Best Refutation of Sam Harris' "Moral Landscape"
Greg Coppola
Apocalypse Book Club
Aug 14, 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bBKrE_oanY


Automatic Transcript

0:00
this is apocalypse book club I want to
0:02
talk about Sam Harris today you've got
0:04
people who are passionate and dedicated
0:06
to what they believe and then you get
0:07
Sam Harris basically okay Tim Harris is
0:10
someone that I think has set philosophy
0:12
back for all of his fans and even for
0:14
everybody that's engaging with him for a
0:16
variety of reasons I think the first
0:18
reason is that he's trying to invent his
0:20
own style which I would call like the
0:23
imaginary scenario style of philosophy
0:25
dial up the deadliness of the pathogen
0:28
bodies of kids are being stacked up in
0:30
parks and we have a vaccine that
0:32
actually works and then we've got RFK Jr
0:34
saying maybe you don't want to get the
0:36
jab he says imagine a scenario and
0:38
children and children are dying being
0:40
part of the street now RFK is saying
0:42
don't do it no no no RFK was talking
0:45
about now you made up a fake scenario in
0:48
your own mind and then criticized RFK uh
0:51
I mean I don't know if he's the first
0:52
one to ever use it but like he seems to
0:54
think that this is like what
0:55
philosophers do or he thinks this is an
0:57
advance based on like what we previously
0:58
had but it's neither there you know you
1:00
don't just create these imaginary
1:02
scenarios and I want to explain what I
1:03
mean and everybody has been like kind of
1:05
ragging on Sam Harris lately Dave Smith
1:07
he said imagine if everything was
1:08
completely different then things would
1:10
be different well I think what's strange
1:12
is the mental gymnastics he has to go
1:14
through to create a scenario where the
1:16
the world that he wants is correct which
1:18
is good because I think if you think
1:19
about it it's like how do we actually do
1:21
peer review one way is that there's like
1:23
three peer reviewers these magical peer
1:25
reviewers at journals that now even
1:27
people like Richard Dawkins and
1:29
peterborghin are like saying you know
1:31
there actually are problems with peer
1:33
review or they'll if they're
1:34
knowledgeable and they're an academic
1:36
they'll talk about literature the
1:39
peer-reviewed literature
1:41
and that peer-reviewed literature has
1:43
been what I've written about before it's
1:45
been ideal laundered so you get a bunch
1:47
of people who are ideologues together uh
1:49
who already they start with their
1:51
conclusion first and they work backward
1:52
from the conclusion the exact opposite
1:55
of science so that Weinstein says
1:56
there's problems with peer review
1:57
everybody uh John lacun said like the AI
2:00
guy he said who invented like deep
2:02
learning partly he was always critical
2:04
of the peer review process because the
2:06
peer review process turned down deep
2:07
learning in the early days and so it's
2:10
basically like if we're not going to do
2:12
peer review the traditional way which is
2:14
kind of good because I think it's just
2:15
like very slow then the question is how
2:17
do we do peer review as an internet
2:19
community and I think ideally when
2:22
someone was proved wrong they would
2:23
admit the point but Sam Harris won't do
2:25
that if he's not going to hit the point
2:26
he could at least go and do interviews
2:28
or podcasts with people where they
2:30
actually discuss whether or not it's
2:32
true what he says for example the one
2:35
thing that I'm always on Sam Harris
2:36
about is that he said that we can get
2:37
values from science we can get values
2:39
from Facts yeah well I should preface
2:41
this by saying this is a very
2:43
controversial opinion uh I think no
2:46
that's why I bring it up
2:49
I don't think it should be but it is and
2:51
it's been part of modern philosophy from
2:53
like since Hume which was like 300 years
2:55
ago that you can't get an ought from an
2:57
is which is like a linguistic argument
2:59
and it's a good argument and I would
3:01
update it using modern logic that's
3:03
going to be the contribution that I want
3:04
to make in my book AI philosophy so we
3:07
want to update hume's argument there's
3:08
more things we could say we could bring
3:09
in decision Theory we could bring in
3:11
artificial intelligence perspectives and
3:12
all of these would contradict what Sam
3:14
Harris is saying and so there's ways we
3:16
can modernize hume's argument that you
3:18
can't get an ought from an is but that's
3:19
just like deepening the Insight that he
3:21
already had so Hume is one of the major
3:23
philosophers of the English language and
3:25
yeah it's like definitely one of the
3:26
greats there's not that many people
3:27
really that have been great philosophers
3:29
in the last 2 500 years I actually think
3:31
it's less than 25 I would say there's
3:32
probably been less than one great
3:34
philosopher every Century so in some
3:36
sense we don't like it doesn't make
3:37
sense for everyone to try to be a
3:38
philosopher at once like not at least
3:40
not a great philosopher everyone needs
3:41
some philosophy and then like there's
3:43
like ways to apply things in different
3:44
scenarios and ways to mix things like
3:46
Tai Lopez is kind of a great philosopher
3:48
because he's like philosopher of life
3:50
and he's mixing all these different
3:51
perspectives and he does have new stuff
3:53
controversial take you should try to
3:55
make your body
3:56
look specifically whatever is most
3:59
attractive to the opposite sex but these
4:01
kind of fundamental insights that come
4:03
from people like Hume they don't come
4:04
very often and so for Sam Harris who
4:08
disagree with Hume you have to like it's
4:10
he's one of you know he's one of the
4:12
standards I think I think courtesy of
4:14
Hume
4:15
we have drawn the lesson in wet in in
4:18
Western philosophy and science that
4:21
facts and values are two different
4:24
classes of thing he's one of the people
4:27
in the Canon you can't just like dismiss
4:29
him and say well humans said this but I
4:30
don't think so you have to give a reason
4:31
this is like 101 okay so if you think
4:33
Hume was wrong that's what he said the
4:34
other day with Bernard Coast he was
4:36
invited for some kind of after dinner
4:38
event with Sam Harris where I guess like
4:40
the idea is like you know talk about
4:41
some ideas which is in theory a fun
4:43
thing but the problem is Sam Harris
4:45
doesn't know what he's talking about and
4:46
vinod khosla who's a VC he's an engineer
4:48
an entrepreneur and stuff even he knows
4:50
the issue better than Sam Harris and you
4:52
know Sam Harris just like Rambles on
4:54
every time of a note asks a question and
4:56
then he doesn't answer the question of
4:57
no coastla the entrepreneur VC not
5:00
full-time philosopher but no Costa who
5:02
understands the issue better keeps
5:03
trying to like prompt Sam Harris and
5:05
prompt Sam Harris and he keeps missing
5:06
the point that's crazy but one thing
5:07
that Sam Harris said in the middle of
5:09
this um interview was like he says okay
5:12
Hume said you can't get an odd from an
5:14
is which is true he's like but I don't
5:15
think we need to put play these language
5:16
games I I think I think that the concept
5:19
of should the linking of morality and
5:21
questions of right and wrong and good
5:23
and evil to questions about should and
5:25
ought is a
5:27
a language game I don't think we have to
5:29
play so basically that's how he argues
5:31
away what humans saying is if we don't
5:32
need to play these language games and
5:34
then that's it and then he just starts
5:35
talking about like random stuff and it's
5:37
like I think Sam Harris fans
5:38
unfortunately like that they don't
5:40
realize that Sam Harris is just rambling
5:42
on like they think that because Sam
5:43
Harris talks for 20 minutes that he's
5:44
answering the question and this is bad
5:46
same here shouldn't be teaching people
5:47
this it's like philosophers reach
5:49
conclusions about important issues you
5:51
know what I mean and Sam Harris it's
5:53
like he just talks and talks and he
5:54
likes to have these conversations that
5:56
don't go anywhere you know he just likes
5:57
to see his like face on people's
5:59
podcasts and he likes to be invited to
6:01
dinner parties and stuff like that but
6:02
it's not really what philosophy is about
6:03
philosophy is about answering questions
6:05
like in a concrete way like Hume did
6:07
when he said there's no op from an is
6:09
and um yeah I mean like I think you know
6:11
you could add a bunch of math to this
6:13
argument but the intuition of what Hume
6:15
is saying is like basically there's like
6:16
what is and what we should do about it
6:18
and so if you have a like science which
6:21
is a database of like facts that are
6:23
have the verb is or does like for
6:25
example the sun does rise in East or you
6:28
could say the sun is something that
6:29
rises in the East so is and does I would
6:32
say those are like the main verbs or
6:33
probably does right like um it probably
6:35
does rain during the rainy season it
6:38
probably doesn't rain not in the rain
6:39
right is and does are the main verbs of
6:42
science now when you want to talk about
6:43
action or making a decision now all of a
6:45
sudden you're talking about what should
6:47
we do in such and such a situation or a
6:49
context given a situation or a context
6:51
what should we do so basically if you
6:53
have a database of sentences where the
6:55
verb is is or does I think that's why
6:57
Hume just says is but like is and does
6:59
are similar is or does that's like
7:00
science is like a database of facts or
7:02
potential facts or theories all of which
7:04
have the verb is or does so now when you
7:06
want to make a statement of like we
7:07
should do x y z you can't you can't have
7:10
a conclusion that says we should do
7:12
something if all of the sentences in
7:15
your database are using the verbs is or
7:17
does and so Sam Harris wants to just
7:19
brush aside Hume who first of all is
7:21
Right second of all is one of the great
7:23
philosophers of all time and third of
7:25
all has always been recognized as being
7:27
right under issue and so if you were
7:29
going to deconstruct Hume you'd have to
7:31
do it in a very serious way you don't
7:32
just say you don't just brush it off and
7:33
that's basically what Sam Harris does do
7:35
is he says well Hume said you can't get
7:37
an OP from an is but I don't think we
7:38
need to play this language game I I
7:40
think I think that the concept of should
7:42
the linking of morality and questions of
7:44
right and wrong and good and evil to
7:46
questions about should and ought is a
7:50
a language game I don't think we have to
7:51
play right so I think if we just leave
7:54
that aside that's what he says we don't
7:55
have to play this language game now the
7:57
word language game is from wickenstein
7:59
and it refers to the idea that when we
8:02
are using language in our everyday lives
8:05
it's kind of like we're playing a game
8:06
and so then language is kind of like a
8:09
tool and this leads to a whole
8:10
interpretation of language and the word
8:12
language game the way the wittenstein
8:13
said that's fine there's nothing wrong
8:14
with the word language game the problem
8:15
is same here is just here's the word
8:17
language game he uses it in a way that
8:19
it's not supposed to be used like he's
8:20
not referring to a language game the way
8:23
that it is of like what are we using
8:25
language as a tool to do so according to
8:27
wittenstein who introduced the word
8:29
language game language game refers to a
8:32
form of human activity in which language
8:33
is used each language game involves a
8:35
set of rules and conventions that govern
8:37
how language is employed within a
8:39
particular context so the word language
8:40
game does make sense but not the way Sam
8:42
Harris is using it he's using it as
8:44
though like basically just in a very
8:45
sophistry kind of a way like everything
8:47
that he does like I don't even know
8:48
exactly what he means but is a language
8:50
game we don't have to play I I think I
8:53
think that the concept of should the
8:55
linking of morality and questions of
8:56
right and wrong and good and evil to
8:58
questions about should and ought is a
9:02
a language game I don't think we have to
9:03
play I mean I you know that's what he
9:05
always does is he says these things that
9:06
sound smart but they don't really like
9:08
mean a precise thing so if by The
9:10
Language game you mean like the fact
9:12
that we're doing science like in
9:13
philosophy like philosophy and science
9:15
are a language game is that the game we
9:17
don't need to play like philosophy and
9:19
science like isn't that your whole game
9:20
like it's like I don't know like what I
9:22
really say about this it's a crazy
9:24
sentence it's a language game we don't
9:26
need to play like it's a language game
9:27
that we do need to play because we want
9:30
to form sentences that have the word
9:32
should in them so how do we not play
9:34
this language game Sam Harris but even
9:36
so I just I think the main thing to say
9:37
about this sentence is that it's just
9:39
it's self history because it doesn't
9:40
really mean anything and he's just
9:41
taking a word that sounds cool and
9:43
putting in a sentence and this is why I
9:45
think Michael schellenberger I'm with
9:46
Brett Weinstein the other day called Sam
9:48
Harris childlike you know Sam has a very
9:51
wrong core world view
9:55
um that is sort of astonishing in its
9:58
Simplicity and childlike nature because
10:00
it's like he just takes the word
10:01
language game that he heard somewhere
10:03
and it sounded cool and then he says it
10:05
on stage and he's like I'll say the word
10:06
language game but language game means
10:08
something is a
10:10
a language game I don't think we have to
10:12
play it means a precise thing according
10:13
to Wittgenstein or whoever you mean but
10:15
the point is first of all he doesn't
10:16
define Language game he just says like
10:19
language game you know and I don't even
10:21
know if he's trying to be sophist
10:22
sophistry or like to use sofa Street or
10:25
if he just doesn't even know what he's
10:26
doing or both I think it's probably both
10:27
but I I think the first thing I really
10:30
want to say is like you cannot dismiss
10:32
Hume with this nonsensical argument Hume
10:34
is right he's a landmark in the field
10:36
and this argument doesn't make any sense
10:37
okay so then Sam Harris like blabbers on
10:40
and on and he probably talks for like 20
10:42
minutes in this interview and I saw him
10:44
on with Lex Friedman complaining that
10:45
people take him out of contact Sam
10:47
Harris is concerned that people take him
10:48
out of context but it's like it's
10:50
because you talk for 20 minutes and you
10:51
don't answer the question and like it's
10:53
well known even in pop culture it's
10:55
almost like funny how many people are
10:56
remarking on this now but Sam Harris
10:58
talks in these like word salad style of
11:00
arguments where he just talks for like
11:01
20 minutes Mark Andreessen he called it
11:03
word salad he said that Sam Harris
11:05
creates a chain of hypotheticals with no
11:08
data attached to it he just like it's
11:10
like imagine this imagine it's like the
11:12
John Lennon song Imagine like that's
11:13
what Sam Harris does he's just like well
11:15
imagine this imagine that and the
11:18
problem with this imaginary scenario
11:19
style is that like yes philosophers do
11:22
imagine assumptions and then examine the
11:24
conclusions but the assumptions have to
11:26
be relevant and so that's what's in pool
11:28
and Dave Smith and even Tristan Tate the
11:32
philosopher Tristan Tate they were all
11:33
getting on Sam Harris for this recently
11:35
because he has this imaginary scenario
11:37
about vaccines where like the death rate
11:39
is higher than it is and even I think
11:41
the effective rate is higher than it is
11:43
and if both there was way more death and
11:46
children were dying and the vaccine was
11:48
perfectly effective then it would make
11:49
sense for everyone to take dial up the
11:51
deadliness of the pathogen bodies of
11:53
kids are being stacked up in parks and
11:55
we have a vaccine that actually works
11:57
and then we've got RFK Jr saying maybe
11:59
you don't want to get the jab he says
12:00
imagine a scenario and children and
12:03
children are dying pot on the street now
12:05
RFK is saying don't do it no no no RFK
12:08
was talking about now you may up a fake
12:11
scenario in your own mind and then
12:13
criticize the RFK well that's not the
12:15
scenario that we're in so you know like
12:17
the the point of philosophy is to find
12:19
assumptions that are relevant and show
12:21
that those assumptions lead to
12:22
conclusions that are relevant and that's
12:24
not what Sam Harris is doing but
12:25
basically then okay so he so he's
12:27
dismissed Hume with a flimsy argument
12:29
that's like major error that would be a
12:31
fail for a paper right there this was
12:33
peer review but let's keep going with
12:34
the interview and then Sam Harris trying
12:37
to refute Hume this 300 year old result
12:39
says yes we can derive morality or
12:42
values from science because all we need
12:44
to do is imagine the word there's that
12:47
word again imagine imagine the worst
12:49
possible outcome for everyone we want to
12:52
avoid that so this is the Crux of his
12:53
argument after having not really
12:55
dismissed Hume this is basically what
12:56
he's come up with so this is wrong so
12:59
many ways first of all I think it's
13:01
wrong because he said he was going to
13:03
derive values from Facts from science
13:05
but he hasn't derived he hasn't used
13:07
science in this this is a purely
13:08
philosophical argument and the whole
13:09
point of the moral landscape was how
13:12
science can determine human value so
13:13
that's a big problem he's kind of like
13:16
changed his argument because it was
13:17
supposed to be science that we're going
13:18
to use science to determine values now
13:20
I'm not saying that we don't use science
13:21
to determine what we do but the thing is
13:23
we use science and our values to
13:25
determine what we do we don't get the
13:26
values from science so the first problem
13:28
is he didn't use science that was his
13:29
big thing is that science was going to
13:30
determine the values we were going to
13:31
get the values from the world but he's
13:33
not getting it from the world he's just
13:34
using a philosophical argument that
13:35
would be true in any world it doesn't
13:37
depend on our actual world so he's not
13:38
using science to different values when
13:39
he says imagine a world or just imagine
13:41
the worst outcome for everyone the
13:43
second is this is not complete you know
13:45
like what do we do even if you were to
13:47
Grant the rest of this makes sense which
13:48
it doesn't we already know that we don't
13:50
want the best the worst possible world
13:51
for everyone but within that space of
13:53
things that are not the worst possible
13:54
world for everyone there's still an
13:55
infinite number of things we need to
13:57
make decisions about and this Theory
13:58
doesn't cover that finally I guess this
14:00
is related to the first point that I
14:01
made he is introducing values he's
14:03
saying we don't want the worst possible
14:04
outcome for urban but why not did you
14:06
get that from science no he's not
14:07
appealing to science he's appealing to
14:08
his own philosophy so he's dispersing
14:10
himself in a third way related to the
14:12
first because he actually just is
14:13
introducing values which is we don't
14:15
want the worst possible outcome for
14:16
everybody well that's a value and that
14:18
didn't come from science so you
14:19
disproved yourself again so basically in
14:21
summary Sam Harris proposed to change a
14:24
result by Hume without explaining why he
14:25
was wrong Hume is right and then his own
14:28
explanation of what he's trying to do
14:29
doesn't make any sense because he said
14:31
we want to avoid the worst possible
14:32
outcome for everyone well first of all
14:33
we already know that we don't need like
14:35
a big brain philosopher to tell us we
14:37
don't want the worst possible world for
14:38
everybody nobody even talked about
14:39
creating the worst possible world for
14:40
everybody obviously somebody's trying to
14:42
everybody the default is that everyone's
14:44
trying to maximize their own world and
14:45
then the Christian assumption or the
14:47
sort of higher order love based
14:49
assumption is that we want to do the
14:50
best for everybody so the sort of
14:52
choices are between doing the best for
14:53
yourself and doing the best for your
14:55
community doing the best for the entire
14:57
universe or just doing the best for
14:58
yourself nobody it's not even like a
15:00
relevant question whether we would want
15:02
to do the worst possible thing for
15:03
everybody but even if we did that's
15:05
still a value so I think the main thing
15:07
that Sam Harris has contributed is that
15:09
he's draw drawn attention to this
15:11
question so we can consider it a new can
15:13
you get values from science and since
15:14
the answer is no then the question is
15:16
where do the values come from and the
15:17
two answers are there either subjective
15:19
and we make up our own values or they're
15:21
objective and we have to seek the values
15:22
outside of ourselves but they can't come
15:24
from science Sam Harris didn't explain
15:26
what the pro what the problem with Hume
15:27
was he didn't offer his own concurrent
15:29
Theory a theory that he offered is
15:31
actually incoherent so he's wrong about
15:33
this but more generally I think the
15:34
important point is how does the internet
15:36
bring someone to Justice when they just
15:38
want to admit that they're wrong like a
15:39
gentleman or a gentlewoman or a gentle
15:41
person Sam Harris won't be a gentleman
15:42
and just say you know I put out this
15:44
Theory it's called the moral landscape
15:45
and it was actually completely off sorry
15:47
about that my mistake let's move on but
15:49
he won't do that and until he does that
15:51
I think you know it is appropriate to
15:53
mock him because it's like Sam Harris
15:54
fans who are a little on the slower side
15:56
they're just watching his videos and
15:57
being like oh wow this is what
15:59
philosophy is but this is not what
16:00
philosophy is so I think it's important
16:02
that some way we use certain language to
16:04
communicate the Sam Harris that you know
16:06
he's wrong and he should admit that he's
16:07
wrong and until he admits that he's
16:09
wrong I agree that the internet should
16:10
be putting pressure on Sam Harris and um
16:13
yeah until he till he admits his mistake