SAM HARRIS - Human Values

Summary

The speaker challenges the notion that science and human values are separate, arguing that values can be derived from facts about conscious beings' well-being. They propose a moral landscape where the peaks represent the highest well-being and the valleys represent misery. The speaker contends that while there may be multiple peaks, indicating various ways to thrive, there are also many ways to fall into valleys of suffering. They assert that some people are wrong in their values if they lead to unnecessary human misery, and it is intellectually dishonest and a failure of compassion to ignore this in the face of global suffering.

Takeaways

• 🔬 The relationship between science and human values is often seen as problematic, but the speaker argues that this split is an illusion.
• 🌌 Values can be reduced to facts about the well-being of conscious creatures, suggesting that the universe without consciousness has no values.
• 🧠 The emergence of conscious minds allows for the discussion of right, wrong, good, and evil, as they can experience change.
• 🐵 We naturally value the experiences of our fellow primates more than insects due to their wider spectrum of experiences.
• 🌎 The concept of the 'worst possible misery for everyone' is used to argue that some values are universally bad, providing a foundation for a science of morality.
• 🧬 The well-being of conscious creatures is compared to physical health, which is a loosely defined but important concept that evolves with scientific understanding.
• 🌱 The speaker points out that scientific truth does not rely on convincing everyone, but rather on values such as respect for evidence.
• 🌟 There is a continuum of facts related to human well-being, and understanding these can lead to true or false beliefs about societal and individual success.
• 🏔️ The 'moral landscape' is introduced as a concept where peaks represent high well-being and valleys represent misery, suggesting multiple ways to thrive.
• 🚫 The speaker challenges the idea that some people might be right about how we should live, implying that there are right and wrong answers to moral and ethical questions.
• 🌏 To withhold judgment on what contributes to human well-being is considered unscientific and a failure of compassion, given the unnecessary misery in the world.

Q & A

What is the main argument presented in the script about the relationship between science and human values?

The main argument is that the perceived separation between facts and values is an illusion. The script suggests that values can be reduced to facts about the well-being of conscious creatures, and that science can indeed inform us about what we ought to value.

Why does the speaker believe that science can address questions of right and wrong?

The speaker believes that once there are conscious minds capable of experiencing change, it becomes possible to talk about changes that matter, which includes right and wrong, good and evil. These experiences can be evaluated in terms of their impact on well-being.

What is the 'worst possible misery for everyone' scenario mentioned in the script?

The 'worst possible misery for everyone' is a hypothetical universe where every conscious creature suffers as much as possible for as long as possible. The speaker argues that if the word 'bad' means anything, it applies to this situation.

How does the speaker relate the concept of physical health to the well-being of conscious creatures?

The speaker uses physical health as an analogy to explain that the well-being of conscious creatures is a concept that can be loosely defined and evolve as our understanding advances, similar to how our understanding of health changes with medical breakthroughs.

What does the speaker mean when they say 'the moral landscape'?

The 'moral landscape' is a metaphor used by the speaker to describe a conceptual space where the peaks represent the heights of human well-being and the valleys represent the depths of misery. It suggests that there are various ways to achieve well-being, but many more ways to fail at it.

Why does the speaker argue that it is not unscientific to say some people are wrong about how we should live?

The speaker argues that acknowledging that some people are wrong about how we should live is not unscientific because it is based on the recognition that there are right and wrong ways to move along the continuum of possible experiences that affect well-being.

What does the speaker imply about the necessity of scientific values?

The speaker implies that scientific values, such as respect for evidence, logical consistency, and intellectual honesty, are necessary for the advancement of science and for making moral judgments based on scientific understanding.

How does the speaker view the role of science in addressing unnecessary human misery?

The speaker views science as having a crucial role in addressing unnecessary human misery by providing insights into the causes of well-being and misery, and by advocating for a scientific approach to morality that can lead to compassionate and effective solutions.

What is the speaker's stance on the idea that science cannot tell us what to value?

The speaker rejects the idea that science cannot tell us what to value, arguing that values are rooted in facts about the well-being of conscious creatures and that science can provide guidance on what we ought to value.

How does the speaker define 'the worst possible misery' and why is it significant?

The speaker defines 'the worst possible misery' as a state where every conscious creature suffers as much as possible for as long as possible. It is significant because it provides a clear example of a universally bad state, which helps to establish a baseline for moral judgments.

What is the speaker's view on the diversity of ways to achieve well-being?

The speaker acknowledges that there may be many different but equivalent ways to achieve well-being, represented as peaks on the moral landscape. However, they also emphasize that there are many more ways to not be on a peak, indicating that not all paths lead to well-being.

Outlines

00:00

🔬 The Illusion of Separation Between Science and Values

The speaker challenges the common belief that there is a problematic divide between science and human values. They argue that this separation is an illusion and that values can be reduced to facts about the well-being of conscious creatures. The speaker suggests that once there is consciousness, we can discuss changes that matter, and thus, there can be right and wrong, good and evil. They use the example of a universe where every conscious creature suffers to illustrate that such a state would be bad, and if 'bad' means anything, it applies to that situation. The speaker also addresses concerns about the well-being of conscious creatures not being well-defined, likening it to the concept of physical health, which is loosely defined and evolves with medical breakthroughs. They conclude by asserting that scientific truth does not rely on convincing everyone and that values such as respect for evidence, logical consistency, and intellectual honesty are part of science.

05:04

🗺️ The Moral Landscape and Human Well-Being

In this paragraph, the speaker discusses the concept of a moral landscape where the peaks represent the heights of human well-being and the valleys represent the depths of misery. They acknowledge that there may be many peaks, indicating different but equivalent ways to thrive, but also note that there are many more ways to not be on a peak. The speaker emphasizes that there are right and wrong answers about how to move in this space, and that some people are wrong about how we should live in this world. They argue that caring about the wrong things can lead to unnecessary human misery. The speaker concludes by stating that it is intellectually dishonest and a failure of compassion to withhold judgment on how we should live, given the unnecessary misery in the world. They call for a recognition of the real causes of well-being and misery across various levels, from genetics to economics and political systems.

Keywords

💡Science

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In the video, the speaker argues against the common belief that science is only capable of dealing with 'facts' and cannot address 'values'. The script suggests that science can indeed inform our understanding of values by studying the well-being of conscious creatures.

💡Human values

Human values refer to the principles or standards that individuals or societies consider worthwhile or desirable. The video discusses the misconception that human values are separate from the realm of science. The speaker posits that values are not only intertwined with science but can be grounded in the facts about conscious well-being.

💡Facts

Facts are pieces of information that can be objectively verified or proven. The script uses the term 'facts' to contrast with 'values', suggesting that while science is often seen as the domain of facts, it can also provide insights into values by examining the conditions that affect the well-being of conscious beings.

💡Conscious creatures

Conscious creatures are beings that possess awareness and the capacity to experience subjective states. The video argues that the presence of conscious creatures is essential for the existence of values. It is their capacity to experience change that allows for the discussion of right, wrong, good, and evil.

💡Well-being

Well-being refers to the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy. In the context of the video, well-being is central to the argument that values can be derived from facts. The speaker suggests that values are essentially about promoting the well-being of conscious creatures.

💡Misery

Misery is a state of extreme unhappiness or suffering. The script uses the concept of 'the worst possible misery for everyone' as an example to illustrate that values can be grounded in facts. It argues that such a state is universally recognized as bad, indicating a factual basis for moral judgments.

💡Moral intuitions

Moral intuitions are immediate judgments about the moral value of an action or character without conscious reasoning. The video suggests that our moral intuitions are aligned with the possibilities of experience, and that we are right to track these intuitions as they relate to the well-being of conscious beings.

💡Experience

Experience in this context refers to the events a person goes through in their life, especially those that are significant or influence their development. The video emphasizes that the value of experiences is central to determining right and wrong, as it is through experience that conscious creatures can suffer or thrive.

💡Scientific values

Scientific values are the principles that guide scientific inquiry, such as respect for evidence, logical consistency, and intellectual honesty. The script argues that science is not value-neutral but is itself based on certain values, which are essential for the scientific process to function.

💡Moral landscape

The moral landscape is a metaphor used in the video to describe the various states of well-being and misery that can exist in the world. Peaks represent optimal well-being, while valleys represent misery. The concept is used to argue that there are right and wrong ways to move through this landscape, implying a scientific approach to morality.

💡Unnecessary misery

Unnecessary misery refers to suffering that could be avoided. The video concludes by emphasizing the importance of recognizing and addressing unnecessary misery. It suggests that to ignore this aspect is not only intellectually dishonest but also a failure of compassion, given the preventable suffering in the world.

Highlights

The relationship between Science and Human values is often seen as problematic due to the perceived separation of facts and values.

The speaker argues that this separation is an illusion and that values can be reduced to facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.

In a universe with only rocks, there are no values, but the introduction of conscious minds allows for the concept of changes that matter.

The speaker suggests that we naturally value the experiences of our fellow primates more than insects due to their wider spectrum of experiences.

Moral intuitions should track the possibilities of experience, which the speaker believes is a correct approach.

The concept of the 'worst possible misery for everyone' is introduced as a philosophical assumption to argue against moral relativism.

The speaker asserts that everything else is better than the worst possible misery, establishing a basis for a science of morality.

The well-being of conscious creatures is compared to physical health, suggesting it's a concept that can evolve with scientific understanding.

The speaker points out that scientific truth does not rely on convincing everyone, using the example of evolution.

Science is in the values business, with values like logical consistency, intellectual honesty, and mathematical elegance.

There is a continuum of facts related to human well-being, which can be understood through various scientific disciplines.

The speaker proposes a moral landscape with peaks representing the heights of human well-being and valleys representing misery.

The existence of multiple peaks on the moral landscape suggests there may be many ways to thrive, but also many ways to cause misery.

The speaker argues that some people are wrong about how we should live, as they care about things that lead to human misery.

It is presented as unscientific and a failure of compassion to withhold judgment on what contributes to human well-being.

The speaker concludes by emphasizing the importance of scientific inquiry into human well-being to reduce unnecessary misery.

Transcripts

I'm going to talk to you tonight about the Relationship as I see it between Science and

Human values Many People Think This Relationship is Somehow

Problematic

Usually Because They Think that the Universe is Parceled Into These separate Quantities on The One Hand

We have facts Which Obviously Science Can deal With?

But on the other, We have values which?

Inconveniently for Us

Cover the Most Important Questions in Human life and it's Thought science Really Can't Touch These

Questions of Right and Wrong and [Good] and Evil the core Issues of how to raise our Children What Proper Goals

We should strive for in Life?

and it's thought [that]

While science May be able to help Us get what

We value it Can Never Tell Us what we Ought to Value?

and i want to push this Intuition Around but I think This Is an Illusion I think This

Split Between facts and values IS an Illusion I

Actually Think The Connection between facts and values is Actually Quite Straightforward

Values Reduced to facts They Reduce the facts About the Well-Being of Conscious Creatures and

If you just imagine a universe where There are Only Rocks

Clearly There There are no values in This Universe There's Nothing that Can Care about Change in The Universe the moment you get Conscious

Minds They Can Experience Change then, we Can Talk about Changes that Matter?

We Can Talk About right and Wrong and Good and Evil we Can Consider?

Is to value our

Changes [and]

Experience it to the degree [That] Experience Can Change so if We care more About our Fellow primates than

We do [About] insects as indeed, we do it's because

We believe They're Lay There to A wider spectrum of Changes in Experience?

And i think, we're Right to Feel that Way

[We're] Right to have our moral Intuitions track the Possibilities of Experience and if You doubt this I just ask you to consider

Imagine A Universe [in] Which Every Conscious Creature

Suffers as much as it Possibly Can for as long as it can

Yeah i call this the the worst possible Misery for Everyone?

Okay, the worst possible Misery for Everyone

Is Bad

Now if The Word Bad Means Anything it Applies to that Situation

Now if You think that the worst possible Misery for [Everyone] might not be Bad

Or it might be Good in The end

Or There might be Something Worse [I]

Don't know what you're Talking about and

And what's more I'm Pretty Sure You don't know what you're Talking [about] either?

Now this This it Seems to me is the only Philosophical Assumption you have to grant me the worst possible Misery for Everyone Is

Bad and

Everything Else Every other Possible State of The Universe is Better and

Given That The Experience of Conscious Minds is a natural Phenomenon

Emerging out of the way the Universe the way the universe Is and Is There is Constrained by the laws [of] Nature in some Way

Then They're Going to be right and Wrong Ways to move

Along This Continuum of Possible Experience

They're Going [to] be right answers to the Question of how to avoid the worst possible Misery and

Though it will be Possible to be Wrong in your efforts to avoid the worst possible Misery and

That's all we need for [a] science of?

Morality Now Some of You May be Concerned that This Notion of the Well-Being of Conscious Creatures is not

Well-defined Enough

Think by Analogy of Physical Health, okay Physical

Health as A concept Is very Loosely defined as a truly Elastic concept Which Changes as

We Make Breakthroughs in Medicine?

How Would you Convince someone With Terminal Smallpox that he's not as, Healthy as [you] are

We don't have to Convince?

We can't Convince a majority of The American Population that Evolution is A fact and yet Yet Biology thrives?

Scientific Truth Is not Predicated on Convincing Everyone

All, We can do in that Case is Appeal to Scientific values the most basic Scientific fact

Relies on

The Value of Understanding The Universe

The Value of Respect for Evidence But What Evidence Could, We put Forward if Someone doesn't Respect, evidence What evidence Could

We put Forward Proving that They Should?

If Someone doesn't Respect Logical Consistency What Logical Argument Can

We put Forward and

So too with Parsimony and Intellectual Honesty and Mathematical Elegance and other Areas of Science This is these are values

Science Is in the values Business

and

Clearly There's A continuum of facts that

Relate Most Directly To Human [Wellbeing] about which, We can [hat] With, We Can form True or False Beliefs?

There's There's Something to be Understood About how Societies Fail but How People Fail to Collaborate and

Movement on [that] Continuum is Non-Random

And This the Requisites of Human Well-Being Can [Clearly] be Understood on Many levels we're Talking About?

The Genome We're Talking about States of the Human Brain and we're Also Talking About Economic systems and Political arrangements

but each of These levels

Granted [Their] [Their] The Details Are Complex each falls Into

One of the familiar Bins of science We're Talking about Genetics in Neurobiology and Psychology and Sociology and Economics

This Captures

That our Possible Discussion About the real Causes of

Human and Animal Well-Being and

so what I would ask you to Consider is a moral Landscape Where the [Peaks] Correspond to the heights of

Human Well-Being to speak of our case and the Valleys Correspond to the lowest depths of Misery and

One Thing to Notice Is that there May in fact Be Many Peaks on this Landscape There May be Many

Equivalents but dissimilar Ways to thrive But [There] will Be Many more Ways not to be on a Peak i mean

Clearly There There Could Still be

Right and Wrong answers About how to Move in this Space and

When You admit This

You have to admit that

Some People are Wrong About how

We should live in This World Which Is to Say Some People Care about the wrong things They Care [about] things

That Reliably Lead to Needless Human Misery and it Is not Unscientific to Say that - in fact to

Withhold That Judgment From The Point of view of science Is

Tantamount to Saying We know Nothing About Human [wellbeing] and We are, We will never Know Anything about it and

That I think Is at this moment in History A

Intellectually Dishonest Thing to do and I think it's actually a Failure of Compassion given all of the Unnecessary Misery in the World

Thank you very much

you