Thanks Marsha, Unforts I was in US earlier in the week (in Philly), but being back in the UK now, I can't see the TV feed for the Daily Show. (Need to track down the UK channel 4 highlights I guess.)
Ian On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:27 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Steve, Ian, > > Rumor has it that Sam Harris was on the Oct 4th Daily Show, > which can be watched on the computer at: > > http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-october-4-2010-sam-harris > > The interview is too disruptive to more than a hint of the books contents, but > it's interesting. > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Oct 7, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Steven Peterson wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I suppose anyone interested in the national conversation about morals >> such as all MOQers will want to read Harris's book which has just been >> released. >> >> http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286454755&sr=8-1 >> >> I look forward to discussing it with you. >> >> Best, >> Steve >> >> >> Harris: >> "The people of Albania have a venerable tradition of vendetta called >> “Kanun”: If a man commits a murder, his victim’s family can kill any >> one of his male relatives in reprisal. If a boy has the misfortune of >> being the son or brother of a murderer, he must spend his days and >> nights in hiding, forgoing a proper education, adequate health care, >> and the pleasures of a normal life. Untold numbers of Albanian men and >> boys live as prisoners of their homes even now. Can we say that the >> Albanians are morally wrong to have structured their society in this >> way? Is their tradition of blood feud a form of evil? Are their values >> inferior to our own? >> >> Most people imagine that science cannot pose, much less answer, >> questions of this sort. How could we ever say, as a matter of >> scientific fact, that one way of life is better, or more moral, than >> another? Whose definition of “better” or “moral” would we use? >> Scientists generally believe that answers to questions of human value >> will fall perpetually beyond our reach—not because human subjectivity >> is too difficult to study, or the brain too complex, but because there >> is no intellectual justification for speaking about right and wrong, >> or good and evil, in universal terms. While many scientists now study >> the evolution of morality, as well as its underlying neurobiology, the >> purpose of their research is merely to describe how human beings think >> and behave. No one expects science to tell us how we should think and >> behave. Controversies about human values are controversies about which >> science officially has no opinion. >> >> This has made science appear divorced, in principle, from the most >> important questions of human life. While most educated people will >> concede that the scientific method has delivered centuries of fresh >> embarrassment to religion on matters of fact, it is now an article of >> almost unquestioned certainty, both inside and outside scientific >> circles, that science has nothing to say about what constitutes a good >> life. Religious thinkers in all faiths, and on both ends of the >> political spectrum, are united on precisely this point: The defense >> one most often hears for belief in God is not that there is compelling >> evidence for His existence, but that faith in Him is the only reliable >> source of meaning and moral guidance. Mutually incompatible religious >> traditions now take refuge behind the same non sequitur. >> >> As I argue in my new book, The Moral Landscape, questions about >> values—about meaning, morality, and life’s larger purpose—are really >> questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Throughout the >> book I make reference to a hypothetical space that I call “the moral >> landscape”—a space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks >> correspond to the heights of potential well-being and whose valleys >> represent the deepest possible suffering. Different ways of thinking >> and behaving—different cultural practices, ethical codes, modes of >> government, etc.—will translate into movements across this landscape >> and, therefore, into different degrees of human flourishing. I’m not >> suggesting that we will necessarily discover one right answer to every >> moral question, or a single best way for human beings to live. Some >> questions may admit of many answers, each more or less equivalent. >> However, the existence of multiple peaks on the moral landscape does >> not make them any less real or worthy of discovery. Nor would it make >> the difference between being on a peak and being stuck deep in a >> valley any less clear or consequential..." >> ... >> read on at >> http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-02/sam-harris-on-the-moral-landscape/?cid=hp:mainpromo7 >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
