Here's what Harris said in his TED talk:
"If you hold to classical utilitarianism, science can help you decide which actions are in line with that morality."
Here's what Harris claimed to have said in his TED talk:
"Science can help you decide what is moral and what isn't."
I think it's the gap between these two things that caused so much confusion and commentary.
Here's what Harris says in this rebuttal:
"If you don't hold to classical utilitarianism, you're either an imbecile or self-delusional, and everyone else should ignore you. This isn't really a defensible position, but it's the only one that makes sense."
Unfortunately, this does not close, or even address, the above communication gap. I just can't figure out why he's afraid to use the word utilitarian.
Hmm, I've both watched the TED talk and read the article pretty carefully and as far as I can tell he's been saying "Science can give us answers to moral questions" all along.
I also don't see how Harris is defending classical utilitarianism. According to classical utilitarianism the needs of the group are far more important than the needs of the individual, and as far as I can tell Harris doesn't subscribe to that line of thought at all. He cites the golden rule as a decent guideline, and I think the golden rule and classical utilitarianism are not compatible.
He also used the words imbecile and delusional in very different contexts. He doesn't claim that (again, as far as I can tell) that people who don't share his point of view are imbeciles, he just considers some points of view idiotic, such as the extreme form of moral relativism where every action can be justified by simply accepting it as an axiom of "goodness".
"I also don't see how Harris is defending classical utilitarianism."
His primary mode of definition is hand-waving, so it's hard to pin him down, but it seems like he is advocating for maximizing wellbeing/happiness/flourishing among all people. This is pretty much the textbook definition of utilitarianism.
Admittedly, he contradicts himself enough that it's hard to know what he really wants, so I might be wrong. When he says, "I think people should be able to wear whatever they want" and simultaneously advocates for condemning those who don't objectively promote human well-being, you know he doesn't have an internally consistent ethic worked out.
"He doesn't claim that (again, as far as I can tell) that people who don't share his point of view are imbeciles"
He describes important questions from critics as "profoundly stupid". But this is the money quote: "Others will be free to define 'equality' differently. Yes, they will. And we will be free to call them 'imbeciles.'" The others are those who disagree with utilitarianism, so it's there in black and white.
This was exactly my problem with it. Although in many cases it is pragmatic, there's no real _reason_ why I ought to hold to utilitarianism except that I feel like I should. That's not what a lot of people think of when they hear the word "morality."
I'm waiting with bated breath for the day when 'doing the right thing' is a consensus arrived at by reason -- not superstition, not the dictates of dogmatic ideology, but people discussing the options and arriving at mutually optimal solutions without handwaving, gunfights or terror.
I don’t disagree with what he says here but there comes a point where you just have to ask yourself whether it’s worth arguing with certain people. He quotes a hypothetical critic of his theory as asking “Why should human wellbeing matter to us?” and I’m sorry but if you don’t understand that you’re just a fool. You’re someone who literally can’t see the forest for the trees.
Yes science studies nature and nature is indifferent to human suffering but humanity created science because we are not indifferent to human suffering. Our whole goal is to counter nature’s indifference by finding ways to improve human wellbeing. That’s the whole damn point. If you’re a scientist and you don’t get that most basic point than I’m not sure there’s any point in trying to argue with you.
Here's what Harris claimed to have said in his TED talk: "Science can help you decide what is moral and what isn't."
I think it's the gap between these two things that caused so much confusion and commentary.
Here's what Harris says in this rebuttal: "If you don't hold to classical utilitarianism, you're either an imbecile or self-delusional, and everyone else should ignore you. This isn't really a defensible position, but it's the only one that makes sense."
Unfortunately, this does not close, or even address, the above communication gap. I just can't figure out why he's afraid to use the word utilitarian.