35 PM UTC

dasht wrote: post #12

I voted up this link (after it appeared on the front page) but precisely because I think it is such ridiculous hooey that it is worth commenting on. It's errors are abundant so I'll choose just one which, taken as paradigm, can be used to discover several others: The author of the article quotes Hitchens as saying (I've added emphasis ): "[C]onscience is innate," and `[e]verybody but the psychopath' has the `feeling'…

Well said, thanks. I raised my eyebrows at the "observationally false" sentence and stopped reading when he/she dragged in 9/11 for the second time.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#49

Post by Dellort » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 4:39 PM UTC

w00pla wrote: post #45

Dellort wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is dangerous. People act according to their beliefs regardless of them being grounded in real evidence or not. I would say we are poorer for it as we have seen people fly planes into buildings or have tried to eradicate an entire race as a result of their beliefs.

How many people have been killed because of the campaign of atheism and "scientific materialism" as happened in many countries (e.g. Albania, USSR, etc...). You do not understand the problem. The problem is not beliefs or ideology, but zealotory (the insane belief that your way is the one true way and that you are better/smarter/more enlightened than anyone else). That is pretty much an apt description for New Atheis…

How do we separate insane beliefs from sane ones? This distinction might be clear to you now, but what will you do when you let yourself be guided by unfounded belief? Do you think you will be able to see insane belief for what it really is before it is too late? You avoid having to make that mistake by abandoning belief.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#50

Post by dasht » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 4:44 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #44

dasht wrote: post #12

I voted up this link (after it appeared on the front page) but precisely because I think it is such ridiculous hooey that it is worth commenting on. It's errors are abundant so I'll choose just one which, taken as paradigm, can be used to discover several others: The author of the article quotes Hitchens as saying (I've added emphasis ): "[C]onscience is innate," and `[e]verybody but the psychopath' has the `feeling'…

> Or can we just stipulate that it was in fact wrong to kick the dog and that almost certainly intervention is called for? There are many situations in which your shallow observation is going to produce a wrong inference - suppose that dog just bit the man out of your view. Right, maybe not, justifiable certainly. > "And not all of these people know that their actions are morally wrong. On the contrary, many believe…

> suppose that dog just bit the man out of your view. Right, maybe not, justifiable certainly.

Suppose indeed. You should join the philosopher at the other end of the bar who points out that perhaps the dog abuse averted a larger tragedy. ("You are standing by a railroad switch and a train is coming. You can divert it one of two ways. Stalled on one track is a schoolbus full of children. Stalled on the other is your lover. You can save one or the other but not both.....")

While you to consider all of the possibilities, several of the rest of us will step outside to intervene. If there are mitigating reasons for the dog abuse then hopefully we will discover them. If not, hopefully we will bring the offender to account. You don't need any elaborate theory of morality to make the simple observation that sometimes things are more complicated than they appear to be at first.

> How is an "infallible moral faculty" different from an "innate consciousness"

Fallibility. I have an innate ability to recognize a human figure at a distance but this doesn't mean I'm not sometimes fooled by shadows. I have an innate ability to recognize the taste of healthy food but it also happens that an episode of food poisoning has left me unable to taste avocado as anything other than poisonous (which it is not).