Sam Harris is Wrong About Morality (It Can't Be Objective)

To anybody who supports (or even considers supporting) my channel monetarily, thank you. I am naturally grateful for any engagement with my work, but it is specifically people like you that allow me to do what I do, and to do so whilst avoiding sponsorship.

--------------------------------------VIDEO NOTES--------------------------------------

This is a discussion that necessarily involves confusion, conflicting definitions and misunderstanding. I'll be discussing this further with different people very soon, which should hopefully clarify things further.

To further emphasise: though I focus on Harris' argument here, the same logic can be applied to any attempt to define 'good' and 'bad' with reference to observable facts about the universe.

--------------------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------CONNECT---------------------------------------------

SOCIAL LINKS:

Snapchat: cosmicskeptic

----------------------------------------CONTACT----------------------------------------

Or send me something:

Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[CosmicSkeptic]

Take a shot every time I say 'objective'. By the way, to those criticising Sam Harris in the comments by pointing to masochists, that doesn't discount Harris' point, since their 'pain' is actually pleasure (i.e. it doesn't affect Harris' premise).

[japanuke]

I pretend like I'm smart when I listen to these videos :)

[chaotic_enby]

“Why is feeling good objectively good?”

Brave new world intensifes

[georgevourtzoumis]

What i really like about you alex is that the way you are speak doesnt put your interlocutor in defence position, which is a very important characteristic for a debator such as yourself.

[toshi]

This is why every "should" needs to be preceded by an "if" in order to be objectively true.

If you want to avoid pain, you should not touch the stove.

[DitisEmile]

I've always believed Morality (Good and Bad) is subjective and you really helped me understand it better on a philosophical level, too! :D

[richardbloemenkamp]

This totally confirms what I thought already. Great to end with an upward note that even without an objective morality, we can come a long way with a shared subjective opinion and a willingness to be consistent.

[ulmo]

I’m a big fan of Sam Harris and I like that you challenge him. You should try to get on his podcast, ”waking up”.

[SyntaxNexus]

Can't this argument be simplified down to the question "If there are no conscious beings in the universe does morality exist?" Is morality objective or subjective without consciousness?

[JackSack-wh]

Coming back to this after Alex had a chat with Sam in person lol

[rudiyardley]

You have been able to clearly articulate my intuitive discontent during reading the moral landscape. Much appreciated!

[The-Rest-of-Us]

If every consciousness in existence agreed that blueberries taste great, then your differentiation between objective and subjective doesn’t make any sense, because ‘the taste of a blueberry’ doesn’t exist independently from consciousness.
Have raised this concern before in the comment section of one of your other vids on the subject. Would love to hear your response.

[docotrot]

_"For something to be objectively true, it means that that truth is in no way influenced by human opinion. So if that truth is a human opinion, it can't be objective."_

What you're really trying to anser is the question "Is morality absolute?" rather than "Is morality objective?". The former question is akin to asking "What's outside the limits of the universe?" (provided there is a limit); it's a fundamentally flawed question that lacks an answer by definition. Morality, by its very definition, is inseparable from consciousness. Thus, it's not meaningful to talk about morality _without_ (or beyond) human influence, much the same way it's not meaningful to talk about what's outside the boundaries of everything that exists.

[arushan]

Sam Harris' objective morality is not something that exists objectively, but instead it is a set of values derived from objective facts. Also, inner experience/ qualia is PART OF objective reality.

[aworldofpureimagination]

I think morality will always come down to some combination of empathy, which is biologically based, and evolutionary survival of our species.

[andresvillarreal]

I just remembered, the only time in my life that I begged for pain medication I had a severe case of gallstones so my gallbladder was completely infected and could have burst and killed me. Therefore I can objectively say that pain saved my life, and therefore pain is good.

In reality, pain is neither good nor bad, it is the consequence of good and bad and neutral phenomena. Sam Harris did what we loathe about religious preachers: an argument from emotion.

[raduantoniu]

I think I agree with your position. You don't like the term "objective" because it implies something could be "good" in the universe even without conscious mind to assign "goodness" to it. That doesn't make sense because nothing is good or bad outside of subjective experience. A term like "universally subjectively good" would be a better term. However, practically there's no difference between the two, at least as far as I can see. Unfortunately, because many philosophers take issue with the term "objective", I think the public dismisses Sam's position too quickly and misses out on the value of the message behind it.

[OsefKincaid]

Sometimes I go down memory lane and remember that a bunch of atheists used to think that Sam Harris made sense in general just because he presented himself as an atheist

[BionicDance]

The only part I disagree with is limiting it to _human_ understanding.
There are plenty of non-human animals--and, who knows, someday we might be aliens--which display moral behavior.

Other than that, bravo.

[cj]

This was a fun video to watch simply because I think this might be one of the rare moments where I actually think Alex is wrong.

As I understand it, Harris grounds all of his "objective morality" claims in the subjective basis of human well-being. There's nothing that can be independently, objectively said about the human condition because it is an entirely subjective domain. When he says we should do anything, he is saying this in accordance with the assumption that we are concerned with well-being. If we instead say that we are entirely unconcerned with well-being, then I think Harris would agree that we wouldn't have an objective morality (nor do we have any morality, because we are then essentially accepting nihilism). But, since morality is entirely concerned with the behaviour of humans, and because humans intrinsically want to maximize their own well-being, we can make objective assessments as to whether actions will increase or decrease well-being. Therefore, objective morality arises from a subjective goal of well-being.