Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape

[Cory Duchesne]

Most of you have given this consideration by now, just curious to hear who here sees it like I do.

Harris amazes me in his very first premise - "conscious well being is morally good." Everything rests on that first premise, and it doesn't take much thought to see it isn't scientific. How can he not see it? He's acting like a politician. We evolved from apes that sought happiness through domination and seeking submission, and I think that's partly what Harris is doing, seeking to dominate the crowd through rhetoric, and drawing them to submit to specialists. Baboons and Apes make themselves happy by making their peers miserable. That's nature - it's an expression of unconsciousness, and happiness and sadness seems besides the point.

I will also say this, having my mind wounded when I was young did great things for me, and motivated me to seek higher mental states, and those mental states, while enthralling for the chase and initial insights, brought great anxiety, sadness and fear. And I don't consider the suffering morally bad. What I think is morally bad is submission to human authority of any kind, including scientists, because we can't understand the neuroscience that even Harris lacks a confident grasp on. There is so much unknown.

My view: good could be defined as what feels good. But good can also be defined as "increased consciousness".

Here's the thing: as you know, increased consciousness doesn't always feel good, it might in fact feel terrible. What makes us most happy is to submit and dominate, and that's because our ancestors evolved that way. Is Harris pointing this out? No, he's not.

For some lucky people, being more conscious "might" make them happier. For many others, it likely won't.

More realistically, happiness and sadness swing and flux through the course of our lives so much that happiness seems like a poor, and mostly irrelevant, moral target to aim for anyway.

Why not state the moral good is increased consciousness? Such a statement would probably not be good for Harris's popularity, for it would imply that people are immoral for not growing their minds, which hardly anyone aspires to.

Happiness comes and goes, it's incidental.

We should all be suspicious that a guy like Harris, who attack common values while preaching happiness, has an ego supported by lucrative careers, adoring wife, healthy children, celebrity and accolades. Is it possible that what's making him happy has less to do with science, and more to do with the emotional perks he gets from his unusual levels of fortune, power and influence? Can everyone have that? Clearly not.

Harris doesn't explore these issues. He would be wise to consider what Nietzsche said about compassion for all:

'Compassion for all' would amount to rigor and tyranny for you, my dear neighbor! - FN

Harris needs to accept that science makes most people either a) bored or b) unhappy, while religion fills people with security, mystery, empowerment, warmth and hope.

Everything I'm saying I don't see Harris exploring, likely because it would be more stressful for him. That's just my perspective obviously. People should express their individuality as they wish, and what will be will be. When people act fully, from the inside, they bring out the extremes in everyone. How much heroic action and thought on the human condition did Hitler inspire? Everyone should act fully, the good and bad, and let nature play itself out.

And we don't know the nature of religious extremism. I highly doubt it's the religion making people violent... these people are likely genetic throwbacks. Their adrenal glands are likely too big, their reptilian cortex likely too active, and the frontal cortex, too dormant. A poor brain will only understand religion, and the violence just stems from our animal lusts. Perhaps it's not the religion that makes us violent, perhaps it's the ape and lizard within. None of these statements are truth, they only exist to throw the mind into empirical uncertainty, the more honest state, I say.

Dawkins was closer to nobility in the part from his book "unweaving the Rainbow" when he said that science needs to stop seducing with the promise of happiness, and start getting people comfortable with the idea of hard work and discipline. If happiness comes, it comes, if it doesn't no big deal, because that's not ones ethics. The ethic is to not submit to the finite. At least for me.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

When people act fully, from the inside, they bring out the extremes in everyone. How much heroic action and thought on the human condition did Hitler inspire? Everyone should act fully, the good and bad, and let nature play itself out.

I have dabbled with this idea quite a bit as of late. Dabbled with the idea of never allowing unconsciousness to dominate over you. Sometimes the consequences can be quite dangerous to ones life. For instance: The other day, I was 10 minutes late for work, and the guy I was relieving was in ‘lunatic’ mode because I made him wait 10 minutes. This seems like the true danger is people who have a low emotional tolerance to boredom, inconvenience, change of habit and stress. It brings out the true evil in people. So when I arrive at work, this individual is raving and ranting like a madman saying he is getting me written up, and he is getting me fired. I respond with a flippant response, only making him more angry. Then I become increasingly angry, and I know I’m heading in a direction of thought on his level, so in an angry voice, I tell him he is an ungrateful motherfucker, as I have driven him home for the last year, when I didn’t have to, and that he can take the bus or walk home from now on because I do not care if he lives or dies. Then he demands that I drive him home immediately because he is a supervisor, and I will do what he says, and I respond by saying that he is not MY supervisor, and I am not obligated to be a taxi service for douchebags. Then he charges at me and does a sort of alpha male bull charge, and I stick up my chest like you see on the national geographic movies, and we collide like two elk fighting over a female. Then to get him out of my personal space, I ram into him in the same manner to push him back, and we continue yelling at each other. In the heat of anger, the worst thing I said to him, is if I woke up in the morning and found myself in your shoes, I would slit my own wrists and do humanity a favour. Then he responds by saying, at least I wasn’t kicked out of every site I was put at, and I respond by saying, yeah well that is because I have to deal with douchebags like you on a regular basis. He storms out, and I barely avoid a flow blown fist fight. I suppose that is why I have been rather meek with alpha males up to this point, because you are risking your safety by challenging them, and you yourself dip into unconsciousness. Then you have to ask is it worth the risk…should you do it out of principle alone and risk your safety, or risk the possibility of violence?

Plus you risk going to prison if you accidentally kill someone by hitting them in the temple or something in self defense.

The ethic is to not submit to the finite. At least for me.

A powerful thought, maybe the most powerful and dangerous idea to the modern values of civilization. If everyone thought this way, economic growth would slow, and consumption would also slow down quite a bit. The great thing about technology is its giving unconsciousness individuals more ways to submit to the finite without being a burden to others. IE: video games, virtual reality.

[Bobo]

None of these statements are truth, they only exist to throw the mind into empirical uncertainty, the more honest state, I say.

Maybe Harris thinks something like empirical certainty=concious well being=morally good?

should you do it out of principle alone and risk your safety, or risk the possibility of violence?

If working is not already a submission to unconciousness.

[jupiviv]

Yeah, Harris falls down very badly when he equates morality with happiness, and also when he says that science can determine our values, morals, purpose etc. I think the widespread respect and reverence for science occurs when people feel that the scientific establishment is respected by all the authorities. People want to form groups, and cling to people stronger than them. That is hardly rational behaviour, no matter what it is that people choose to call the things that they attach themselves to.

Here's the thing: as you know, increased consciousness doesn't always feel good, it might in fact feel terrible.

Yes, consciousness may be accompanied by happiness or sadness, and both are perfectly natural. Emotions must be analysed and understood, not mindlessly accepted. Harris basically wants to be popular, and so does Dawkins. Mentally they fall in the Buddhist realm of the "ashuras" or the warring demons. They aren't going to say anything that hits too close to truth for the majority of the people, and chances are that they themselves haven't discovered any such truths in the course of their lives.

However, Dawkins is a far better man than Harris, IMO. His early, purely scientific work was quite good. I think his more recent books have a kind of sentimentalism in them...a call for the appreciation of beauty, being moral, the value of working hard etc. That is probably just because he has aged and decided to assume the role of a grandfatherly figure.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Bobo,

If working is not already a submission to unconciousness.

I think work is necessary for survival, unless you are a leech, dependent or drain on the system, which also has moral implications. The best one can do is find employment that doesn't totally rape the body and mind, and if you can't perhaps work part-time. I also enjoy economic and political philosophy, so I tend to analyze things through a sort of pragmatic lens as well, not only through the understanding of enlightenment. Enlightenment people tend to totally dismiss 'work' as beneath them, but if you think in these terms, your quality of living will decrease, and you will not be able to afford the things you desire in life. Basically, the view is not yet practical. Perhaps in 100-200 years, work as an option will be more viable, but I refuse to jump on that bandwagon prematurely. Basically, I do enjoy to have some of the latest technology, expensive nutrition, and standards of living that the middle class enjoy, and I refuse to submit to anything less.

[Cory Duchesne]

If Harris pursues this seriously enough, eventually him and his philosopher buddies will see a clear distinction between slave morality - the sick helping the sick, and master morality, the healthy improving the healthy. The simplistic act of giving external structure and physical sustenance is obvious. The more advanced ethic of improving the mind is fraught with difficulty in understanding the nature of reality and mind. Tending to the physical deprivations of the developing world is quite taxing and would occur at the expense of attending to spiritual deprivation. Socrates didn't go around with a bleeding heart feeding the hungry like mother Teresa. He focused on bypassing mere empathy and elevating the human mind to a clear headed, logical compassion and understanding. Harris needs to get clear on human nature. The lust for power can elevate man into clear understanding, rising above all need for worldly power, whereas empathy for suffering, while not entirely without merit, is clearly blind, time consuming, soul sacrificing and submissive. Focusing all our efforts on giving quality of life to the developing world is not going to correct the rampant consumerism and narcissism of the human race. An elite must serve the elite, to some degree - or else the human ego will never overcome itself.

[jupiviv]

....a clear distinction between slave morality - the sick helping the sick, and master morality, the healthy improving the healthy.

I don't understand this distinction. Both of those "moralities" are about helping people who are like oneself, right? I would think the "slave" morality, if there is such a thing, would be to serve the masters, and the master morality would be to control the slaves.

[Cory Duchesne]

I mean that content egotists are slaves, and such slaves have a limited scope, they generally focus morals on the physical, because that's all they know. They address starvation, but will not develop too much inwardly. Very empathetic, humanitarian westerners could be seen as masters helping the malnourished in Africa, but it's all relative, depends on perspective. From the perspective of a spiritual being, a man who is emotionally attached to developing world problems is a slave.

The enlightened are masters - such beings have a high scope, centralizing their ethics on producing more masters, for all they know is mind. Otto W did not waste time feeding the physically hungry.

However, hierarchies among masters emerge, where some masters are more slavish than others. So it's where the mind decides to draw lines.

I should add, those whose mind is very elevated will more easily use common egotists to their advantage. Picture men of theory in contrast to men of action. Men of theory tend to manage and lead the less conscious men of action. So the masters do often have an exploitative relationship to the slaves. But a master in relationship to a master may strive for non exploitation and mutual elevation.

[jupiviv]

I see. Slave-master = unconscious-conscious. But I don't think the "master" mentality necessarily means emotional detachment from material problems. To the degree they are deluded, they will have emotions, and these emotions can be about purely material/practical things.

[Cory Duchesne]

I see. Slave-master = unconscious-conscious.

But I don't think the "master" mentality necessarily means emotional detachment from material problems.

No, I didn't mean to imply that. In fact, among the master class, we might divide the wise from the empiricists. That a guy like Sam Harris (like you said, perhaps out of a desire to be popular, or just sheer ignorance) focuses so much on empathy and providing physical support to the developing world, shows a stark divide from those who find freedom in the mind, from those who find freedom through ones connection to other physical beings. The empiricists and the wise are infinitely apart.

To the degree they are deluded, they will have emotions, and these emotions can be about purely material/practical things.

Their emotions will be about material things and worldly achievements to the degree that they allow hopeful fantasies to be directed and invested in such things. The wise are ever on guard, watchful of any preference, of any clinging to life.

[Ryan Rudolph]

In Sam Harris case and many others, no one addresses the subject of commitment. Committing to anything requires energy, sacrifice, and hard work, which must always be at the expense of doing something else.

As you say Cory, focusing on making the world more capable of logical thought seems like a better commitment of ones energy than focusing on improving living conditions in parts of the world that do not even have access to basic education, let alone higher philosophical education.

In my opinion, creating a decent You Tube channel such as men of the infinite has a much better potential for humanity than feeding an entire nation-state for a year.

That is not to say that humanitarian agencies should not exist, they have made some progress in many areas of the world providing clean drinking water, vaccines and all the rest of it. However, it should be a secondary priority. A value that is only given a small relative amount of resources. just as much of the militaries of the world have turned into peace keeping and disaster relief, I think humanitarian agencies have their place, but if you have any degree of 'sage' consciousness, such a commitment seems like settling for less.

[jupiviv]

I see. Slave-master = unconscious-conscious.

But I don't think the "master" mentality necessarily means emotional detachment from material problems.

No, I didn't mean to imply that. In fact, among the master class, we might divide the wise from the empiricists. That a guy like Sam Harris (like you said, perhaps out of a desire to be popular, or just sheer ignorance) focuses so much on empathy and providing physical support to the developing world, shows a stark divide from those who find freedom in the mind, from those who find freedom through ones connection to other physical beings. The empiricists and the wise are infinitely apart.

To clear up what I meant - the "master" or highly conscious type mentality may be characterized by attachment to material things, even though it is of a higher type than the "slave" mentality. I think a good way of defining your usage of the terms "master" and "slave" here is that the masters are conscious enough to value reason, and place it above emotion in most cases, whereas the slaves are almost always driven by emotion.

[KillingMyself]

Help others to destroy themselves since they're going to do those things anyways. Do it in such a way that they thank you. Make sure you acquire more power in the process for yourself. That would be the moral thing to do. I've learned empathy is evil, wretched and completely selfish.

[KillingMyself]

To clear up what I meant - the "master" or highly conscious type mentality may be characterized by attachment to material things, even though it is of a higher type than the "slave" mentality. I think a good way of defining your usage of the terms "master" and "slave" here is that the masters are conscious enough to value reason, and place it above emotion in most cases, whereas the slaves are almost always driven by emotion.

Well written and quite right. Although real masters are rare in my experience but yes they do seem to have some level of material attachment. For the most part I see slave on slave co-dependency.