TED Talks: Sam Harris Asserts That Science Can Answer Moral Questions At TED 2010 (VIDEO)

Best known as an outspoken atheist and the author of The End of Faith, writer-turned-neuroscientist Sam Harris has echoed the assertion, normally associated with religious thinkers, that humans need a universal system of morality. At the 2010 TED conference held last month in Long Beach, California, Harris claimed that there are definite right and wrong answers to moral questions. "Values are a certain kind of fact," he argued.

However, Harris quickly rejected the notion that religion would offer the answers to moral questions. Instead, he argued for a scientific approach to achieving a universal morality, one that conceptualizes human well-being as something that can be quantified and maximized in any number of equally successful ways -- much like health and nutrition.

He criticized the tendency to regard moral questions as matters of opinion rather than as questions that have scientifically verifiable right and wrong answers. "How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise, or moral talent, or moral genius, even?" he asked. "How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count?"

"Just admitting that there are right and wrong answers to the question of how humans flourish will change the way we talk about morality," he said.

Watch the entire talk below:

Comments

[TwinsFan7]

01:40 PM on 05/17/2010

I agree with the overall sentiment of Harris' talk, but I disagree with calling it 'science.' What he's talking about is moral philosophy - an already-established, reason-based system for answering tough moral questions while maintaining objectivity. I agree that science can be a part of it - if we know y about x through science, then z might be morally true (e.g. If we know that killing leads to immense pain, then killing is immensely wrong), and that both scientists and philosophers should become more familiar with each others' processes, but the two fields shouldn't be considered the same.

[ArthurTwoShedsJackson]

09:54 AM on 03/26/2010

No doubt if Sam Harris was afforded more time he would have also addressed the one "value" the most powerful religious entities treasure above all others: SELF-PRESERVATION.

To Sam Harris' point, a scientific analysis of the long term physical and emotional trauma children experience from being repeatedly saw dumb iced by an adult would easily lead one to the conclusion it is an egregiously terrible crime that should be punished harshly. Of course, the entity that employs and protects a vast number of people who have commited this crime for decades has for those decaides concealed these crimes, enabled them to continue unabated, and today is instead circling the wagons, supremely concerned with self-preservation.

[ArthurTwoShedsJackson]

10:04 AM on 03/26/2010

I'll go futher: that anaysis of the depths of pain those children endured and still suffer from as adults will lead directly to empathy - the ability to put oneself in the place of those suffering and act in that person's interests over our own to help them however possible. In sharp contrast, those responsible in the above noted decades-long scandals are concerned only with 'how will this affect my employer and me?' and 'what damage control can be done to make this all go away?'

[Ichthus77]

06:53 PM on 03/26/2010

Self-preservation...or fear, for that matter, is not a 'moral' motivation, even when combined with empathy and cooperation (consider a mother who protects her child to the point that the child never learns from their mistakes, consider the sort of cooperation called 'conspiracy'). Golden Rule love is the only moral motivation. But does the Golden Rule correspond to anything in reality--or is it a mere abstraction? If there is no "real" ought, then Harris, and all believers in objective truth, commit the fallacy of reification. See my comment below where I mention that Harris' view contitutes a modern day Euthyphro Dilemma with Dawkins' view.

[MsVella]

03:43 PM on 03/25/2010

Morality is created partly by biology and partly by the society in question. I don't know why this is an issue.

[johnsopinion]

12:47 PM on 03/25/2010

DANG! I was with him right up and until he equated the brain
as the mind.

That has got to be the most absurd and repugnant idea that
anyone, scientist or religious scholar or wannabee ever devised.

The ABSOLUTE mechanization of man!

Feeling tired, run down?
It's not your fault! Switch to KUREZAL!
Feeling depressed over your dead parent?
It's not your fault! Switch to KUREZAL!
Have cancer?
It's not your fault! Switch to KUREZAL!
Can't make it to the party this week?
It's not your fault! Switch to KUREZAL!
Son failing Geography?
It's not his fault! Give him KUREZAL!

Sheeeeesh!

'Each person has a unique, natural, native way of dealing
with the universe, and of relating to reality.'
"Each reality is completely unique for every individual, and
through his own actions he attempts therefore to communicate
the nature of this reality of his to his fellows."

And Mr. Sam Harris is standing proof.

Have you had YOUR oil checked lately?

[Etruscate]

12:30 AM on 03/26/2010

I'm confused... if the brain is equivalent to the mind, that doesn't mean we should just drug ourselves up all the time. For a lot of things, drugs aren't even that effective, since they're just sort of a hack.

[Julia Bailey]

09:51 AM on 03/25/2010

Morality exists in nature. Watch a group of piranhas together. They don't eat each other. And its not because God told them 'do not eat each other'.

[Roy Piper]

12:28 AM on 03/25/2010

The author is incorrect if he said "something came from nothing." There is no evidence of this. Before a few milliseconds before the Big Bang began science has no evidence of what existed.

[Etruscate]

12:48 AM on 03/25/2010

Yep, the scientific consensus on what happened prior to the big bang is "we don't know."

[I am Just Joan]

09:44 PM on 03/24/2010

I think that the difference in morality between theists and atheists is best said this way:

Theists can make an error, sin, trespass, whatever, and have a procedure in place to repent, atone, perhaps pay a penance, and receive forgiveness and absolution from their supernatural being of choice. They get a cosmic mulligan, so to speak. Their slates are wiped clean, whether they are washed in the blood of the lamb or subject to the Rule of Three.

Atheists don't have the luxury of a do-over. If I steal, I am forever a thief. If I cheat, I am forever a cheater. I can apologize and make restitution in some way to the victim of my crime or error, but my only comfort is the efforts I make in my own life not to repeat such a transgression.

Doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing is heady reward, indeed.

[cabinetmaniac]

12:01 PM on 03/25/2010

Well said.

1st fan.

:-]

[Bumper2]

09:32 PM on 03/24/2010

“Something came from nothing to create the universe. Then on earth, some matter miraculously transforms from non-living matter into living matter, then the first cell, which is made up of over 1 trillion molecules is formed. No reason or logic behind it, just a random occurrence.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it.”

[GSR]

10:44 PM on 03/24/2010

And did something come from nothing to create your creator?

[Ichthus77]

10:49 PM on 03/24/2010

Argument from design aside... The creator is not physical and has no beginning. Science, even the cyclic model, admits the physical universe has a beginning.

[Bumper2]

11:45 PM on 03/24/2010

The first law of thermodynamics is "something cannot come from nothing". This is a universal law. My creator is not bound by the limitations of the universe in which he created.

[GSR]

09:26 PM on 03/24/2010

It's marvelous that so many well-written books on religion, authored by atheists have appeared in the last 5 years and have sold so well.
Sam Harris was compelling at TED with not a syllable wasted.

[Julia Bailey]

09:48 AM on 03/25/2010

More money has been made on tabloids talking about movie stars. Perhaps those are our new Gods.

[johnsopinion]

12:50 PM on 03/25/2010

Or maybe it's the money itself?

[ArthurTwoShedsJackson]

09:56 AM on 03/26/2010

Fixed:

More money has been made on books by right wing hay temedia talking about "ev1l leebruls". Perhaps those right wingers are your new gods.

[goodmorningsunshine]

07:32 PM on 03/24/2010

Morality to me is always self-evidenced.

[Franklin1776]

08:00 PM on 03/24/2010

Same here. "don't shoot me in the face and I won't shoot you in the face" seems very self-evident to me. Wonder why some folks need "god" to figure this one out?

[Conrad Doudin]

01:06 AM on 03/25/2010

It isn't very self evident. Just look at the history of the last 100 years.

[mrman]

06:01 PM on 03/24/2010

I have been a fan of Sam Harris's for a very long time. He is BRILLIANT. (a simple fact no flattery involved) To see him live is really a treat. His cool, stoic delivery keeps you on the edge of you seat as you wait for him to turn the knife. We could really use him on a much larger scale.

[johnsopinion]

12:52 PM on 03/25/2010

"He is BRILLIANT. (a simple fact no flattery involved)"

It requires a comparitive act on your part.

[anticapitalist1983]

05:24 PM on 03/24/2010

atheism wins every time!

[HorseChowda]

05:50 PM on 03/24/2010

Makes me proud!

[goodmorningsunshine]

07:33 PM on 03/24/2010

Proud to say I'm an atheist.

[Ichthus77]

04:31 PM on 03/24/2010

Harris' view is countered by Richard Dawkins' view, that we cannot find objective moral truth in nature. This constitutes a modern-day Euthyphro Dilemma: www.examiner.com/x-26772-San-Francisco-Apologetics-Examiner~y2010m3d23-Harris-versus-Dawkins-modern-day-Euthyphro-dilemma?cid=examiner-email

[loutreverte]

05:41 PM on 03/24/2010

Notice that atheists who share Harris' assessment and people who agree with Dawkins will merely argue about it without even a remote risk of violence. Compare that to both historical and contemporary actions when religious people disagree over something.

[Ichthus77]

06:33 PM on 03/24/2010

Hi loutreverte. :) Just wanted to clarify that I am not an atheist, although I did used to be. I don't think all religious people fit your description of arguing violently, nor do all atheists fit your description of arguing peacefully, but it is a side-issue. Do you have any thoughts about the Euthyphro dilemma between Harris and Dawkins?

[Niqueth]

11:25 PM on 03/24/2010

In that context it is a false dilemma. There are a range of alternatives and solutions. Perhaps various moralities emerge as a result of particular social structures. In this way it would be both relative and objective.

[Ichthus77]

01:18 PM on 03/26/2010

If moral truth is both relative and objective, that means it is both fiction (plain morality) and non-fiction (moral truth). The Golden Rule is non-fiction, interwoven with cultural variations which correspond to it. But what 'real ought' does moral truth correspond to? Harris commits the fallacy of reification, if his moral truth corresponds to nothing real.

[Dangerous Dan]

03:31 PM on 03/24/2010

Scientificly, Might you agree that we have a physical body?
.
Do we have an electrical motivation force that animates our body and allows us cognitive thinking?
.
Do we have an eternal, spiritual element that transends our mortal body, or are we animals that cease to exist at death?

[Etruscate]

03:38 PM on 03/24/2010

I think we can agree that we have bodies. As for the rest, we don't really know.

[ket0000]

07:30 PM on 03/24/2010

we cease to exist. and it's not a bad thing. we didn't exist for billions of years and i didn't feel a thing - you?

[Lakeview Greg]

02:56 PM on 03/24/2010

The all-knowing atheist is just as annoying as the all-knowing believer.
Sheesh.

[Etruscate]

03:02 PM on 03/24/2010

Which all knowing atheist? Are you talking about the person in the video?

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong here) he was proposing that we use scientific methodology to find answers to moral questions.

You know, "find," as in, not "already possess."

No atheist has ever cited divine revelation as a source of guidance.

[Hirnlego]

03:04 PM on 03/24/2010

Atheists above all say "we must study it more".
Ever hear that at a church?

[Dangerous Dan]

03:25 PM on 03/24/2010

Every time I attend.
My pastor says," Don't take my word for it, study it more, and find out for yourself."
I just use different source material than you.

[Jeff the Baptist]

08:08 PM on 03/24/2010

All the time. I have never been to a church that didn't have a library. I have never been to one that didn't encourage people to be students and continually learning. Just because they don't agree with you about something doesn't mean they haven't given it a lot of thought both individually and collectively.