It’s always worth listening to the eloquent Sam Harris. This week, along with a gaggle of luminaries like Sheryl Crow and David Byrne, he’s speaking at the TED conference in Long Beach. His talk isn’t yet up, but here’s a nice interview with him, conducted by Patt Morrison on California Public Radio (click on “download” if the direct link doesn’t work). His latest interest is the evolution of morality: not just whether science can tell us how morality evolved, but whether it can give us clues to what is moral behavior. I smell a book in the offing, along with a lot of controversy.
Interview: Sam Harris on morality, faith, and atheism
February 15, 2010 • 3:16 pm
Harris on morality? Let’s not forget that Sam Harris who defends torture on utilitarian grounds. His argument is that
1) torture an innocent man is not worse than killing an innocent man;
2) we are killing innocent people every day in Afghanistan and Iraq;
3) Therefore, why all the fuss about torture?
I like Sam, but sometimes he’s a moral idiot.
You’re missing the point. His point is not that torture is OK; rather his point is killing is not OK either. The point is why all the fuss about torture ONLY? Why not equal fuss about all the killing of innocent people? He condones neither torture nor killing of innocents.
Oh come on, his argument is far more nuanced than that. He’s never said “why all this fuss about torture? What he has said is that in some extreme cases, where loss of life is imminently at stake unless torture is applied, it might sometimes be morally justified to apply it. This is a valid question worthy of moral and philosophical debate. You’re making a straw man out of his position. He certainly is not a moral idiot.
Well, one can read his argument here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html
If by “nuanced,” you mean “longer” and “even more dickish” (“I challenge anyone to come up with a hole in this argument and put in it the comments here.” Guess he told you, Huffpost readers!)
And I’m happy to have that moral argument and win it right here:
While of course torturing one person in the (completely fictitious and therefore academic) ticking time bomb scenario might result in a worthwhile tradeoff in lives lost, what Harris brushes aside as an “emotional” (What, is that too feminine for him?) argument is the sense of outrage felt among those who learn of the torture, and how that outrage directly fuels more violence toward the torturers, and more death. Harris should enter those factors into his “calculation.”
So the ONLY argument for torture would include the necessity of its being kept secret.
Which is what our country did for decades (Chile, Central America, et al.).
Ah, America!
And when I’m arguing with those who would abide torture in their narrowly prescribed (and, again, fictitious) circumstances, I propose this similar logic to illustrate the absurdity:
Sex with children is a taboo. But can’t we all agree that there are probably some children, even if only a few, who would be ready for a sexual relationship? Can’t we discuss exactly what children might be ready and which sexual practices might be best for them?
If you’re outraged by this kind of argument, good. You should be.
And it’s exactly what happens when people like Harris begin touting the “logic” of using torture.
You risk unleashing the beast in humanity.
It’s what makes us civilized that we abhor–or used to abhor it.
“If you’re outraged by this kind of argument, good. You should be. … And it’s exactly what happens when people like Harris begin touting the “logic” of using torture. … You risk unleashing the beast in humanity. … It’s what makes us civilized that we abhor–or used to abhor it.”
This is the path that leads to, “You cannot be moral without God.”
It’s been a while since I read “The End of Faith”, which is where I saw the torture argument presented.
It was put forward as a hypothetical situation, if you (the reader) could countenance the killing of civilians in a conflict (collateral damage) under the assumption that some greater good was being accomplished or harm being avoided then you should logically be able to countenance torture for the same reasons.
If I recall correctly, Sam Harris was not advocating the use of torture, he was pointing out that it was not logically inconsistent with a position that allowed for civilians being killed in a conflict.
Yes, that’s the low point of his book.
The “ticking time bomb” argument supposes that torture is a reliable way of extracting information — which it isn’t.
If it were, whether to torture to “save lives” would be a moral problem. But since torture is not reliable, there’s no problem to solve — it’s just wrong, full stop.
The Sam Harris argument in favor of torture assumes there is evidence that torture helps obtaining useful information. There is not. In fact, all available evidence is in the other direction. Start here.
JC (#2): “He certainly is not a moral idiot.”
I’m unconvinced. From The End of Faith, p. 52:
“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”
Holy quote mine! What sort of self-respecting rationalist would pull single sentences out of a long argument and then claim that Harris is making poor arguments?
Terrible.
If you read what he writes, he is making a sensible, nuanced argument. If we knew that someone had the means of doing great harm and truly believed that by doing so they would be rewarded by God, how should we react? He says that it may be moral to stop them and in some cases killing is the only way to accomplish this. How does this make him a moral idiot?
Disagree fine but quote mining like this is dishonest. Leave that sort of crap to the creationists.
“If you read what he writes, he is making a sensible, nuanced argument.”
And my quote of Harris was inaccurate or deceptive how exactly?
You call him a moral idiot, quoting one inflammatory sentence without giving any context nor attempting to address or refute his point. That’s as good a deception-via-quote-mine as any I’ve seen.
If nothing else good comes out of this discussion, at least I’ll have the satisfaction of re-reading “The End of Faith”.
The torture arguments have certainly shown that there is a deep emotional response to this subject. It is interesting that no one had the same violent response to the killing of civilians part of his argument. We seem to be a lot more comfortable with that notion.
Good for Sam Harris for daring to broach taboo subjects, they need to be brought out in the open and discussed rationally, no matter how visceral a response they invoke in us. If we are going to achieve the “good life” then the darker side of human nature needs to be brought out in the open. Just saying that something will “unleash the beast” and can not be discussed is not productive. We have to understand the beast and learn how to control it. That means dealing with uncomfortable ideas like torture, genocide, misogyny etc. which seem to be an integral part of the human psyche and finding rational solutions for them.
From my reading and watching of Sam Harris’s books, articles, videos and podcasts, he uses language exquisitely and upon careful reading (and re-reading) there is never any ambiguity about what he means.
You may not like where his arguments take you, but they are well thought out and masterfully presented.
“You call him a moral idiot….”
Actually, if you would read a bit more carefully, you would see that I did not. A claim of moral idiocy smacks too much of George Bush for my taste. Harris is no idiot. He’s much more dangerous than that. I think moral bankruptcy in the tradition of Dick Cheney is more accurate. My conclusion is predicated upon the following.
1. The claim that torture is both morally and practically justified.
2. The claim that “[s]ome propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”
3. Making kissy-face with Bill Maher, a science denialist concerning vaccinations at least, and placing and keeping Maher on the Advisory Board of The Reason Project. Clearly, reason isn’t the key — opposition to religion is.
“…quoting one inflammatory sentence without giving any context nor attempting to address or refute his point.”
Since I gave you an opportunity to provide evidence for how I misquoted or misrepresented Harris and you didn’t, I assume that you can’t. I realize you’re duly impressed with the depth and nuance of Harris and his views, but it can’t be a quote mine if I didn’t misquote him and didn’t misrepresent him. Harris thinks that, in some instances, people should be killed because of what they believe and that doing so would be moral. I think such a position is morally bankrupt.
“That’s as good a deception-via-quote-mine as any I’ve seen.”
If I was deceptive, I would expect you to provide some evidence of it, but you have not. Ergo, your claim necessarily fails.
I enjoyed the interview with Sam Harris. I liked his talking about the “non-zero sum” progress of humanity.
Harris destroys Karen Armstrong about compassion as the aim of religions (those goalposts are moving again). He then goes on and shows the lunacy of opposing homosexuality, etc. by religion.
Exciting! Whether I agree with him or not, he presents good arguments. If there’s a good controversy I’m sure that I’ll come out of it with a richer, more nuanced understanding.
Not like those Mooney-versies, like some Monty Python parody of an argument, ugh.
Hey, I was just happy to see that a dude my age is on the same level as Hitch, Dawkins, Dennett, Grayling, etc. in the atheist ranks. One thing that had been bugging me is that it seemed you had to be over 60 and have lots of gray hair to be taken seriously as an atheist…
Harris isn’t in their class. When theists argue that without god we decended into barbarity we can point to the humanity of, say, Grayling, who matches intellectual rigour with compassion.
Harris is proof that our enem’s enemy is not necessarily our friend.