It turns up in the UK as the Oct 5th highlights package on C4OD. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/4od#3126165 Ian
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
