Sam Harris’s Argument For Objective Morality

Apparently, the following is an argument made by Sam Harris on twitter, in a series of tweets. Unfortunately, the original tweets have been deleted, so I relied on a secondary source.

1. Let’s assume that there are no ought’s or should’s in this universe. There is only what *is*—the totality of actual (and possible) facts.
2. Among the myriad things that exist are conscious minds, susceptible to a vast range of actual (and possible) experiences.
3. Unfortunately, many experiences suck. And they don’t just suck as a matter of cultural convention or personal bias—they really and truly suck. (If you doubt this, place your hand on a hot stove and report back.)
4. Conscious minds are natural phenomena. Consequently, if we were to learn everything there is to know about physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, economics, etc., we would know everything there is to know about making our corner of the universe suck less.
5. If we *should* do anything in this life, we should avoid what really and truly sucks. (If you consider this question-begging, consult your stove, as above.)
6. Of course, we can be confused or mistaken about experience. Something can suck for a while, only to reveal new experiences which don’t suck at all. On these occasions we say, “At first that sucked, but it was worth it!”
7. We can also be selfish and shortsighted. Many solutions to our problems are zero-sum (my gain will be your loss). But *better* solutions aren’t. (By what measure of “better”? Fewer things suck.)
8. So what is morality? What *ought* sentient beings like ourselves do? Understand how the world works (facts), so that we can avoid what sucks (values).

Before going on, let’s pause to consider that Sam Harris is a famous public intellectual, with a BA in philosophy from Stanford and a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA.

Now, let’s consider how flawed his argument is.

The argument contains the following errors:

• It begs the question. It presupposes objective good and bad.
• It conflates a subjective value judgment (“it sucks”) with objective value.
• It conflates pain with subjective value.

Essentially, the argument presupposes hedonism and altruism, and then pretends to derive a combination of those two assumptions (objective morality) from pure reason plus experience.

See Hedonic Utilitarianism.

Let’s go through the argument, point by point.

Point 1

Let’s assume that there are no ought’s or should’s in this universe. There is only what *is*—the totality of actual (and possible) facts.

Sam begins by assuming the negation of his intended conclusion: that there are no objective oughts or shoulds — and thus no objective goods or bads. This is an odd approach, because now he can’t win his own argument without contradicting himself.

To Sam, reality consists of “facts”. This is naive. A fact is just a generally accepted idea about reality. Our ideas about reality are not reality itself. However, we can set aside his naive view of truth, because it has little effect on the argument.

Point 2

Among the myriad things that exist are conscious minds, susceptible to a vast range of actual (and possible) experiences.

Yes, we can agree that conscious minds exist, among the myriad of other things that exist.

Point 3

Unfortunately, many experiences suck. And they don’t just suck as a matter of cultural convention or personal bias—they really and truly suck. (If you doubt this, place your hand on a hot stove and report back.)

There are multiple errors here.

One is the conflation between subjective value and objective value. Sam just uses the word “bad” without specifying the perspective, as if “bad” and “good” (sucking and not sucking) are objective properties, rather than subjective judgments.

I don’t want to put my hand on a hot stove, because I judge that to be bad for me. But I don’t care if Sam puts his hand on a hot stove. I don’t judge that to be bad for me. I am indifferent to it. If Sam was my friend, I would care. If he was my enemy, I would want him to put his hand on a hot stove. That’s how we naturally feel toward enemies: we wish them harm.

Sam says that sucking is not a matter of personal bias: that some experiences really and truly suck. However, experiences are subjective, and thus involve a personal bias. There is a huge personal bias involved in putting your hand on a hot stove. It is your hand. You experience the pain.

Another error is the conflation between pain and value. I once put my hand on a hot stove deliberately, to kill a plantar wart on my thumb. (It worked.) I judged that effect to be good. Value is a judgment. Pain and pleasure are feelings. Sam conflates the two, because of his implicit hedonism. He assumes that pain and pleasure are the ultimate source of value. I am not a hedonist. I didn’t believe that pain is bad for me. I don’t believe that pleasure is good for me.

Of course, pain and pleasure are highly linked to my behavior, because they are experiences of changing motivation. In a sense, I am always acting toward pleasure and away from pain. But it doesn’t follow that I value pain negatively and pleasure positively, either intuitively or philosophically.

Point 3 is the crux of the argument. Sam believes that he has proven the existence of objective good and bad simply by pointing to the subjective experience of pain. This is idiotic. The subjective experience of pain does not imply the existence of objective value.

Point 4

Conscious minds are natural phenomena. Consequently, if we were to learn everything there is to know about physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, economics, etc., we would know everything there is to know about making our corner of the universe suck less.

Yes, conscious minds are natural things. Yes, we can learn more about how they work.

That knowledge has no value implications on its own. Values are not knowledge about the world. My values represent my subjective orientation toward certain things. When I make value judgments, I combine knowledge about reality with my values. For example, I wanted to get rid of the plantar wart on my thumb, and I believed that it would go away if I destroyed enough tissue in that area. So, I put my hand on the stove. That choice was not just based on my beliefs about reality. It was also based on my values. I wanted to get rid of the wart.

We use knowledge of reality to make value judgments and choices, but values are not knowledge of reality. We project value onto reality through our ideas of what is good or bad for us.

Sam believes that “what sucks” can be scientifically discovered. This is false. Given values, we can discover what is instrumental to those values. That is not knowledge of objective value. It is knowledge of how things are causally related to what we subjectively value. We can also discover what causes pain or pleasure in ourselves and others. That is not knowledge of objective value. It is knowledge about the objective causes of subjective experiences.

Point 5

If we *should* to do anything in this life, we should avoid what really and truly sucks. (If you consider this question-begging, consult your stove, as above.)

It is pure question-begging. I have consulted my stove. Nothing logically follows from the experience of pain. It is just an experience.

Also, recall that Sam initially rejected the existence of objective shoulds. If we took his initial words at face value, this statement would be hollow, because he has already negated the antecedent. It would be analogous to “If purple unicorns live in the Sun, then we should avoid what really and truly sucks.”.

Sam has a tacit theory of personal and moral value. He assumes that pain and pleasure are bad and good, respectively, for the experiencer. He also assumes that we have some moral duty to act toward the greater good, not just toward our own interests.

Those are tacit assumptions in his worldview. He has not made them explicit and questioned them. He has not justified them. He has not recognized that they are assumptions. He takes them for granted. Thus, he does not see that his conclusion “You should act to minimize the pain of yourself and others” is based on those assumptions. It did not pop out of a hot stove.

Once again, Sam completely ignores relevant distinctions. He ignores the distinction between personal subjective value (I don’t want to burn myself) and moral value (I ought to prevent others from being burned). He also ignores the distinction between pain and value.

I can believe that I should avoid harming myself without believing in moral value. I value not harming myself from my own perspective as a subject. That judgment is not about what is cosmically normative or imperative. I don’t believe that others have a cosmic obligation to not harm me, or that I have a cosmic obligation to not harm them. I simply don’t want to harm myself.

I can avoid what sucks (to me), without believing in morality. Amorality is perfectly consistent with having personal, selfish values.

Point 6

Of course, we can be confused or mistaken about experience. Something can suck for a while, only to reveal new experiences which don’t suck at all. On these occasions we say, “At first that sucked, but it was worth it!”

Yes, we can make incorrect value judgments, with any standard of value, because value judgments depend on truth judgments. We can be mistaken about reality. We can have false beliefs about the effects of our actions.

Point 7

We can also be selfish and shortsighted. Many solutions to our problems are zero-sum (my gain will be your loss). But *better* solutions aren’t. (By what measure of “better”? Fewer things suck.)

We not only can be selfish; we are selfish. Sam takes for granted that selfishness is morally bad, and that we can be altruistic. That is more question-begging.

Sam says that *better* solutions are not zero-sum. Presumably, the *better* solutions are positive-sum. He is assuming a cosmic value standard, by which some things are better objectively, not just better from a subjective (or intersubjective) perspective. His implied value standard is net hedonic utility: the sum of pain and pleasure for all sentient beings. A solution is *better* if it has higher net hedonic utility. That is what he seems to be saying, although not clearly.

Note that Sam emphasizes the word “better”. People often use emphasis in place of justification. It indicates their assumptions. Sam presupposes a cosmic standard of value, which makes some outcomes better than others.

Once again, Sam is ignoring or conflating personal value with moral value, and individual utility with aggregate utility. He recognizes that there are conflicts of interest: that his gain could be my loss or vice versa. By this, he means that an outcome in which his utility is greater could have lower utility for me. What he misses completely is that there is no cosmic perspective from which there is cosmic utility. There is no one for whom “better” is defined by the sum of individual utilities. There are just individuals, judging outcomes from their own perspectives.

We (some group of people) might agree to work toward a positive-sum outcome for us. That would be a collective value. It would exist from our perspective. It would not be a cosmic value. We would agree to it for selfish reasons, not because we have a cosmic perspective inside us.

Point 8

So what is morality? What *ought* sentient beings like ourselves do? Understand how the world works (facts), so that we can avoid what sucks (values).

Sam continues to ignore the distinction between the individual and the cosmos. He doesn’t even clearly state that we should try to avoid what sucks for others, because he takes it for granted. It would never occur to him that he needs to state it, let alone justify it. But philosophy isn’t just taking your assumptions for granted and expressing them emphatically. That’s religion or ideology.

I can understand how the world works, and I can use that knowledge to act toward what I personally value. That is not morality.

Morality is a complex delusion. It involves the delusion of a cosmic perspective, from which some things are good or bad, right or wrong. It involves the delusion that our social values and rules of behavior (such as “Don’t commit murder”) are cosmic. It involves the delusion that this cosmic perspective exists within us, as “the conscience”. This is all false.

See What is Morality?.

The truth is that we are selfish animals with social behaviors. We can form societies and agree on collective values, which we then impose on ourselves.

There is no cosmic value standard, and there are no cosmic imperatives. There is no cosmic perspective. There is no God, Sam.