How does Sam Harris distinguish between epistemological and ontological objectivity?

Epistemological objectivity concerns how we know what is true, focusing on evidence and argument without bias. Ontological objectivity relates to what exists, and Harris argues science is committed to the former but not necessarily the latter, meaning it can study subjective experiences objectively.

Is morality subjective according to Sam Harris?

Harris posits that morality is subjective in the ontological sense (it's not found in physical objects but in conscious experience), but it can still be studied objectively (epistemologically), meaning we can make true or false claims about it.

Can science determine preferences like ice cream flavors or comedy?

Yes, Harris suggests that while cultural variation exists, basic principles of human preference and amusement, like laughter, are rooted in the human mind and brain and can be scientifically studied. This understanding could eventually allow us to change preferences.

How can we achieve a better human life according to Harris?

Harris outlines three projects: describing morality, understanding how good human life can be (and how to maximize well-being), and persuading people to adopt better commitments. He believes the latter is most crucial and relies on understanding objective moral truths.

Why does Sam Harris reject skepticism about moral truth?

He argues that skepticism is often based on fallacies and double standards, and has negative consequences, such as hindering progress on universal human rights. He believes moral progress is possible and necessary for a global civilization.

What is the fundamental sphere of moral concern?

Harris asserts that consciousness is the only valid context for discussing morality and values. The well-being of conscious creatures is the ultimate basis for determining what is right and wrong.

Key Moments

Facts & Values: Clarifying the Moral Landscape (Episode #364)

Sam Harris

Science & Technology4 min read29 min video

Apr 23, 2024|66,593 views|1,470|418

sam harris sam harris podcast waking up podcast waking up waking up with sam harris sam harris waking up waking up sam harris sam harris jordan peterson sam harris joe rogan author neuroscientist philosopher

Save to Pod

Key Moments

TL;DR

Sam Harris argues for objective moral truths based on well-being, challenging the fact-value distinction.

Key Insights

Moral truths are objective and can be understood scientifically, rooted in the reality of consciousness and well-being.

There's a crucial distinction between epistemological objectivity (how we know) and ontological objectivity (what exists).

Science relies on axiomatic epistemic values (coherence, simplicity) which are not derived from objective facts themselves.

Morality is not arbitrary taste; it concerns how conscious beings flourish, implying universal principles for well-being.

Failures of will or motivation do not negate the existence of moral truths, just as they don't negate truths about weight loss.

The ultimate goal of morality is persuasion towards better lives and a flourishing global civilization.

THE REALITY OF MORAL TRUTH AND OBJECTIVITY

Sam Harris revisits the core argument of his book, 'The Moral Landscape,' asserting that objective truths about right and wrong exist. He contends that concepts like 'good' and 'evil' can be understood objectively, challenging the traditional separation of facts and values. This position is grounded in the nature of consciousness and its capacity for well-being and suffering, which are seen as natural phenomena constrained by physical laws. Therefore, moral progress is possible and desirable.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL VERSUS ONTOLOGICAL OBJECTIVITY

Harris distinguishes between two senses of objectivity: epistemological, concerning how we acquire knowledge without bias, and ontological, referring to the nature of reality itself. Science is committed to epistemological objectivity in analyzing evidence, but not necessarily to ontological objectivity, as it can and should study subjective experiences objectively. This framework allows for objective claims about consciousness and morality, even if they aren't purely physical objects.

THE ROLE OF EPISTEMIC VALUES IN SCIENCE

Scientific inquiry is underpinned by certain epistemic values like coherence, simplicity, and predictive power. These values are axiomatic, meaning science presupposes them rather than discovering or justifying them. This challenges the strict fact-value dichotomy, as these fundamental principles guiding scientific investigation are themselves not objective facts derived from empirical observation but rather a chosen framework for understanding. They shape what counts as valid scientific knowledge.

WELL-BEING AS THE FOUNDATION OF MORALITY

The argument posits that morality is intrinsically linked to the well-being of conscious creatures. Suffering and flourishing are natural phenomena that can be studied. While critics question the arbitrary selection of well-being as the foundation, Harris suggests that any coherent understanding of conscious experience would necessarily prioritize certain states over others. If a preference led to maximal flourishing, it would be objectively better than one that did not, cutting through relativism.

MORAL TRUTHS DESPITE MOTIVATIONAL FAILURES

Harris draws an analogy between knowing moral truths and knowing truths about personal goals, like losing weight. Just because an individual might lack the motivation to act on this knowledge (e.g., by choosing ice cream over dieting) does not invalidate the truth of the goal or the process. Similarly, failures of will or motivation regarding moral imperatives do not mean those moral truths do not exist. The truth of what constitutes well-being is distinct from our ability or desire to pursue it.

THREE PROJECTS: DESCRIPTION, UNDERSTANDING, AND PERSUASION

The discussion outlines three distinct but related projects concerning morality. The first is descriptive: understanding current moral behaviors and beliefs. The second, and Harris's focus, is normative: understanding how human life *could* be good and how to maximize well-being, thereby identifying objective moral truths. The third, and arguably most crucial, is the project of persuasion: convincing individuals and societies to adopt better, more ethical commitments for collective flourishing.

CHALLENGING ETHICAL SKEPTICISM AND RELATIVISM

Harris criticizes the intellectual movement that suggests objective moral truth is impossible. He argues this view leads to detrimental consequences, such as the inability to formulate universal human rights, especially in the wake of atrocities. This ethical skepticism is framed as a fallacy, akin to rejecting physics because of differing creationist interpretations. The diversity of opinions about morality does not negate the possibility of objective truth, particularly when defined by the goal of maximizing human flourishing.

THE ARBITRARINESS OF CONSCIOUSNESS AS A STARTING POINT

A fundamental aspect of the 'Moral Landscape' argument is prioritizing the well-being of conscious creatures. Harris defends this as a non-arbitrary starting point for moral consideration. The core idea is that consciousness is the only context in which suffering and well-being can be experienced, making it the essential locus for moral evaluation. Alternative starting points are not as logically coherent or relevant to the experience of value.

Mentioned in This Episode

●Organizations

●Books

●People Referenced

Common Questions

Sam Harris argues that there are objective right and wrong answers to questions about human values, and that these values can be scientifically determined because they are rooted in the conscious experience of well-being and suffering.