Hello and welcome to the first episode of
analysis paralysis.
Today we are going to deconstruct an aspect
of the debate on morality between Sam Harris
and Jordan Peterson.
If you are not familiar with the 'ought from
an is' issue in moral philosophy do check
it out first as it is not going to be covered
in this video.
Sam Harris claims that the only presupposition
he needs to ground his morality is:
[1] "the worst possible misery for everyone
is bad" where 'everyone' stands for conscious
creatures.
We will refer to this presupposition as [1]
We can now attempt to derive certain moral
statements from [1]:
During Sam's discussions with David Benatar
and his antinatalism proposition
he repeatedly argues on why conscious creatures
should exist.
Now Harris does not here explicitly state
that conscious beings should not be annihilated
or phased out of existence by avoiding reproduction.
But that is indeed his belief. Here is an
audio excerpt from his discussion with David
I think it is clear that what Hariss subscribes to is the
proposition that:
[2] Consciousness is inherently valuable.
But of course that is not an argument that
is derived by [1].
In his book the moral landscape Harris states
that "consciousness is the only intelligible
domain of value" and we can agree on that.
But it doesn't logically follow that this
domain of value 'ought' itself to be preserved.
Where is Harris getting this presupposition
from? If it is not based on [1] then what
is it based on?
Let's examine a different case:
Is it morally wrong to use a portion of the
population as an energy source for the rest
of humanity?
Half of conscious beings will be imprisoned
but the other half will thrive and even reach
new heights of well being.
Let's assume a system that allows no possibility
of revolution from the enslaved.
Having listened to Sam Harris for years I
believe his answer will clearly be that this
kind of world is morally wrong.
Even assuming that the enslaved people are
sedated so that they do not feel pain, it
still seems wrong!
So what is morally wrong about it?
We can be certain that Harris can improvise
an answer but the question is "Can he answer
on the basis on his moral philosophy"?
In other words: Can we base an answer to [1]
or even [2]?
Not really.
When it comes to [1] this scenario is not
the worst possible misery for ALL conscious
beings so I guess.. whatever..
As for [2], consciousness in general is retained
and even developed just not ALL consciousness.
There seems to be another moral presupposition
snicking in.
Something akin to:
[3] Every conscious being is inherently valuable
and deserves a chance to express its potential.
Not just 'consciousness is inherently valuable'
but 'individual consciousness is inherently
valuable'.
Why?
Let's revisit [1], [2] and [3] and put them
in religious terminology such as the one used
by Jordan Peterson.
(Just a reminder here that I am not claiming
that these statements are literally true.)
[1] is quite simple. We should strive towards
God and not towards Satan. Towards the Kingdom
of God and not towards Hell.
As for [2] and [3], they can be summarised
as
Consciousness is sacred.
It is part and manifestation of the divine
as can be found at the core of every individual.
Though Harris claims to be able to derive
everything from his ground statement [1] in
reality he is making a multiplicity of additional
assumptions.
We have here looked at just a few examples
and traced them back to religious morality.
The complexity of the subject becomes apparent
when we look at specific cases of interactions
between conscious beings.
As an exercise you can examine how other virtues
that Harris espouses such as patience, humility
and honesty do not seem to be logically derived
from [1] either.
Now, to be clear, I am not saying that it
is impossible to, in principal, derive these
values from rational discourse or scientific
evidence.
I am saying that the fact that we haven't
done so as of yet, but we are nevertheless
acting them out, is a clear indication that
their source is not rational or scientific.
I hope after this analysis Jordan Peterson's
claim that Sam's morality is in essence based
on Judeo Christian moral presuppositions does
not seem that absurd.
Thank you for watching!
