His argument is well-thought out. His point that we as 'outsiders' have no right to determine what the true definition of 'well being' is. We have no right to judge another culture and say that they are wrong. Unless even they know that they are doing something bad.
Being ethnocentric is falacious because they have an entirely different belief core that they base their lives upon. Our social structures offer one paradigm to interpet the world and our values, and their beliefs are another paradigm.
We cannot say that they are truly right or wrong. It's perfectly OK to do what they do. It's also OK to do what we do normally, but it's not OK to decide that they are not good.
Because when we judge them, we are always judging them on our terms. By their beliefs, what we do is wrong, but we clearly do not think so.
There is no "right" way of well being. Different cultures have different beliefs that they feel are the right way. An example he used was when a daughter is raped in a middle eastern country the father murders them out of shame. Based on my religion that is something completely "wrong" and immoral, but in that country there beliefs are completely different they feel that is acceptable. The basics are that we need to think outside the box and not base things on our own beliefs or morals. We base there belifs on our terms so we think they are wrong, but if they were judging us theyd think we were the wrong ones.
He clearly thought out his argument and makes good points about the burqua. I completely disagree with him though because I do not believe that there is a universal "right and wrong." Science may help to generalize this topic but it can be completely universal. There will always be people who have different opinions and even as science and technology progresses, you can't fully have a universal truth. It will be cultural imperialism if you try to say what people do in their culture is morally wrong. Noone has the right to say that about someone else's culture.
I feel that his argument was very well thought out. the way he presented his ideas and beliefs was very easy to comprehend. I believe that there is no way to have one universal well being for every one in the world. Different cultures have different ways of being "well". From this statement we can say that every culture has different ways to be well. Saying that there is one universal well being for everyone is very ignorant. We only have our own way of being well and can't decide how others should do it too.
I agree with Tonyli "His point that we as 'outsiders' have no right to determine of 'well being' is." We as humans are very judgemental. We really do not have the right to judge any another culture and disagree with them. I feel that he really backed up and gave examples for his reasons. He tried to explain the different cultures and how diverse they are. One of the examples he gave was about women, how in Afghanistan they fully cover their whole bodies with a burka. In America, women these days bare their bodies on magazines and the internet. He explains about what rights do we have to judge these people. We cannot say one is wrong or right. He explains how science can give us some kind of answer. It is part of well being matters.
Human beings, despite what may cause pain to another, crave physical and mental bliss. The prusuit of happiness is the number one priority in all societies. It has become so important, pursuing happiness is now synonomis with survival; they are one in the same.
To live without happiness is the worst life imaginable by a present day human being. Watching porn on the internet is a form of happiness. Raping women and disregarding their feelings brings happiness (though twisted) to some people.
In Sam Harris' words, "Who are we not to question these practices?" But I disagree. Yes, rape is wrong. Hurting another is not okay. But if that is the only way a human can feel pleasure and escape the pain the mind gives to some, who ARE we to question this. We can try to stop it, but we can't tell these kinds of people that their method of becoming happy is wrong. Their well being may be questionable, it is not wrong. A mind that makes a person seek happiness in destruction and fear is not wrong, it is merely warped from the norm of humanity.
Sam Harris makes a point of saying that we can not determine what "well being" is. He makes a good point about women wearing a burque and because we have different views, cannot determine if these actions are right or wrong. I disagree with his statement in saying that there are universal rights and wrongs. Different cultures and beliefs can share completely opposite views so what makes one of them right and one of them wrong? Although science can help determine many things, i do not believe it can help in discovering correct morals.
He does not really directly link morality/value to well-being here. He avoids answering the question directly and seems to launch an ad hominem attack on critics who simply ask him to explain why well-being should matter to us and why morality and values should be based on this by comparing them to skeptics who question things like "If A=B, and B=C, then A=B"
I do like how he dismisses moral relativism, however. We should approach the issue of morality objectively and scientifically.
I feel that Harris has a very strong sense of ideas here when he states that science can prove that there is a universal "moral right and wrong." While many people disagree that science could possibly prove these points, I feel that they are missing a key point in Harris' argument. He stated when speaking about universal morally right and wrong actions, that "some opinions must be ignored." He proved this when talking about physics, stating that he could go into a physics convention and say that he completely feels that String theory is completely false. The fact is, his opinion in this case must be ignored. This could even be proven by Mr. Ross! At the beginning of this year, Mr. Ross told us that he feels that, "everyone has an opinion, but not everyone can prove it." That is the point that shows why some opinions must be ignored. And furthermore, Harris explained that if the physicists have an area of expertise, why can't it be the same in regards to morals? While some here argue that there cannot be one moral right and wrong, because most cultures completely disagree on what is and isnt morally right, there is one simple example that can prove this point false. Everyone has been in an argument before over a fact; both people are positive that they are correct and the other is completely wrong. But only one can truly be correct. But in the case of morals, the the two "people" are two seperate cultures. Both feel they are right, but in truth only one actually is correct. The problem is that at this point we do not know which one is actually the universally and morally right group. And it may be that neither are right, or that it is a mix of both. But the point is, we do not know what is the universal moral right yet, but Harris wants to prove to us that with science we can discover the morally right choices that society should be making. =)
I agree with Dave's statement, "Science may help to generalize this topic but it can be completely universal. There will always be people who have different opinions and even as science and technology progresses, you can't fully have a universal truth."
Harris makes excellent points in his response, but there is controversy in what he says, which he mentions at the beginning of his writing. Science does help expand the "overall human knowledge." When advances are made in science, advances are made in society. For example, when cell phones were created and the internet was made, society totally changed its form of communication. The same goes for ideas and concepts of science. When someone figures out something new or proves a theory, revealing new truths to the world, the people of society react and new ideas spring. There will always be opposing thoughts, though. There are people who will stray away from the norm of what the general public believes is right from wrong. Different cultures and religions may alter one's idea of morality, because culture and religion do not revolve completely around science.
The idea of right and wrong, good and evil, is not universal. There are people and groups who's ideas do not fully match with the present idea of morality.
His argument is well-thought out. His point that we as 'outsiders' have no right to determine what the true definition of 'well being' is. We have no right to judge another culture and say that they are wrong. Unless even they know that they are doing something bad.
ReplyDeleteBeing ethnocentric is falacious because they have an entirely different belief core that they base their lives upon. Our social structures offer one paradigm to interpet the world and our values, and their beliefs are another paradigm.
We cannot say that they are truly right or wrong. It's perfectly OK to do what they do. It's also OK to do what we do normally, but it's not OK to decide that they are not good.
Because when we judge them, we are always judging them on our terms.
By their beliefs, what we do is wrong, but we clearly do not think so.
There is no "right" way of well being. Different cultures have different beliefs that they feel are the right way. An example he used was when a daughter is raped in a middle eastern country the father murders them out of shame. Based on my religion that is something completely "wrong" and immoral, but in that country there beliefs are completely different they feel that is acceptable. The basics are that we need to think outside the box and not base things on our own beliefs or morals. We base there belifs on our terms so we think they are wrong, but if they were judging us theyd think we were the wrong ones.
ReplyDeleteHe clearly thought out his argument and makes good points about the burqua. I completely disagree with him though because I do not believe that there is a universal "right and wrong." Science may help to generalize this topic but it can be completely universal. There will always be people who have different opinions and even as science and technology progresses, you can't fully have a universal truth. It will be cultural imperialism if you try to say what people do in their culture is morally wrong. Noone has the right to say that about someone else's culture.
ReplyDeleteI feel that his argument was very well thought out. the way he presented his ideas and beliefs was very easy to comprehend. I believe that there is no way to have one universal well being for every one in the world. Different cultures have different ways of being "well". From this statement we can say that every culture has different ways to be well. Saying that there is one universal well being for everyone is very ignorant. We only have our own way of being well and can't decide how others should do it too.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tonyli "His point that we as 'outsiders' have no right to determine of 'well being' is."
ReplyDeleteWe as humans are very judgemental. We really do not have the right to judge any another culture and disagree with them. I feel that he really backed up and gave examples for his reasons. He tried to explain the different cultures and how diverse they are. One of the examples he gave was about women, how in Afghanistan they fully cover their whole bodies with a burka. In America, women these days bare their bodies on magazines and the internet.
He explains about what rights do we have to judge these people. We cannot say one is wrong or right. He explains how science can give us some kind of answer. It is part of well being matters.
Human beings, despite what may cause pain to another, crave physical and mental bliss. The prusuit of happiness is the number one priority in all societies. It has become so important, pursuing happiness is now synonomis with survival; they are one in the same.
ReplyDeleteTo live without happiness is the worst life imaginable by a present day human being. Watching porn on the internet is a form of happiness. Raping women and disregarding their feelings brings happiness (though twisted) to some people.
In Sam Harris' words, "Who are we not to question these practices?" But I disagree. Yes, rape is wrong. Hurting another is not okay. But if that is the only way a human can feel pleasure and escape the pain the mind gives to some, who ARE we to question this. We can try to stop it, but we can't tell these kinds of people that their method of becoming happy is wrong. Their well being may be questionable, it is not wrong. A mind that makes a person seek happiness in destruction and fear is not wrong, it is merely warped from the norm of humanity.
Sam Harris makes a point of saying that we can not determine what "well being" is. He makes a good point about women wearing a burque and because we have different views, cannot determine if these actions are right or wrong. I disagree with his statement in saying that there are universal rights and wrongs. Different cultures and beliefs can share completely opposite views so what makes one of them right and one of them wrong? Although science can help determine many things, i do not believe it can help in discovering correct morals.
ReplyDeleteHe does not really directly link morality/value to well-being here. He avoids answering the question directly and seems to launch an ad hominem attack on critics who simply ask him to explain why well-being should matter to us and why morality and values should be based on this by comparing them to skeptics who question things like "If A=B, and B=C, then A=B"
ReplyDeleteI do like how he dismisses moral relativism, however. We should approach the issue of morality objectively and scientifically.
I feel that Harris has a very strong sense of ideas here when he states that science can prove that there is a universal "moral right and wrong." While many people disagree that science could possibly prove these points, I feel that they are missing a key point in Harris' argument. He stated when speaking about universal morally right and wrong actions, that "some opinions must be ignored." He proved this when talking about physics, stating that he could go into a physics convention and say that he completely feels that String theory is completely false. The fact is, his opinion in this case must be ignored. This could even be proven by Mr. Ross! At the beginning of this year, Mr. Ross told us that he feels that, "everyone has an opinion, but not everyone can prove it." That is the point that shows why some opinions must be ignored. And furthermore, Harris explained that if the physicists have an area of expertise, why can't it be the same in regards to morals? While some here argue that there cannot be one moral right and wrong, because most cultures completely disagree on what is and isnt morally right, there is one simple example that can prove this point false. Everyone has been in an argument before over a fact; both people are positive that they are correct and the other is completely wrong. But only one can truly be correct. But in the case of morals, the the two "people" are two seperate cultures. Both feel they are right, but in truth only one actually is correct. The problem is that at this point we do not know which one is actually the universally and morally right group. And it may be that neither are right, or that it is a mix of both. But the point is, we do not know what is the universal moral right yet, but Harris wants to prove to us that with science we can discover the morally right choices that society should be making. =)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dave's statement, "Science may help to generalize this topic but it can be completely universal. There will always be people who have different opinions and even as science and technology progresses, you can't fully have a universal truth."
ReplyDeleteHarris makes excellent points in his response, but there is controversy in what he says, which he mentions at the beginning of his writing. Science does help expand the "overall human knowledge." When advances are made in science, advances are made in society. For example, when cell phones were created and the internet was made, society totally changed its form of communication. The same goes for ideas and concepts of science. When someone figures out something new or proves a theory, revealing new truths to the world, the people of society react and new ideas spring. There will always be opposing thoughts, though. There are people who will stray away from the norm of what the general public believes is right from wrong. Different cultures and religions may alter one's idea of morality, because culture and religion do not revolve completely around science.
The idea of right and wrong, good and evil, is not universal. There are people and groups who's ideas do not fully match with the present idea of morality.