Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

As Sam Harris is seemingly at the centre of this argument, It might be informative, or at the very least quite interesting, to hear how the man himself actually responds to the accusation that he is advocating a first nuclear strike against an islamic state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7T7barZEeU

It's only a few minutes long.

Thanks but firstly we're not discussing whether Sam Harris said that he wants a nuclear first strike on the Muslim world.

I certainly didn't mention the Muslim world, and I don't think Vlad did either so Dave Rubin is barking up the wrong tree.

Secondly, I already linked to Sam Harris' own blog where he seems to advocate a first strike against an Islamist regime with long range nuclear weapons just in case, even if it means killing tens of millions of innocent civilians. See #43669

Or the link to Sam's words can be found here under My position on pre-emptive nuclear war - about half way down the page https://www.samharris.org/blog/response-to-controversy 

[ProfessorDavey]

As Sam Harris is seemingly at the centre of this argument, It might be informative, or at the very least quite interesting, to hear how the man himself actually responds to the accusation that he is advocating a first nuclear strike against an islamic state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7T7barZEeU

It's only a few minutes long.

Helpful - always useful to hear from the person themselves rather than via other people's interpretations. And of course this is from 2015 while the original piece (which he clarifies its meaning) was from years before that.

So he is specifically asked whether he 'want to do a nuclear first strike on the muslim world? Is that true Sam?'

His answer - 'No'.

So that rather ends the debate about whether Harris wants to make a nuclear first strike on the muslim world, or even an islamist regime as there is no evidence that he wants to do this whatsoever, nor that he thinks this would be a good thing. Indeed even in the article he describes this as an unthinkable crime. What person in their right mind would interpret someone as wanting to do something that they consider to be an unthinkable crime.

What he is saying, and explains pretty well in the video, is that the notion of martyrdom is a game changer as it completely negates the whole rationale of nuclear deterrents - the notion that mutually assured destruction means that neither side will push the trigger as neither side wants to die. If one side doesn't care whether they live or die, or even think that dying would be glorious and martyrdom, then the whole notion of mutually assured destruction not longer has any currency.

And we've actually already seen this, with regard to terrorist acts. In the past our whole approach to preventing terrorism was based on the notion that the terrorist would do everything they could to avoid being killed while trying to kill others. So we focussed preventative efforts on looking for parcels sent to others, cars left unattended, packages left in bins. On planes we assured that no luggage could be on a plane taking off if the owner of that luggage wasn't on the plane. We assumed that if a plane was highjacked that the approach was to wait until it landed and then deal with the situation then. All of this was based on the notion that the bomber would try to avoid being killed by their own bomb.

All that went out of the window when the notion of the suicide bomber started to appear, largely from the late 1990s and certainly from 2001. All our certainties that a terrorist wouldn't blow up a plane they were on, or a car they were travelling in at the time etc etc went out of the window.

I guess Harris is extrapolating this to nuclear deterrents which isn't an unreasonable thing to do. I'm not sure his notion is really credible though as I thinks he assumes that within an islamist regime all people, including the leaders, their families etc desire martyrdom. I'm not sure this is the case - my reflection on these regimes is that they tend to encourage those way down the pecking order to engage in suicidal activities, but don't really do this themselves as leaders. So, while they might fight to the end, there does seem to be heavy dollop of good old fashioned self preservation amongst the leadership, even if the expect the rank and file to be prepared to martyr themselves.

And while there might be a focus on islamist ideologies now the notion of suicide and martyrdom isn't uniquely islamist. The most obvious comparator being the kamikaze pilots in WW2, but there is also a fairly long tradition across a number of religions of suicide cults, albeit in many case those only involve the suicide of the individual or members of that group, rather than using suicide as a mechanism to murder other people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Helpful - always useful to hear from the person themselves rather than via other people's interpretations. And of course this is from 2015 while the original piece (which he clarifies its meaning) was from years before that.

So he is specifically asked whether he 'want to do a nuclear first strike on the muslim world? Is that true Sam?'

His answer - 'No'.

So that rather ends the debate about whether Harris wants to make a nuclear first strike on the muslim world, or even an islamist regime as there is no evidence that he wants to do this whatsoever, nor that he thinks this would be a good thing. Indeed even in the article he describes this as an unthinkable crime. What person in their right mind would interpret someone as wanting to do something that they consider to be an unthinkable crime.

What he is saying, and explains pretty well in the video, is that the notion of martyrdom is a game changer as it completely negates the whole rationale of nuclear deterrents - the notion that mutually assured destruction means that neither side will push the trigger as neither side wants to die. If one side doesn't care whether they live or die, or even think that dying would be glorious and martyrdom, then the whole notion of mutually assured destruction not longer has any currency.

And we've actually already seen this, with regard to terrorist acts. In the past our whole approach to preventing terrorism was based on the notion that the terrorist would do everything they could to avoid being killed while trying to kill others. So we focussed preventative efforts on looking for parcels sent to others, cars left unattended, packages left in bins. On planes we assured that no luggage could be on a plane taking off if the owner of that luggage wasn't on the plane. We assumed that if a plane was highjacked that the approach was to wait until it landed and then deal with the situation then. All of this was based on the notion that the bomber would try to avoid being killed by their own bomb.

All that went out of the window when the notion of the suicide bomber started to appear, largely from the late 1990s and certainly from 2001. All our certainties that a terrorist wouldn't blow up a plane they were on, or a car they were travelling in at the time etc etc went out of the window.

I guess Harris is extrapolating this to nuclear deterrents which isn't an unreasonable thing to do. I'm not sure his notion is really credible though as I thinks he assumes that within an islamist regime all people, including the leaders, their families etc desire martyrdom. I'm not sure this is the case - my reflection on these regimes is that they tend to encourage those way down the pecking order to engage in suicidal activities, but don't really do this themselves as leaders. So, while they might fight to the end, there does seem to be heavy dollop of good old fashioned self preservation amongst the leadership, even if the expect the rank and file to be prepared to martyr themselves.

And while there might be a focus on islamist ideologies now the notion of suicide and martyrdom isn't uniquely islamist. The most obvious comparator being the kamikaze pilots in WW2, but there is also a fairly long tradition across a number of religions of suicide cults, albeit in many case those only involve the suicide of the individual or members of that group, rather than using suicide as a mechanism to murder other people.

If Harris is repudiating his views then of course he is free to do that and we can only be pleased that he does.
We know a first strike is not something he 'wanted' to do, but thought that it might be necessary to do.

I think it is indisputable that this is based on his views on religion.

He does talk with hindsight about why he wasn't bothered about say a russian bomb or first strike and that needs close examination. The very fact that there was an arms race is because each side could not trust the other not to take advantage of a shortfall.

When the allies had the advantage the employment of nuclear weapons was discussed against japan, communism, against china in the korean war, I even believe France approached America for the loan of a weapon to be used in Indochina and finally dropping test devices was a potentially lethal thing to do particularly in the case of the Tsar Bomba at 50 megatons.

This either means that Harris has little understanding of the history of nuclear aggression or he was led by antitheist paranoia. I suspect it was both.

As for suicide bombing completely negating the principle of mutually assured destruction. No one ever felt secure that that was a sure fire defence in the first place and as for his necessity to use nuclear weapons comprehensively because you cannot be sure where their nukes would be hidden is certainly in my opinion over the top. In any event Harris view or former view is hawkish.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Helpful - always useful to hear from the person themselves rather than via other people's interpretations. And of course this is from 2015 while the original piece (which he clarifies its meaning) was from years before that.

So he is specifically asked whether he 'want to do a nuclear first strike on the muslim world? Is that true Sam?'

His answer - 'No'.

Not buying it. When it comes to Vlad and other posters you and many others are all over their words - their posts, interpreting their written word, demanding posters withdraw their statement or apologise or holding people accountable for the words they have used, sometimes in an exceptionally pedantic manner.

But when it comes to Sam Harris's written words your approach changes and you seem to ignore the glaring gaps in the question and answer in the interview. Any particular reason for the different approach to Sam's words?

Any thoughts on why the interviewer did not quote Sam the words in his own blog where he addresses the controversy about his comments and quotes from his book, He could have quoted Sam's exact words "What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.

So that rather ends the debate about whether Harris wants to make a nuclear first strike on the muslim world, or even an islamist regime as there is no evidence that he wants to do this whatsoever, nor that he thinks this would be a good thing. Indeed even in the article he describes this as an unthinkable crime. What person in their right mind would interpret someone as wanting to do something that they consider to be an unthinkable crime.

Well, you're right the debate was ended a while back when evidence of what Sam Harris actually wrote emerged and was linked to and quoted.

You can't quote what you label as 'genocidal' passages in the Bible, and not take the same approach to Sam's written word. If Sam had said I repudiate the line where I wrote "but it [nuclear first strike of our own against tens of millions of innocent people] may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe." then we would be having a different discussion. Sam's brand of atheism is very dangerous if he is reaching for the nuclear first strike option because of his 'othering' of those with religious beliefs who are battling US hegemony.

It's not surprising that he feels this way, as many Westerners have been inculcated with a fear of the 'other' and the idea that Western lives are more valuable than other people's lives. Once again I would refer him to https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/reformed-racists-white-supremacists-life-after-hate/

What he is saying, and explains pretty well in the video, is that the notion of martyrdom is a game changer as it completely negates the whole rationale of nuclear deterrents - the notion that mutually assured destruction means that neither side will push the trigger as neither side wants to die. If one side doesn't care whether they live or die, or even think that dying would be glorious and martyrdom, then the whole notion of mutually assured destruction not longer has any currency.

And we've actually already seen this, with regard to terrorist acts. In the past our whole approach to preventing terrorism was based on the notion that the terrorist would do everything they could to avoid being killed while trying to kill others. So we focussed preventative efforts on looking for parcels sent to others, cars left unattended, packages left in bins. On planes we assured that no luggage could be on a plane taking off if the owner of that luggage wasn't on the plane. We assumed that if a plane was highjacked that the approach was to wait until it landed and then deal with the situation then. All of this was based on the notion that the bomber would try to avoid being killed by their own bomb.

All that went out of the window when the notion of the suicide bomber started to appear, largely from the late 1990s and certainly from 2001. All our certainties that a terrorist wouldn't blow up a plane they were on, or a car they were travelling in at the time etc etc went out of the window.

Harris and Bin Laden have a lot in common. Similar to Harris' reasoning, it made sense to Bin Laden that if you are up against superior fire power like that of the US and its allies which you cannot hope to beat through conventional methods, and if they are an existential threat to you, you need to act decisively to take the fight back to them on their soil. He reasoned that the US had murdered far more civilians in its history of power-grabbing than he, Bin Laden, would kill by sending a couple of passenger jets into the Twin Towers, but the visual spectacle would have an impact on the resolve of the US to continue it's current foreign policy and would boost the morale of Islamist fighters. As it happens, Bin Laden killed more people than he anticipated as the towers completely collapsed so the death toll of 9/11 was in the range of about 3000 people.

Sam Harris on the other hand is fairly confident in his anticipation that a nuclear first-strike would kill millions, and despite this, that it may be the only course of action available

I guess Harris is extrapolating this to nuclear deterrents which isn't an unreasonable thing to do. I'm not sure his notion is really credible though as I thinks he assumes that within an islamist regime all people, including the leaders, their families etc desire martyrdom. I'm not sure this is the case - my reflection on these regimes is that they tend to encourage those way down the pecking order to engage in suicidal activities, but don't really do this themselves as leaders. So, while they might fight to the end, there does seem to be heavy dollop of good old fashioned self preservation amongst the leadership, even if the expect the rank and file to be prepared to martyr themselves.

Would agree with you there about Sam's notion not being credible. Sam Harris sounds like a fruit loop. Sam Harris sounds like Bin Laden.

And while there might be a focus on islamist ideologies now the notion of suicide and martyrdom isn't uniquely islamist. The most obvious comparator being the kamikaze pilots in WW2, but there is also a fairly long tradition across a number of religions of suicide cults, albeit in many case those only involve the suicide of the individual or members of that group, rather than using suicide as a mechanism to murder other people.

Yes, presumably Sam did not pay attention when US marines were being trained long before the 1990s to sacrifice their lives to kill those deemed the enemy of the US.

He did not consider the US mass shootings in schools or other civilian places followed by the suicide of the gunman - either by the gunman's own hand or shot down by police - as a game changer that required a first strike? That wasn't a game changer for him? He did not think we don't know where these mass shooters might be or where they will come from so lets shoot everyone just in case? He just has a problem with Muslims killing Americans on US soil?

As there is a fairly long tradition in the US of mass murderers who commit suicide without the involvement of religion and cults as well, perhaps a more rational approach would be to study the common factors that drive people to mass murder - suicide. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201802/the-shocking-and-unexplored-mass-shooting-suicide-connection

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Nope. You can't compare a situation where you are counting outcomes to a situation where you deriving ethics. The categories are different.

You’re still not getting it, presumably because you’re lost in the ought-is paradox. To answer your question about whether morality is “because I feel like it”, at the axiomatic level yes it is. The sociopath’s morality of “it’s morally good to kill people” is true for him; your (I hope) and my morality “it’s morally bad to kill people” is our morality. The likes of Vlad are in thrall to the notion of universal moral laws (so as to justify the assertion “god”) which seems bizarre to me for the obvious reason that while you and the sociopath can have different moral precepts, you can’t have different laws governing universal forces – you’ll both hit the deck if you jump out of the window no matter what you think the gravitational laws ought to be.

Thus I’m not “deriving ethics” in the normative sense of inferring the truth of moral statements at all. Rather I’m confining myself to describing what is, and to arguing for what I’d like to be from premises rather than from axioms. Think of morality as a first cousin (or possibly an offshoot) of aesthetics. Pretty much everyone will find a picture of a sunset to be attractive, and a picture of roadkill to be repellent. We intuit these value judgements. Some fewer people though will find aesthetic pleasure/repellence to be the other way around (sunset = ugly; roadkill = beautiful). Neither group are objectively “right” or “wrong” about that, they just respond as their intuitions indicate.

Layered onto our intuitions moreover we have reasoning, which means our opinions on aesthetics and on morality equally can change. The Victorians for example thought Mozart was frothy and inconsequential – the Mantovani of their time – and only later was he viewed as a towering genius; gay relationships were once considered morally reprehensible (the “sin that dare not speak its name”), and now we have equal marriage. These changing positions work perfectly well though without invoking (supposed) universal values, and I can argue reasonably therefore for why Mozart/equal marriage are good also without claims of universal values (provided of course I have the humility to acknowledge that I could be wrong in either case). The “counting outcomes” comes only when I want to support my premises-based arguments with data.

Anyway, as I don’t suppose any of this will persuade you here’s a song that might:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu5dEXZ7DOY

(The rest of your post fails accordingly.)         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So then this is all about how Sam Harris feels. And he feels it might be necessary to launch a first strike to comprehensively destroy a whole geography of a country because religious people have got the bomb. To protect, atheism I suppose.
He acknowledges this may usher in world nuclear destruction which will be regrettable since in a way the equivalent of unicorns will have annihilated all of humanity.
And you support this fevered convoluted nonsense.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

You’re still not getting it, presumably because you’re lost in the ought-is paradox. To answer your question about whether morality is “because I feel like it”, at the axiomatic level yes it is. The sociopath’s morality of “it’s morally good to kill people” is true for him; your (I hope) and my morality “it’s morally bad to kill people” is our morality. The likes of Vlad are in thrall to the notion of universal moral laws (so as to justify the assertion “god”) which seems bizarre to me for the obvious reason that while you and the sociopath can have different moral precepts, you can’t have different laws governing universal forces – you’ll both hit the deck if you jump out of the window no matter what you think the gravitational laws ought to be.

Thus I’m not “deriving ethics” in the normative sense of inferring the truth of moral statements at all. Rather I’m confining myself to describing what is, and to arguing for what I’d like to be from premises rather than from axioms. Think of morality as a first cousin (or possibly an offshoot) of aesthetics. Pretty much everyone will find a picture of a sunset to be attractive, and a picture of roadkill to be repellent. We intuit these value judgements. Some fewer people though will find aesthetic pleasure/repellence to be the other way around (sunset = ugly; roadkill = beautiful). Neither group are objectively “right” or “wrong” about that, they just respond as their intuitions indicate.

Layered onto our intuitions moreover we have reasoning, which means our opinions on aesthetics and on morality equally can change. The Victorians for example thought Mozart was frothy and inconsequential – the Mantovani of their time – and only later was he viewed as a towering genius; gay relationships were once considered morally reprehensible (the “sin that dare not speak its name”), and now we have equal marriage. These changing positions work perfectly well though without invoking (supposed) universal values, and I can argue reasonably therefore for why Mozart/equal marriage are good also without claims of universal values (provided of course I have the humility to acknowledge that I could be wrong in either case). The “counting outcomes” comes only when I want to support my premises-based arguments with data.

Anyway, as I don’t suppose any of this will persuade you here’s a song that might:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu5dEXZ7DOY

(The rest of your post fails accordingly.)         

BHS - as this discussion was mainly triggered by your response #43551 could you please clarify something? When you wrote in #43551:

No because that’s a false analogy. Political positions can point to reason and evidence for justification, at least to some meaningful degree – if someone says “privatising the NHS will improve patient outcomes” for example that claim can be tested.

The religious moderate and the religious extremist by contrast point to exactly the same unverifiable rationale: “but that’s my faith”.

Are you claiming that when an atheist has to make a decision about NHS improvements to patient outcomes, they will count the number of patients who recover after a particular change to treatment or environment vs the number of patients who won't recover?
And any decision made will be solely based on numbers rather than any ethics e.g. when deciding whether to allocate funding to neo-natal vs geriatric care, the atheist will decide based on whichever group has a better recovery rate for the funds spent, and not take into account any ethical considerations? And are you claiming that is a the rational and therefore correct way of making such decisions?
 
And are you claiming that when a religious person has to make a decision about NHS improvements to patient outcomes they will justify any decision they make with "but that's my faith"?

[Stranger]

So then this is all about how Sam Harris feels. And he feels it might be necessary to launch a first strike to comprehensively destroy a whole geography of a country because religious people have got the bomb. To protect, atheism I suppose.

This is an idiotic statement, even for you. He's talking about a nightmare scenario in which a particular type of fanatical theist cult, one that regards death as not only acceptable but desirable, has control of long range nuclear weapons. That would destroy the 'logic' of deterrence, because they simply wouldn't care if their own country was destroyed in a retaliatory strike because it would make all the believers martyrs who go straight to paradise and the unbelievers would deserve it anyway. He also doesn't advocate a pre-emptive strike, he just regards it as possibly the only way a threatened nation may be able to protect itself in those particular circumstances.

The whole thing is a thought experiment about how irrational and fanatical religious beliefs could plausibly cause nuclear Armageddon. If the threatened country did not initiate a first strike, then the outcome could be pretty much the same anyway, as a retaliatory strike would probably lead to much the same outcome. Even if there were no retaliatory strikes at all, and all the other nations decided to sacrifice themselves, there would still be world devastation. It would be a lose-lose situation whatever course of action was taken.

What he does advocate is to do anything possible to avoid the situation arising in the first place.

And of course it's got nothing to do with protecting atheism, since Christians and other religious groups would be just as much in danger. You don't appear to have read, let alone thought about, this at all, just your usual knee-jerk reaction.

I really don't know how anybody could read his comments as him actually suggesting that a pre-emptive strike on Islamic nations would be a good idea.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This is an idiotic statement, even for you. He's talking about a nightmare scenario in which a particular type of fanatical theist cult, one that regards death as not only acceptable but desirable, has control of long range nuclear weapons. That would destroy the 'logic' of deterrence, because they simply wouldn't care if their own country was destroyed in a retaliatory strike because it would make all the believers martyrs who go straight to paradise and the unbelievers would deserve it anyway. He also doesn't advocate a pre-emptive strike, he just regards it as possibly the only way a threatened nation may be able to protect itself in those particular circumstances.

The whole thing is a thought experiment about how irrational and fanatical religious beliefs could plausibly cause nuclear Armageddon. If the threatened country did not initiate a first strike, then the outcome could be pretty much the same anyway, as a retaliatory strike would probably lead to much the same outcome. Even if there were no retaliatory strikes at all, and all the other nations decided to sacrifice themselves, there would still be world devastation. It would be a lose-lose situation whatever course of action was taken.

What he does advocate is to do anything possible to avoid the situation arising in the first place.

And of course it's got nothing to do with protecting atheism, since Christians and other religious groups would be just as much in danger. You don't appear to have read, let alone thought about, this at all, just your usual knee-jerk reaction.

I really don't know how anybody could read his comments as him actually suggesting that a pre-emptive strike on Islamic nations would be a good idea.

I suggest this would be more productive discussion if you did not quote Vlad and then misrepresent him or anyone else. Apart from anything else it makes you look idiotic. Vlad said Harris feels a pre-emptive nuclear strike would be "necessary", not "good".

Harris does not seem to care that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is bad - he acknowledges it is bad, but still necessary. That's the part people had a problem with - his idea that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is necessary based on his beliefs about what an Islamist regime might do. He thinks it is necessary to kill people based on beliefs. He presents the same rationale for killing people that the terrorists use - get them before they get us or they take over our land and force their beliefs of [insert Islam or Liberal Democracy as appropriate] on us. We get mindless rhetoric from both sides to justify violence.

It then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If terrorists believed that the US will launch a pre-emptive strike based on Harris's flawed logic that "it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe", then the terrorist will follow the same logic as Harris and decide a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US is the only course of action available to the terrorist.

Bin Laden said he decided that militants should start planning to attack the United States in the wake of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, when apartment towers in Beirut were bombed. The U.S. backed Israel in that action. It's a never-ending cycle of violence that people who share the views of Harris and Bin Laden perpetuate.

It's also particularly stupid given Sam Harris lives in a country where mass murder suicide shoot-outs by its own citizens on school children has become almost a national sport - because its irrational and fanatical morality protects second amendment rights over the rights of children not to be shot dead.

The US can't bring itself to repeal 2nd amendment rights to protect lives and instead thinks that people with more guns is a solution to suicidal gunmen. The US police seem to have a problem whereby too many of them shoot first and ask questions later because the police believe they are about to be attacked. It's therefore not surprising that Harris, growing up in a country with such beliefs and culture, states that he thinks a pre-emptive nuclear strike "may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe"

ETA: having signed up for the British territorial army for kicks (and pay) for a brief time about 30 years ago while I was at university, I understand that killing others for a cause (an ideology or your country) or dying for a cause based on a belief can present itself as a necessary action, whether you are an atheist or a theist. I happened to be an atheist at the time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VG,

You’re still not getting it, presumably because you’re lost in the ought-is paradox. To answer your question about whether morality is “because I feel like it”, at the axiomatic level yes it is. The sociopath’s morality of “it’s morally good to kill people” is true for him; your (I hope) and my morality “it’s morally bad to kill people” is our morality. The likes of Vlad are in thrall to the notion of universal moral laws (so as to justify the assertion “god”) which seems bizarre to me for the obvious reason that while you and the sociopath can have different moral precepts, you can’t have different laws governing universal forces – you’ll both hit the deck if you jump out of the window no matter what you think the gravitational laws ought to be.

Thus I’m not “deriving ethics” in the normative sense of inferring the truth of moral statements at all. Rather I’m confining myself to describing what is, and to arguing for what I’d like to be from premises rather than from axioms. Think of morality as a first cousin (or possibly an offshoot) of aesthetics. Pretty much everyone will find a picture of a sunset to be attractive, and a picture of roadkill to be repellent. We intuit these value judgements. Some fewer people though will find aesthetic pleasure/repellence to be the other way around (sunset = ugly; roadkill = beautiful). Neither group are objectively “right” or “wrong” about that, they just respond as their intuitions indicate.

Layered onto our intuitions moreover we have reasoning, which means our opinions on aesthetics and on morality equally can change. The Victorians for example thought Mozart was frothy and inconsequential – the Mantovani of their time – and only later was he viewed as a towering genius; gay relationships were once considered morally reprehensible (the “sin that dare not speak its name”), and now we have equal marriage. These changing positions work perfectly well though without invoking (supposed) universal values, and I can argue reasonably therefore for why Mozart/equal marriage are good also without claims of universal values (provided of course I have the humility to acknowledge that I could be wrong in either case). The “counting outcomes” comes only when I want to support my premises-based arguments with data.

Anyway, as I don’t suppose any of this will persuade you here’s a song that might:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu5dEXZ7DOY

(The rest of your post fails accordingly.)         

Regarding morality as an offshoot of aesthetics.

I can see people stroking their chins and saying "I do like a sunset but I do like an exquisite roadkill too.
If you are going to compare aesthetics and morality while suggesting morality is evolved aesthetics ( why not the other way round?) for goodness sake get a handle on aesthetics first and then be clear of the difference.

[Stranger]

I suggest this would be more productive discussion if you did not quote Vlad and then misrepresent him or anyone else. Apart from anything else it makes you look idiotic. Vlad said Harris feels a pre-emptive nuclear strike would be "necessary", not "good".

Well firstly, if you're being pedantic, Harris doesn't say necessary either. From the quote he just says "In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own." and follows it immediately with "Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime..."

Secondly, you picked me up on this detail and just ignored the fact that Vlad totally misrepresented the whole argument as a necessary strike just because "religious people" had got the bomb, in order to "protect atheism".

Talk about double standards. 

...his idea that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is necessary based on his beliefs about what an Islamist regime might do.

He's basing it on what certain groups of Islamists have said and what they appear to genuinely believe. As again he points out in the blog there appear to be people for whom the slogan "We love death more than the infidel loves life" appears to be an entirely genuine statement of their state of mind. Do you really think that the terrorists that flew planes into the twin towers would have hesitated to use nuclear weapons if they were able to, regardless of the consequences?

I do not agree with Harris on everything but I think the point he's trying to make here is being missed. As I said, he's positing a plausible situation in which extreme religious views (basically fairy tales) could endanger the whole of civilization, and, as I pointed out before, that that would be the case with or without a pre-emptive strike by anybody else.

The rest of your post is basically whataboutery, and sure, the US (dominated by another religion, of course) is far from blameless but that isn't really relevant to the main point. If you have people who are not only prepared to sacrifice their lives but believe it is a glorious and desirable thing to do, that will transport them immediately to a literal paradise, and who don't care how many other people die with them (by the same insane 'logic' that believers will go to paradise and the others deserve their punishment), then any logic in deterrence has disappeared.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Regarding morality as an offshoot of aesthetics.

I can see people stroking their chins and saying "I do like a sunset but I do like an exquisite roadkill too.
If you are going to compare aesthetics and morality while suggesting morality is evolved aesthetics ( why not the other way round?) for goodness sake get a handle on aesthetics first and then be clear of the difference.

I think regardless of any belief in universal moral laws of any gods anyone believes in, I think we each interpret what we read differently, because we are influenced by our individual tastes (not necessarily in relation to beauty). Tastes are presumably determined by our nature/ nurture.

Edmund Burke suggested taste is made up of a mix of three factors: sensory perception, the pleasures of imagination, and the conclusions of the reasoning faculty. Hence his view that taste can be cultivated. Hume said "“it is requisite to employ much reasoning in order to feel the proper sentiment; and a false relish may frequently be corrected by argument and reflection”.

I think people who have more conservative tastes /are more conservative in nature will have a preference for interpreting moral laws in a way to reflect that order and hierarchy and tradition has a higher priority for them than individual freedom. Those with a liberal outlook feel energised by change and feel suffocated by tradition so will interpret moral laws differently from those with a conservative outlook.

It's a bit like the gay religious marriage debate - some people will oppose the definitions of traditional words being changed because social order and tradition and the security that brings are more important to them than any individual's happiness and the rapid change induces feelings of anxiety. Any moral reasoning (whether expressed in religious or atheistic language)  will be influenced by these innate preferences.

People can be conservative about some issues and liberal about others.  Individual human interpretation, and individual innate appetite for risk are part of what makes up our individual tastes and this along with reasoning presumably leads to the moral judgements we form.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think regardless of any belief in universal moral laws of any gods anyone believes in, I think we each interpret what we read differently, because we are influenced by our individual tastes (not necessarily in relation to beauty). Tastes are presumably determined by our nature/ nurture.

Edmund Burke suggested taste is made up of a mix of three factors: sensory perception, the pleasures of imagination, and the conclusions of the reasoning faculty. Hence his view that taste can be cultivated. Hume said "“it is requisite to employ much reasoning in order to feel the proper sentiment; and a false relish may frequently be corrected by argument and reflection”.

I think people who have more conservative tastes /are more conservative in nature will have a preference for interpreting moral laws in a way to reflect that order and hierarchy and tradition has a higher priority for them than individual freedom. Those with a liberal outlook feel energised by change and feel suffocated by tradition so will interpret moral laws differently from those with a conservative outlook.

It's a bit like the gay religious marriage debate - some people will oppose the definitions of traditional words being changed because social order and tradition and the security that brings are more important to them than any individual's happiness and the rapid change induces feelings of anxiety. Any moral reasoning (whether expressed in religious or atheistic language)  will be influenced by these innate preferences.

People can be conservative about some issues and liberal about others.  Individual human interpretation, and individual innate appetite for risk are part of what makes up our individual tastes and this along with reasoning presumably leads to the moral judgements we form.

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful analysis of course quick change is caused often these days by agenda pushing and is nearly always subject to the law of unintended consequences. The linguistic minefield of the Trans issue imv might be a consequence of the success to redefine the word marriage.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well firstly, if you're being pedantic, Harris doesn't say necessary either. From the quote he just says "In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own." and follows it immediately with "Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime..."

Exactly. Both Vlad and VG are misrepresenting what Harris actually says by implying he says a first strike would be necessary. He never says that, nor does he say that a first strike should happen, or that is would be the right thing to do - there is no implication that he wants this to happen or considers it to be desirable.

And even in his actual words he implies no certainty, as he clearly uses the word may - if he had certainly he would have used would.

Appalling misrepresentation by Vlad (hardly unexpected), but also by VG (less expected and more disappointing) particularly as her posts also imply some kind of equivalence between Harris and Bin-Laden. Beyond contempt, I'm afraid.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly. Both Vlad and VG are misrepresenting what Harris actually says by implying he say a first strike would be necessary. He never says that, nor does he say that a first strike should happen, or that is would be the right thing to do - there is no implication that he wants this to happen or considers it to be desirable.

And even in his actual words he implies no certainty, as he clearly uses the word may - if he had certainly he would have used would.

Appalling misrepresentation by Vlad (hardly unexpected), but also by VG (less expected and more disappointing) particularly as her posts also imply some kind of equivalence between Harris and Bin-Laden. Beyond contempt, I'm afraid.

We know he doesn't want to or desire it but for him, it is very much still on the table based on his understanding of deterrence and what states are after. The more you take us away from plain implications and meanings Davey, the more Harris's words are revealed as convoluted paranoid ignorant nonsense.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well firstly, if you're being pedantic, Harris doesn't say necessary either. From the quote he just says "In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own." and follows it immediately with "Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime..."

Yes agreed. It's the bit that follows "unthinkable crime" that I have a problem with -  "it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe."

Secondly, you picked me up on this detail and just ignored the fact that Vlad totally misrepresented the whole argument as a necessary strike just because "religious people" had got the bomb, in order to "protect atheism".

Talk about double standards. 

Fair enough - but I figured there would be plenty of people available to pull Vlad up on that so no point me putting any time into that.

He's basing it on what certain groups of Islamists have said and what they appear to genuinely believe. As again he points out in the blog there appear to be people for whom the slogan "We love death more than the infidel loves life" appears to be an entirely genuine statement of their state of mind. Do you really think that the terrorists that flew planes into the twin towers would have hesitated to use nuclear weapons if they were able to, regardless of the consequences?

If we're just idly chatting then yes I think it's a possibility they would use nuclear weapons and it's also very possible that despite their posturing rhetoric they would not use nuclear weapons. They flew a couple of planes into the Twin Towers (having got the idea from the Israeli bombing of Beirut in 1982 apparently and the US did not seem particularly horrified by that). There is a big difference between pulverising a couple of towers in a civilian area and killing a few thousand people, and launching nuclear weapons.

And despite the US already having dropped nuclear bombs on civilians as part of posturing (which committed it and the Soviet Union to a rapidly escalating arms race) and despite the near misses of the Cuban Missile crisis, we don't say launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US "may be the only course of action available to us", given what the US has done, in case they decide to do it again.

If we were discussing a basis for launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike against millions of innocent civilians, I would need a lot more than a few posturing slogans by some terrorists fighting against a much more powerful enemy to induce me to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Bin Laden's lot did not invent this concept of being a death-lover. The military and society are full of such people.  https://www.wisesayings.com/fallen-soldier-quotes/ and yet we have managed to not launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes despite our cultures glorifying dying in battle.

I would need concrete evidence that the missiles are in the process of being launched by the terrorists as we speak. At which point, I would decide that we need to eliminate their capability to launch more missiles after the first strike or their ability to follow up their first strike with fighters and conventional weapons, in which case it makes sense to launch a counter-strike.

I do not agree with Harris on everything but I think the point he's trying to make here is being missed. As I said, he's positing a plausible situation in which extreme religious views (basically fairy tales) could endanger the whole of civilization, and, as I pointed out before, that that would be the case with or without a pre-emptive strike by anybody else.

Yes - I agree with his point about fanatics with nuclear weapons being a threat to civilisation. I agreed with the sentiment when I watched Dr Strangelove when I was a kid. I think this recent review of it captures my views on pre-emptive strikes. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/may/15/dr-strangelove-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb-review-stanley-kubrick-peter-sellers

The rest of your post is basically whataboutery, and sure, the US (dominated by another religion, of course) is far from blameless but that isn't really relevant to the main point. If you have people who are not only prepared to sacrifice their lives but believe it is a glorious and desirable thing to do, that will transport them immediately to a literal paradise, and who don't care how many other people die with them (by the same insane 'logic' that believers will go to paradise and the others deserve their punishment), then any logic in deterrence has disappeared.

I agree with Sam's point that you can't use the threat of death to deter people who think it's a good thing to sacrifice your life for a cause. Their deaths will be a rallying cry for other like-minded people to try to avenge them. If they were killed in a pre-emptive strike and it was only them who were killed that might work. But if along with them millions of innocent civilians were also killed by a pre-emptive strike, I am fairly sure people who weren't radicalised before, would be now. Citizens living in the country that launched the pre-emptive strike would be willing to die to get revenge and your pool of home-grown terrorists would multiply exponentially, all itching to get their hands on nuclear weapons to wipe out civilians, if that's how the game is being played.

I think that's what makes his words nonsense when he says ""In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.....it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe"

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Exactly. Both Vlad and VG are misrepresenting what Harris actually says by implying he says a first strike would be necessary. He never says that, nor does he say that a first strike should happen, or that is would be the right thing to do - there is no implication that he wants this to happen or considers it to be desirable.

And even in his actual words he implies no certainty, as he clearly uses the word may - if he had certainly he would have used would.

Appalling misrepresentation by Vlad (hardly unexpected), but also by VG (less expected and more disappointing) particularly as her posts also imply some kind of equivalence between Harris and Bin-Laden. Beyond contempt, I'm afraid.

Nope not misrepresenting Harris. His words are "In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.....it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe".

If there is only one action that is likely to ensure survival - would you say that action is viewed as necessary or not necessary?
If something may be the only course of action available to us - would you say that action is viewed as necessary or not necessary?

Sam just sticks in a couple of "maybes" to allow for the possibility he is wrong - it's a style of writing so that you don't commit yourself unequivocally to a position with no wriggle room.

What I find disappointing and contemptuous though not surprising is the hypocrisy of some of the atheists who try to take the moral high ground about the military posturing of religious texts, but suddenly fall all over themselves to explain away Sam Harris's view that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against civilians may be the only course of action available - based on what he thinks Islamists believe - they don't actually have to have done anything worse than killing 3000 civilians and he does not mention that the US has done its own fair share of killing civilians.

If Bin Laden and Sam Harris think pre-emptive strikes with massive loss of life may be the only course of action available, given what the other side believe, what is the difference between the two on that issue?     

Your disappointment and contempt would I think be quite welcome in this instance, given your hypocritical defence of Harris - we clearly do not share the same values.

[ProfessorDavey]

If Bin Laden and Sam Harris think pre-emptive strikes with massive loss of life may be the only course of action available, given what the other side believe, what is the difference between the two on that issue?

Oh, let me think about this one for a minute, because it is really, really hard.

Maybe that Harris writes books and articles, while Bin Laden was the leader and mastermind of a terrorist organisation that deliberately murdered thousands of innocent people.

Yup, clearly entirely the same VG. As I said previously beyond contempt.

[ProfessorDavey]

We know he doesn't want to or desire it but for him, it is very much still on the table based on his understanding of deterrence and what states are after. The more you take us away from plain implications and meanings Davey, the more Harris's words are revealed as convoluted paranoid ignorant nonsense.

As far as I can see all he is doing is that if you know that someone is going to kill you and you cannot stop them by a threat to kill them (due to their ideology) then the only way to save your own life may be to kill them first.

So an analogy:

Imagine you have a gun and another person has a sword and is determined to kill you - under most circumstances if you threatened to shoot them that would be enough to stop them attacking you. However if the sword wielder doesn't care whether they die, indeed thinks death would be glorious then your threat to shoot them isn't going to work. So the only way to avoid being killed may be to shoot them first.

Seems pretty self evident. Why is that such a difficult thing to understand Vlad. But of course, Harris' only 'crime' is to write this down, which for some reason makes him some appalling person in the eyes of Vlad, and equivalent to a person who led an organisation that deliberately murdered thousands of innocent people in the eyes of VG.

[jeremyp]

so Harris disgusts me and that disgusts you.

No, what disgusts me is that you keep lying about Sam Harris.

[jeremyp]

Interesting re-interpretation of Sam Harris's words. But Harris is not advocating amputating a gangrenous limb, he is advocating killing the patient, all their family, all their children and their neighbours, in fact the whole city or in his own words "tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day".
I don't think Vlad is mischaracterising.

Of course he is. Have you even read the link you posted?

[jeremyp]

Thanks but firstly we're not discussing whether Sam Harris said that he wants a nuclear first strike on the Muslim world.

I certainly didn't mention the Muslim world, and I don't think Vlad did either so Dave Rubin is barking up the wrong tree.

Secondly, I already linked to Sam Harris' own blog where he seems to advocate a first strike against an Islamist regime with long range nuclear weapons just in case, even if it means killing tens of millions of innocent civilians. See #43669

Goalpost moving or what.

But even so, Sam Harris's position is that, if a Jihadist regime with the same mentality as those that flew planes into the World Trade Centre gets long range nuclear weapons, it is inevitable that we will have to annihilate them to save the rest off the World. This is such  a horrific thing that we need to do everything we can to stop it. That includes moderate Muslims not enabling the extremists and starting actively opposing them

The idea that Harris wants a pre-emptive strike on the Muslim world or any part of it is a slur.

[jeremyp]

If Harris is repudiating his views then of course he is free to do that and we can only be pleased that he does.

He's not repudiating his views. His views haven't changed. It's just dishonest people like you who are saying he ever wanted a nuclear strike against any part of the Muslim world.

As for suicide bombing completely negating the principle of mutually assured destruction. No one ever felt secure that that was a sure fire defence in the first place and as for his necessity to use nuclear weapons comprehensively because you cannot be sure where their nukes would be hidden is certainly in my opinion over the top. In any event Harris view or former view is hawkish.

It doesn't matter if nobody felt sure. It only mattered that people behaved rationally, which they did (and do) for the most part.

[ProfessorDavey]

The idea that Harris wants a pre-emptive strike on the Muslim world or any part of it is a slur.

But this is from VG, a person who seems to think there is an equivalence between a person who writes the odd book and article and a known mass murderer who masterminded the deliberate murder of thousands of innocent people.

[ProfessorDavey]

If there is only one action that is likely to ensure survival - would you say that action is viewed as necessary or not necessary?

Only if you consider that survival is the primary objective and if there is no alternative course of action (see below).

If something may be the only course of action available to us - would you say that action is viewed as necessary or not necessary?

Obviously not as the use of both if and may be clearly indicates that there may be other courses of action available to us and that the situation is a matter of conjecture (a thought experiment as others have indicated, which is what you'd expect from a philosopher). If this was the only alternative then Harris would have said:

"but it would be the only course of action available to us" or

"but it is the only course of action available to us"

But he didn't, did he - he said.

"but it may be the only course of action available to us"

So to answer your question Harris never specifically says that a first strike is necessary and to suggest as such would be a lie. Nor does he imply it to be and to suggest as such is to misrepresent him. What he does say is that this course of action would be an unconscionable act and an unthinkable crime. And when specifically asked whether he 'want to do a nuclear first strike on the muslim world? Is that true Sam?'

His answer is - 'No'.

And actually if you read this section in its entirety he makes it clear that the first strike wouldn't actually achieve survival anyhow as there would be an expected nuclear response from any muslim state that holds nuclear weapons and we know at least one does. Hence:

"How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own."

So he actually doesn't think a nuclear first strike would work so why would he support one, let alone think it necessary. So his view is that if an islamist regime were to get hold of long range nuclear weapons, we are screwed, regardless of whether the west launch a nuclear first strike or not.

So his conclusion - is effectively that we must find a way to prevent this series of genocidal falling dominos occurring, and that the key is to prevent an islamist regime acquiring such weapons, and he sees the moderate muslim world as key here, hence:

"We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."