SAM HARRIS - Human Values
Summary
TLDRThe 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
🔬 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.
🗺️ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Science
💡Human values
💡Facts
💡Conscious creatures
💡Well-being
💡Misery
💡Moral intuitions
💡Experience
💡Scientific values
💡Moral landscape
💡Unnecessary misery
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
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)