Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality? 

"Arrogance is asking a god who wouldn't stop the holocaust to find your car keys." ~Ricky Gervais

Isn't the internet just fucking amazing!? I can sit back in my living room in Kabul and watch these brilliant minds explain whether free will exists. Amazing. There really is no excuse now to remain in the darkness. Knowledge has become incredibly accessible.

Sam Harris is so good at making clear and interesting arguments. Plus he was great in Meet the Parents.

Anyone else want "Every third shall walk in darkness" on a tshirt?

"We are so deeply social, our happiness is so obviously predicated on the flourishing of others. The only way to be wisely selfish in this world is to care about others."

I think accrediting our wonderful skills of empathy and compassion to religion takes away from the excitement and truth of where we really got it from.

Privileged people living in countries in UK and US have no idea how empowering is RU-vid. Thanks to RU-vid and the kind uploader, a person like me living in a so called third world country is able to access debates such as this for free. This would've been unthinkable for my grandfather's generation.

Love listening to Ben Stiller!

I love these guys. In a world that STILL lives in darkness, they share so much light.

This is one of those videos worth watching, worth watching again … and worth taking notes! Thank you for the insights! :-)

Such brilliance makes me feel lucky to be alive to hear it!

I've seen a documentary (two different ones) that was videoed by a norwegian marine biologist about killer whales in one fjord. In the group of killer whales there was one badly injured female that had broken back and one could see that it bended clearly wrong way. Now this injury made it impossible for that creature to participate the hunt or hunt by itself. But the group always left it something to eat as it clearly was one member of that group. Now if compassion is a moral that can only rise from religion then one must argue that these killer whales have a religion. How ludicrious is that claim. P.S. Killer whales = orcas.

@20:00 Sam's brilliant water analogy used to address the "is/ought" problem. :)

Wish I had an inkling of the brain power of these men. However, I am very happy to be privileged to absorb a small portion.

I have waited my WHOLE LIFE to hear someone say this so eloquently and my mind is completely blown in an amazing way....THANK YOU SAM HARRIS and Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science #subscribed !!!!!!!!!

Sam Harris is like a mountain sized diamond for humanity. What a brilliant idea to bring to science and to the world. Applying logic and science to the prevention of suffering and the promotion of pleasure to all people and animals. Also determining the values that define what morality is objectively.

I could listen to Hitchens or Harris talk about the context of the phone book and be engaged lol. Both men are viciously smart, and have so much great information and perspective that is beyond valuable. Especially in the times we find ourselves in. I try to find every lecture or conversation they have with other academics and absorb as much as I can. Thank you is not enough. I'm in debt to both men.

My favorite part, over an hour of uninterrupted viewing... no annoying commercial breaks at inappropriate mid-sentence moments.... let the ending ad play thorough to the end in appreciation.

thank you SO MUCH for posting this! Watching this video has truly enlightened me and motivated me to learn more. Mr. Harris is brilliant and I was previously unaware of him. As a result, I will seek out more of his commentary. I believe that some of the ideas presented here can be used to get us closer to some sort of "peace" between religion and science.

I have been arguing the point of Christianity celebrating human sacrifice for years and been called many bad names but when you break it down it is the truth!!!!! Thank you!

Sam: "Think of a famous person" Me: Thinks of Angelina Jolie, Immediately realises, I thought of her because I watched a talk by Sam where he mentions her You win this one Sam, you win this one

I speak for myself of course when say this, during my childhood years and into adulthood relative, friends and strangers always push the idea of morality coming from religion. Now, I have the ability to and the freedom to say it doesn't. Let me tell you, I feel relieved! Sam does a magnificent job in putting everything into perspective! Bravo Sam!

I was the hippy in the front row with the striped shirt. Sam thanks for changing my life I got my hair cut soon after.

“The truth has to float free from these provincial values “. SH.

Both of these super smart and wonderful people are teaching us how the world should be. This kind of talks and discussions must be giving to children in High School and Universities, not only to grown up people; mostly because the young people will be our future generation. They should be listening to these wonderful people NOW. (instead of watching their I-phones all the time),

7:53 That’s exactly correct. It can tells what we should do, once we’ve agreed upon values.

19:48 - MORALITY = PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH = HEALTH OF SOCIETY 20:04 - scientific values 24:54 - Why religion cannot be the answer to the question of moral truth.

Brilliant arguments.

Very insightful, informative and inspiring. Thanks very much indeed 💐❤️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

I got Cut up with politics, and I became, depressed, then I went to Sam Harris, I feel cleansed, and excited , thank you!🐶💕

Always a pleasure to hear intellects (ie: those with a grip on the reality of the world and how it works!) such as Dawkins and Harris speak; their discussions are never boring.

A brilliant discussion among two of my favorite contemporary minds. Cheers boys!

Especially appropriate to watch on a Sunday morning :)

I wish I could see these people in reality and listen to their conversations. It would also be incredibly interesting to ask some questions and hear their answers. Maybe one day I am able to travel to these conventions.

@37:20 This is a more correct form of viewing the trolley problem. A few thoughts: 1) The hierarchical level at which the trolley problem is addressed _really_ matters. This is the level of "cost/benefit." A great deal of money should be spent making sure that all trolleys have multiply-redundant braking systems, that workers are never on all sections of the track at the same time; that any used track is never occupied by workers; that all tracks that have workers on them are cordoned off; that the cordons have electronic sensors on them to alert workers to incoming trolleys, etc. Now, here's a real-life version of the trolley problem: the company doesn't want to pay for all of the prior. In fact, if the company paid for all of the prior, then a severely negative outcome happens: The CEO who made the company successful quits; the CEO outsources to China where there are far fewer safety procedures, or the company attempts to comply with crippling regulation and fails with everyone losing their jobs. 2) The prior is why "good enough for reality" and "with the best of intentions" matters. This is why the criminal and civil courts were initially separate. The Criminal Courts deal only with harmful consequences that a prosecutor profiles that a jury will perceive bad INTENT. In order for a crime to exist under the common law, there must be INJURY and INTENT to injure a specific identified individual or specific identified set of individuals. (False law that criminalizes "mala prohibita" has united the criminal and civil courts, and the result is the mass-incarceration of the drug war, mass theft in the form of speeding tickets, and illegitimate taxation.) 3) Dawkins' doctor's office problem is a far better example of the problem, since it clearly reveals that sociopathy profiles the willingness to comply with a system that randomly murders people waiting in doctors' offices, but sociopathy doesn't object to it. Hence, we have the ongoing drug war: this seems legitimate to the people who don't understand the malevolent consequences(voters) and the sociopaths who maintain it _don't_ _care_ _about_ _the_ _malevolent_ _consequences_. (And they are paid by higher-level sociopaths not to mind the damage they cause, and to pursue it anyway, even though it produces nothing of value. This means it is both a corruption problem and a sociopathy problem.) The sociopathic prison and military industrial complexes don't _intend_ to maximize harm. They just don''t mind if they cause harm to undefended and unrelated individuals, because they lack empathy. The sociopath is paid concentrated benefits from theft costs that are dispersed among the taxpayers(via the income tax) and "producers"(via deficit-spending). The answer is obvious: decentralize empathy and don't let power-seeking sociopaths make moral decisions. This was once accomplished by the jury system, but now the jury system is under statistical control by the sociopaths (via the process of "voir dire"). The answer is to "organize the empaths such that they regain statistical control of the jury." 4) Technology enables systematic control that the British monarchs could only dream of. Even without such technology, they, being sociopaths, sought and obtained systemic control for long periods of time. Only John Lilburne, William Penn, and Thomas Paine were smart enough to advance the liberal (in the USA, "libertarian") agenda. It is this agenda we must seek to restore. 5) The solutions to the trolley problem are to politically-enable the pattern recognition of morality, based on mirror neurons. Mirror neurons model the specific plight of the sufferer. In any situation in which they are activated, empaths should make the decisions. This produces a hard limit to the amount of suffering possible in society. The alternative allows for "maximum suffering for everyone" (Soviet Russia; Nazi Germany; Taliban; Hutu Power; Mao's China; etc.)

People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer and others along with James Randi are valuable voices of reason and should be respected for their efforts to awaken the delusional naive and put away the snide who promote superstitions and the charlatans like the psychics, the faith healers and the necromancers.

21:22 Now, that is an objectively useful value for anyone who is trying to do anything.

8:35 "the product of a fish impulses" Thank you, closed captioning-Thank you.

You are so creative I'm speechless

This discussion is simply amazing. Thank you

"If we ought do to anything, if we should do anything, if we have a moral duty to do anything in this universe, it's to avoid the worst possible missery for everyone."

I can not imagine the thrill of being at Oxford and sitting on stage with Dr. Dawkins. It must have been exhilarating for Sam Harris. Well done

Super great, thank you for uploading!

What a pleasure to listen to him speak. How lucky I am to have English as my second language to be able to understand him and follow his logic 😊😊

I am 53 and came out as a atheist 5 years ago. I am so glad I do not believe anymore. My life is good and simple and I am free from the chains of superstition and fear.

The pill against grief at 43:19 As a parent who has experienced the loss of a child, I would take that pill in a second. No question.

(Thank god) I was born with a natural immunity to religion.

Live long and Prosper... that's some deep shit right there

I agree, the worst possible miseries should be avoided, (along with many of the lesser miseries). The arc of human civilization has been to improve the human condition. Calling out injustices is our moral imperative.

Thank you very much indeed!

12:40 was so beautifully worded. Good Job Mr.Harris

ASMR and critical thinking with Sam Harris

Great audience questions!

38:17 what follows "just imagine" is the funniest thing I've heard in my entire life up to this point!!!

That first passage that Dawkins read from Sam's book was just devastatingly and hilariously satirical, without even intending to be so. It's literally what the stories have told us, but written in such a plain, non-fantasmagoric way, that it just sounds like the kind of story your neighbour would tell you while tripping on acid.

Thank you so much for this! I really learned a lot.

This is great! Thank you! I love Sam Harris.

It seems to me morality is the accumulated wisdom of society that getting along results in better outcomes overall. It stems from our instinct to protect offspring and grows outwards through family then group etc. We learn we do better when cooperating with others rather than mindless conflict which tends to lead to even more conflict and pain. Since people have differing needs, what is best is often very subjective and messy but there is an underlying understanding basically summarized by the golden rule and "what goes around, comes around".

Shout out to the homie in the front twirling his hair in the beginning.

"We aren't capable of valuing our experiences. We are capable of valuing the memory of an experience." That's not true. Your 'experiencing self' is valuing all the time, you just don't realize you are doing it. Only those experiences valued form your memories. An experience not valued is not experienced. Value creates all the world you know. Pirsig calls the twin aspects Dynamic and Static Quality. That which moves you forward and that which preserves what is learned.

he comes up with the most bizzare analogies.

I so loved watching this intriguing video. Sam Harris is an intellectual tour de force and a great speaker. I strive to be like him!

Lucid and insightful, I've always felt that morality was in essence a field which is well within the purview of science, but which we simply didn't have sufficient data and understanding of neuroscience and related fields to make fully subjectable to scientific inquiry. Now it seems, however, that time is dawning on us. What an exciting time for lovers of science and philosophy, who wanted to see morality dealt with responsibly without having to submit themselves to religious or spiritualistic propositions or having to wade through the needless philosophical muck of subjective judgment. Bravo Sam! ***** 

Richard Dawkins is calculating the accent before the concept of question here 1:14:30

It strikes me that one of the most important ideas in this video and his book "The moral landscape" is that morality is needed to even begin studying science as this requires intellectual honesty of the highest kind. Most religions are void of this as they are unable to face and accept the things that are most obviously, clearly and logically truth, using the tools we have.

A very laconic, delivery of wonderful philosophy.

Sam, you are a torch for me, your ideas are enlightening and your tone so relaxing. And I really appreciate this development in IT, I can get the genuine information from top masters while being at home in a small town in Iran. And I teach this facts to my students. It's wonderful.

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins discuss Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality? What do you think? #samharris #richarddawkins #morality #science #atheism

Awesome vid thanks, although that thumbnail makes me think "I swear they were THIS big"

Because this question should be asked, from those who makes them separated

I cant believe we have to convince people to think that u can have morality even without religion, religion did not created morality, it was based on it.

Observation, testing, and repetition is precisely how we all learn what is and isn't moral. There's no space left for magical logic to reap humanity like a revenue stream.

Every little change, can make us happy

A most excellent discussion, not to mention great pointed question, although this occurred 12y ago, this is as relevant, perhaps even more, today as it was then, thank you for posting this, I strongly agree with Sam Harrison points, unfortunately those who need to hear his arguments, either ignore or just don’t care about the logic and reasoning in favor of religion dogma for economic, social and political nonsense-able reasons, you can’t reach those who only privately care about power and wealth, pass the collection plate please…

I can't watch any movie in which Ben Stiller is present.

I think freewill is still a factor in the universe because the universe has a probabilistic component.

8:24 CORRECT. We are. But, there is nothing “wrong” with doing that, when your reality is, in fact, value free.

He was great in Night at the Museum.

Dr: I have terrifying news: all of your organs are in perfect condition ( and your blood type matches the patients’)

I've noticed people have to split hairs, and or disingenuously quote Sam, to make his argument on morality seem problematic.

Because of our instincts, one need not think that anything should happen, in order to have ambitions. And, since nothing should happen, there’s no reason why we should try to not listen to our instincts.

"Morality should come from man to the man, we don't need higher beings to tell us what to do" - Really good analogy (at least for me) is the health. We can say (science) whats wrong for your health and therefore, if you want to be healthy, you should or shouldnt do this or that. Its same with morality. We are, in theory, able to tell whats moral and whats not (based on well-being) and therefore tell what to do or not to do to be moral.

Sam is the only human who ever lived to argue in favor of determinism and defend morality at the same time. It's genius.

i'm curious who is that horrifying woman Harris mentioned at the beginning at 4 min or so...i suspect it can be dangerous to have her taking charge of ethic stuffs

Waiting for some fundamental definitions/discriminations, which are necessary to any coherent, critical conversation with clarity: e.g. facts (most importantly), moral, morality, good, evil, truth, values. Totally agree with him, just looking to firm up the arguments.

18:24 Not at all. It refers to “the state of being free of illness or injury.” “Illness” being “a disease or period of sickness affecting the body or mind” and “injury” being “typical functioning impaired.” What person we label as healthy enough to be considered “healthy” is a matter of opinion, similar to how what temperature is hot enough, to be “hot,” is a matter of opinion. But, what is “health” is not at all a vague question. Weather, or not, health matters is a matter of opinion that cannot be proven.

amazing! brilliant arguments and insights.

"What if you meet someone who wants to vomit?" You mean anorexics? lol

Accepting that the worst misery for everyone is objectively worse does not entail accepting that the reason why has to do with misery and pain itself.

my mention of emergent property wasn't an argument,I mentioned in response to your question "what else could have made you do it?".I agree that conscious awareness matters,to quote Dr Harris "consciousness is the context where our thought and intention become available to us".This awareness of brain events may give us something like the ability to change the course of nature in our favour.I'm not arguing for determinism-the free will/determinism dichotomy is a false one.Contingency is a cont..

"Bureaucratic efficiency" -- oxymoron.

Sam is an intellectual machine, i had to re-listen to his answers to absorb the points he made. Fantastic debate, even to my limited ability of understanding.

The idea always precedes the test. This is what makes science beautiful.

Fully agree, maximising overall happiness and minimising suffering is a much more morally sound philosophy than any religion, especially the Middle Eastern ones. Actually the essence of Buddhism.

As an ex theist, one of the major reasons I left religion was the subject of morality. I see religious figures like Jordan Peterson (whom I like) and others go on about how we need religion because science doesn't offer any grounds or basis for morality and how to be a moral person, and this always bothers me. I left Islam because I find it to be an immoral religion or way of life. For example, I don't believe an immoral god has any place to tell me how to live morally. I'll elaborate even more. A god who is said to have drowned an entire planet's population due to disobedience, a god who orders the hand of a thief to be cut off, a god who will burn any human who chooses not to worship him, this is not a good, moral god, therefore I can not take moral guidance from said god. Christianity, albeit to a lesser degree, is very similar. How can I follow morality lessons from a god who will only let a few hundred thousand humans in to heaven because they believed in his son and everyone else is doomed? This is not morality, this is ego and arrogance. I can not take moral advice from such invisible gods. Just because science doesn't teach me morality, it doesn't mean there is no other source of morality except for religion, that is extremely simplistic thinking.

I completely agree that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad. But I wonder where he draws this conclusion from? I think his conclusion is accurate, and you really would have to not know what you are talking about to think otherwise, but the question still stands, where does our idea that suffering is "bad" come from? We can prove the Pythagorean Theorem, but how do we prove that suffering is "bad" other than the fact that we all agree on it? Majority never equals proof. We see suffering and we think "bad." But why are our minds drawn to that conclusion? And to respond by saying that suffering is obviously bad because our minds instinctively come to that conclusion would be circular reasoning.

If anything did objectively matter, why would it just so happen to be us? We matter to us, because, we are us.

I luv how smart Ben Stiller got

Sam Harris looks like a cross between Ben Stiller and Paul Ryan.

There is a basic disconnect between this level of intellectual talk being edifying and being indigestible depending on individual circumstance. I’ve been in both places myself. And I can’t expect a person who’s entire life orbits around faith to immediately recognize the value of Sam’s position here. It does, however, seem to be a worthwhile starting point.