A lot of people have said that Sam Harris is basically promoting Utilitarianism. It doesn't really matter to me what he is promoting, because standing on his (and Bentham's and everyone else's) shoulders, I think I can see a further step up, a step that could be hugely beneficial for us.

In his book "The Moral Landscape," Harris notes that the one common thread among all moral philosophies is the concern for the ongoing experience of conscious creatures. In other words, what really matters to all moral theories is whether creatures that can suffer or flourish are indeed suffering or flourishing. He points out that we could build a new morality where good and bad are determined by whether flourishing is caused or suffering is caused. I propose that we take it a step further and ditch good and bad entirely. I don't mean chaos in the streets. I mean maybe we should look at the facts a bit more carefully. I've argued in other forums that the entire framework of "should/ought" is fundamentally flawed, based on eons of grotesque rationalizations that our gigantic brains fabricated to explain each other's behavior, to explain the impulses we feel. I've gone so far as to assert that everything we currently call morality is literally a religion.

Harris suggests that we use suffering/flourishing as our moral guide. This, of course, sounds a lot like Utilitarianism, or maybe exactly like it. But what if we took one more step and sought to interpret the world based on hard facts rather than nebulous ideas of "good," "bad," "justice," "rights," etc., upon which no one will ever agree? I think this could solve a lot of huge problems we see in the world, and it doesn't require any fundamental change to human so-called nature. Let's agree amongst ourselves that what matters in the world is suffering/flourishing, not good/evil. Let's make laws geared toward preventing any person or group "A" from diminishing the flourishing of person or group "B." Let's look beyond these impulses that tell us that people "deserve" punishment when they "misbehave."

I think this gives us a foundation on which we could build something far more rational and applicable than any of the moral theories ever proposed. I really would love to hear any thoughts anyone might have on the matter.

Definitely. I think you make a well-written, concise, and compelling case for it.

I disagree some with your premises (I think should/ought can make sense), but I agree with your conclusion -- I did a fairly detailed argument as such here, and Nap and I argued as such here.

You'd also find similar arguments to the same affect by philosophers Tim Dean, Joshua Greene, Richard Garner (see also), and Samuel Green.

Though I'd stress that we may only want to do this when speaking analytically, as when speaking to the crowds practically there are often a lot of pragmatic benefits to moral language, even if they don't hold up. Though there might be outweighing pragmatic value otherwise, but I'd want to make sure first.

Also, a few nit-picks:

GreatBigBore wrote:Let's agree amongst ourselves that what matters in the world is suffering/flourishing, not good/evil.

I think that's easy to get agreement on in a utilitarian forum. But some other people might not subscribe to utilitarianism, and we'll have to figure out how to handle this.

~

GreatBigBore wrote:Let's make laws geared toward preventing any person or group "A" from diminishing the flourishing of person or group "B."

Sure, more or less, though I think it often fine to diminish someone's flourishing for the sake of more flourishing for another person, at least in principle. The only thing that would make this not the case is people tend to be pretty bad at estimating if the benefit to the other person is truly outweighing, and it might produce spillover consequences in the aggregate (I think the famous organ donor example here...)

~

GreatBigBore wrote:Let's look beyond these impulses that tell us that people "deserve" punishment when they "misbehave."

Definitely. Though I use my terms a bit differently -- I do think people deserve punishment for misbehaving, I just think that's because utilitarianism would prescribe this punishment, not retribution.

peterhurford wrote:I did a fairly detailed argument as such here, and Nap and I argued as such here. You'd also find similar arguments to the same affect by philosophers Tim Dean, Joshua Greene, Richard Garner (see also), and Samuel Green.

Thanks so much! I've been looking for someone who recognizes what I'm saying and can compare it to what is already being said by the luminaries. Thanks very much.

peterhurford wrote:Though I'd stress that we may only want to do this when speaking analytically, as when speaking to the crowds practically there are often a lot of pragmatic benefits to moral language, even if they don't hold up. Though there might be outweighing pragmatic value otherwise, but I'd want to make sure first.

I'd like to explore the idea of doing away with moral language too, but I'll leave that for later if I can encourage conversation on this topic. I've been thinking about this a long time, and I got stuck on the fundamentals until Sam Harris talked about suffering. I think this is important.

peterhurford wrote:I disagree some with your premises (I think should/ought can make sense)

Hehe, you haven't heard my arguments yet.

peterhurford wrote:

GreatBigBore wrote:Let's agree amongst ourselves that what matters in the world is suffering/flourishing, not good/evil.

I think that's easy to get agreement on in a utilitarian forum. But some other people might not subscribe to utilitarianism, and we'll have to figure out how to handle this.

I like to think of it as "invitational": I personally choose suffering/flourishing, and I invite you to make that choice too. It makes so much sense that before too long, many people will subscribe to the idea. Then we can all start voting on changes to the law. We don't need everyone in the world to subscribe to the idea in order to start putting it into practice. I even have put it into practice with some success in my personal relationships.

peterhurford wrote:

GreatBigBore wrote:Let's make laws geared toward preventing any person or group "A" from diminishing the flourishing of person or group "B."

Sure, more or less, though I think it often fine to diminish someone's flourishing for the sake of more flourishing for another person, at least in principle.

Sam Harris inspired me on this point too. In principle, we can measure and quantify suffering and flourishing. It seems to me that with this simple tool we could see, probably for the first time in history, the ethical costs not only of passing our laws, but also the ethical costs of not passing them. We could completely redesign our framework in order to balance suffering. For example, the suffering experienced by those bereft of their family in a theater massacre as weighed against the suffering experienced by those who have a harder time buying military-grade munitions and explosives.

peterhurford wrote:

GreatBigBore wrote:Let's look beyond these impulses that tell us that people "deserve" punishment when they "misbehave."

Definitely. Though I use my terms a bit differently -- I do think people deserve punishment for misbehaving, I just think that's because utilitarianism would prescribe this punishment, not retribution.

But this is part of my overall point: I think it's the concept of "deserve" that prevents Utilitarianism from being the interstellar craft it strives to be. It's a religious concept that is blinding us to the truth and facts of human behavior.

I don't know about Harris, but I'm not sure Bentham would have - or indeed did - disagree. Ok he was writing before the metaethical wars of the 20th century (not to mention the turn-of-the-century breakthroughs in formal logic), so might have couched his ideas in less precise terms than we might, but as far as I remember he never detaches morality from the emotional states he thinks it entails. His basic, much-maligned claim at the start of Principles is that pain and pleasure drive us, and so introducing anything else under the guise of ethics is a confusion.