This week I have Dr. Sean Carroll on the show!!! I’m more excited than I can contain! Sean has a new book called The Big Picture. You can find it on Amazon by clicking here. In today’s episode, we talk about Sean’s new book, which I highly recommend everyone go buy! In additional to discussing the book, we talk about so many other fascinating issues, including whether or not objective moral values exist.
Watch out for part 2 on Thursday, in which we talk about Sean’s debate with William Lane Craig, and Sean also answers questions from Patrons. If you’d like to join those patrons and get access to Thursday’s episode right away, click here.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 39:19 — 45.9MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Let me take a shot at the Boltzmann brain thingy. Let’s use your monkey analogy. If you had infinite time the monkeys would type the works of shakespeare an infinite number of times. They would also type all A’s an infinite number of times. They would also type the alphabet an infinite number of times. Even though you think of the alphabet as far less complex than the complete works of shakespeare since the monkeys would type both an infinite amount of times they would both be as likely to happen because infinite = infinite.
Now if I’m right the question you should have asked was would darwinian evolution create a brain first if it were a race starting at the beginning of time. I think the answer to that would be yes, but in terms of likelihood both a brain through darwinian evolution, and one created randomly are 100% certain to occur given infinite time.
I enjoy listening to and reading Sean Carroll. Thanks for having him on. However, I find that Sean Carroll doesn’t listen to the middle position. He seems to talk past what people like Thomas and Sam Harris are actually saying.
He is right when he says there are no objective morals in the way philosophers and theologians use the words. But, what Thomas was discussing is not technically objective morality. It’s a contingent morality. You should treat humans in a way that leads to their well-being. I liked Thomas’ reptile example. Our biology requires that we treat others in certain ways. If we had evolved as reptiles we would have different conditions for well-being. That would mean a different morality. Morality depends on objective truths. But it’s not objective morality in the philosophical sense.
Another objective fact that affects moral choices is context. For example, imagine a person that you would treat like any other person. And assume that this person became a war vet suffering from PTSD. Before they suffer from PTSD and after they are ‘cured’ of it, you can treat them with less care and consideration. But while suffering from untreated PTSD the moral way to treat them is with consideration to their current health.
Sean Carroll acts as though there are only two ways of looking at morality. One is his ‘everything is just what you can agree on’ ultra subjective model. The other is the objective morality model. Sean Carroll seems to deny there are any other types. He treats anyone who objects to his view as though they are moral objectivists who think morality can exist without people do.
I think everyone agrees we need well-being. What people disagree on is how to get there. So him saying people disagree is just him saying people are wrong on what they think will lead us to well-being.
As an example of people being wrong, look at drugs and public health. The War on Drugs clearly leads to more harm than good. Harm Reduction is a far better drug strategy. Despite the evidence people disagree. Both sides agree that drugs can have a terrible effect on people and families. Both sides want a healthier society. But between these two choices one obviously leads to better results. Some ideologically cling to a zero-tolerance, tough on drug-users mentality. And they believe it’s the best thing we can do. But it fails to achieve their own goal, which is the same goal everyone else has. The well-being of all members of our society. The fact that people disagree is just to say one side is wrong. I think it’s the same with morality.
I was thinking about the chess analogy:
It’s like when you have two novice chess players who understand the game. But they disagree on the best strategy. But there are clearly better strategies and worse strategies.
There is no objective best way to win chess. It depends on what is happening in the game. But all moves are not equal. The players cannot agree that any strategy is good all the time. Or only specific strategies are good. What is good is contingent on the rules of chess.
What is good for humans is contingent on our biology. Something is immoral to do to all people because of our biology as primates. Other things are okay for some of us because our biology isn’t 100% the same. Further, depending on how we are raised and our personal psychology, some situations are okay for some and not others. If asking ‘is it okay to require a person to go into a high-pressure situation?’ That depends on the person in question. For some, depending on the person and the situations specific, it would be cruel. For others, they would thrive and crave the pressure and challenge. It’s objectively true. But not objective morality in the way philosophers mean.
Side note: Unlike Star Trek, I don’t think all aliens could be treated the same. With different biologies what is moral would be different. So Humans and Klingons should be treated different. On the other hand, we shouldn’t take the cultural assumptions and assume they are good.
I’m going to have to disagree with you Thomas and agree with Sean, a brave choice I know. What you keep wanting to call objective values aren’t, and you pretty much admitted as much. You seem to either want to elevate the human culture specific morals to the realm of objective laws of nature or to debase the word objective to mean something closer to “relative to prevailing conditions”.
Either morality is written into the nature of the universe or it isn’t if it isn’t the morality, no matter how reasonable and rational cannot be objective.
Is there an objectively correct economic, or political system? Does the universe prefer me to be a capitalist democrat or a communist autocrat or maybe some flavour of theocracy. Cases can be made for all of these options and different people will have differing opinions but no one can be called objectively correct.
When Sean observed that your first step, agreeing on basic moral foundations, is the hardest step I think he was spot on. Maybe you and I and those of our ilk could come to a consensus but the rest of the world, including large amounts of your fellow countrymen would fight tooth and nail against us. The avoidance of harm and human flourishing model you support would be anathema to someone whose morals are based on a suffering god sacrificing himself for humanity and the lessons that teaches them, or a god who demands total submission to his will, even on the other far end of the spectrum would be people who would want to expand our moral circle to encompass more and more or the animal kingdom and how are you to tell which of you is objectively right and wrong .
Great show, got me thinking.
Hi Derek. I’m Shawn. Nice to meet you. I agree with you that what Thomas is advocating is not objective morality. It’s a morality based on objective facts. And that’s very, very different. We need to be clear on that language. I read your objections to saying well-being is based on empirical reality. I think Sam Harris clearly explained the problem you are think of and why it doesn’t apply. I’m talking about the last bit of what you said:
The idea works like this: the goal is well-being. The people you bring up as counterexamples still agree. Jesus’ sacrifice and the whole Christianity thing is about living in a paradise under the rule of the Christ, namely Jesus. In this case, both Jesus and all the people who have accepted him are in the state of maximal well-being.
Lets go back to ancient Judaism, which has a god who demands total submission. And, the ancient Jews in most cases and times didn’t have a concept of an afterlife at all. So there wasn’t an eternal reward. But in that case there was still the belief that god would bless those who were obeying him, or rather, usually reserve his smiting for those who betrayed him.
For example, in the Bible to occupation of Israel was god using foreign enemies to punish the Jews for not being Jewish enough and keeping all the rules of the old testament. Thus, it’s about well-being.
But here’s the thing: we all agree. If there was a god and a heaven then obviously we should work to get there if we are trying to maximize human well-being. If there isn’t a heaven but a vengeful god then of course we should appease it.
The view Sam Harris puts forth and Thomas was defending is that our goal IS well-being. Some people are just doing it wrong. But there is a consistent framework we can use. A consistent goal. It seems to me that every moral and religious system devised ultimately is reducible to the well-being of conscious creatures (typically, humans).
This is where I disagree with both you and Carroll. And that’s the foundation of your view. I think there is a basis, that we agree on. And using that we can start to arbitrate at least some disagreements based on the facts.
Hey Shawn, thanks for the reply. i think we do agree on most issues here but where I think the battle lines are being has almost more to do with language and then some consequences that follow from our different interpretations. Just as I thought Thomas was using an overly broad definition of objective I’m also concerned with your concept of well being. It seems that your use of well being can encompass any and all moral systems depending on the initial assumptions we bring to the table. if we assume the abrahamic god then certain “well beings” and moral systems “objectively” follow. (I hope the scare quotes don’t come across as douchey, I’m just trying to be clear). But if we bring other assumptions to the moral table, say secular humanism then other routes to well being will shake out. It seems to me that all the heavy lifting is still being done by our fundamental intuitions on moral foundations, simply encompassing it all under the heading of well being doesn’t seem to solve the problem to me.
Good afternoon Derek. Thanks for your response. I really appreciate that you have read what I posted and thoughtfully responded to it. I understand the concern you raise. Let me more fully expand on what I was saying.
Do we agree on the goal, or not? If we do, then we can begin to eliminate those assumptions and beliefs that are wrong.
But people like you are holding us back by continuing the farce that we don’t even agree on the goal. We do. Instead of arguing about that we should be discussing how to reach it.
The Muslim terrorist and secular humanist agree on the desired outcome — maximum well-being for all people. The Muslim terrorists wrongly believes that by blowing up infidels God will grant this state to themself and their family. Also, they hope to limit the influence of Satan leading others astray. But they are wrong. (Or they may be right. But there is an answer, even if not known yet. This is the type of thinking engineers have trouble with as I mentioned in the comments of Episode 243.)
From a practical perspective we can ally ourselves with people who come to good proximate conclusions on well-being. For example, many Christians think that part of the heaven ticket is doing good works in this life. The Christian Humanist stance has moved many people over the last 300 years to help those who suffer the most among us. We can work with these people. (Unlike Mother Teresa, who thought suffering was good. She didn’t try to fix people’s suffering, even though she had free access to medicine. She tried to allow them to suffer with the dignity of a roof over their head and bed under their body.)
My point is this: since we agree that well-being is the goal, we can begin to remove obviously wrong strategies. Just like how in physics we have, over hundreds of years, discarded obviously wrong models of the universe.
The UNBELIEVABLE similarities between Sean Carroll’s idea (2016) (California Institute of Technology, USA) (within the wrong framework, the “universe”) and my ideas (2002-2010) (within the EDWs framework) on quantum mechanics, the relationship between Einstein relativity and quantum mechanics, life, the mind-brain problem, etc.
The unbelievable similarities between Frank Wilczek’s ideas (2016) (Nobel Prize on Physics) and my ideas (2002-2008, etc.) (Philosophy of Mind and Quantum Mechanics)
at http://philpapers.org/rec/VACTUS-5
https://www.academia.edu/s/42a8105c9f/the-unbelievable-similarities-between-sean-carrolls-idea-2016-california-institute-of-technology-usa-or-frank-wilczecks-ideas-2016-nobel-prize-on-physics-and-my-ideas-2002-2010
The UNBELIEVABLE similarities between Sean Carroll’s idea (2016) (California Institute of Technology, USA) (within the wrong framework, the “universe”) and my ideas (2002-2010) (within the EDWs framework) on quantum mechanics, the relationship between Einstein relativity and quantum mechanics, life, the mind-brain problem, etc. at
https://www.academia.edu/29578814/The_UNBELIEVABLE_similarities_between_Sean_Carrolls_idea_2016_California_Institute_of_Technology_USA_or_Frank_Wilczecks_ideas_2016_Nobel_Prize_on_Physics_and_my_ideas_2002-2010 at http://philpapers.org/rec/VACTUS-5 or
https://www.academia.edu/29578814/The_UNBELIEVABLE_similarities_between_Sean_Carrolls_idea_2016_California_Institute_of_Technology_USA_or_Frank_Wilczecks_ideas_2016_Nobel_Prize_on_Physics_and_my_ideas_2002-2010
or
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+GabrielVacariu