Ishina, stop your agrumentum ad misericordiam to "prove" that morality is objective. Nobody is arguing whether to beat up innocent people or not. The question is where our values come from.
What the hell are you talking about? It was yeezevee going on about beating up old people, not me. Go talk latin to him instead.
I am just as much for human rights as anyone, that does not mean I have to believe they are inscribed in our DNA or in a heavenly tablet. And if I believe they are subjective, does not mean I disagree with them and it does not mean I am Adolf Hitler.
Inalienable rights are non-negotiable. I don't care what you believe. And they don't even have to be considered trancendant or biologically vectored in order for them to be considered
obvious.
There are things in this world that are not subjective. Life and liberty in essence are not subjective. Child rape is not only subjectively immoral, it is blatantly and absolutely
wrong. Unless we can admit at least a few universal truths, any discussion about morality is pointless. Your world view cannot possibly be so flimsy that you are unable to locate the statements you make somewhere in reality or in some kind of context.
People can't just say "morality is subjective" and think they've contributed to the discussion. Truths of morality are no more or less subjective than logic. We never cry foul whenever someone uses the term 'logical' and say "but logic is only subjective!".
I will try to explain to you why Sam Harris did not prove a single thing. His whole idea of being able to find objective moral values rests on a big if: if we could agree objectively (scientifically) what is human well-being. Well, we can not agree on what is human well being without having a moral stand to begin with, thus the argument becomes circular. We will use well-being to find morality, yet we will ignore the fact that well being is a moral issue. He does not say "happiness" which I believe would make him a utilitarian and such issues have been discussed since Jeremy Bentham (at least).
So like I said I am not convinced because idea that well being can be defined scientifically, much like health, is science fiction.
I did say I found the video interesting for the same reason - if one day science could objectively measure well being and answer age old questions that have been analyzed by great philosophers in detail.
I am not a philosopher and not even an intellectual, but I can still see that SH proved nothing. Sorry. I still like you. (Not just because of the new avatar.)
Sam Harris never claimed to prove anything. The whole point of his line of thinking is to figure out what constitutes human well-being.
Also, why are you talking as though I had a go at you? What do you have to be sorry about? I don't even remember saying anything to you specifically.
Topic: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans