I clicked on the split threads option but then it needed so many quotes to put to put context into these posts that won't make sense in isolation(some of your discussion with karatalaamalaka and one of ajita's post)
Maybe we can just leave it and move on and back to topic from next post.
So taking it back to ajita's conclusive review.
And your thought-provoking questions as a starting point to get back to the topic:
Maybe we can just leave it and move on and back to topic from next post.
So taking it back to ajita's conclusive review.
Ajita Kamal Wrote:Harris does what he does best. Bury his moral premises into his model of ethics and selectively pick the evidence to fit the model. The problem is, when we're speaking of ethics, moral premises and factual propositions are inextricable. Moral premises change as perception of factual propositions change, and perception of factual propositions ALWAYS change for someone truly objective about the evidence.
When one ignores subjective premises, possessing a lot of data can actually be a liability when discussing ethics. A master at self-deception (or just the regular kind of deception) can be very good at cherry picking convenient facts (which usually are popular with a target audience) and ignoring inconvenient ones. This becomes a problem of logical inconsistency when someone claims that the scientific facts have been shown to demonstrate a moral value as objectively true.
1. Science usually deals in degrees of certainty, not in absolutes, especially when it comes to low probability predictions.
2. No such scientific consensus exists (in line with Harris' argument), not even close.
3. Even if it did, the is-ought problem gets in the way.
Science has shown how our intuitive emotional reactions are often in opposition to our informed moral inclinations, provided we are in possession of the facts. Let's say I can apply all current scientific evidence in a real life situation. I can still easily think of a situation where the consequences of saying the truth are so unpredictable and scientifically untestable (current science) that averting an immediate and rather obvious danger to a life by lying is, in that situation, for me, the moral thing to do. That is, even if we can make the best scientific judgement we can in each situation, I submit that it is true (in the subjective moral sense) that in particular situations preventing an imminent and certain (in the scientific sense) danger by lying outweighs a very uncertain (in the scientific sense) one by not.
Moreover, we simply cannot extricate the subjective element here, even if we are in possession of all the objective facts (not just the scientifically knowable ones constrained by uncertainty, but all facts knowable at a hypothetical Laplace's demon level of certainty). There will be cases where the absolutely known consequences of a lie would be found unfavorable by a majority of people (were they in possession of all the absolute facts regarding the consequences). But there can still be exceptions where individuals (or even groups) are in disagreement, even if they had all the facts, simply by virtue of their mental make-up. That is, the subjective element is a wrench in the works when attempting to dictate an absolutist morality.
What's the alternative towards a naturalistic science-based philosophy of ethics? It seems that the argument against lying is rather easily made from a subjective perspective, using the science to explain the facts without burying moral premises. The question to me is why then try and make an ontological claim that lying is always bad?
And your thought-provoking questions as a starting point to get back to the topic:
arvindiyer Wrote:If we steer clear of an 'ontological claim that lying is always bad' but nevertheless treat lying as something to be reduced to the extent possible, then the practical questions are :
How do we check our own tendency to lie? When should a person be held accountable and eventually punishable for participating in a lie? How can we create mechanisms and institutions to dis-incentivize lying and keep ourselves honest?