It seems to me that there are two main ways people approach moral reasoning.

For some people, it's about adherence to a list of inflexible and absolute rules. For some people those rules come from the church, for some those rules come from our government's justice system, and for some they come from some philosopher. Where they come from is immaterial, the basic moral reasoning is the same: right and wrong is solely determined by whether an action is in accordance with their comprehensive doctrine on human behavior.

For other people, myself included, the moral value of an action is ultimately about the an action's impact on human welfare generally. Most of the time, this means supporting a society with laws and rights, and courts. But that's because it improves human welfare to have society's expectations about human behavior be upfront, enforced, and equally applied. It's not because the law is the word of God, or the full and infallible description of morality. It's because doing so has beneficial consequences for human welfare.

This seems to me to be the fundamental difference between right-wing and left-wing thinking about issues. The right tends to approach moral reasoning through the first lens (deontology), while the left tends to approach moral reasoning through the latter (utilitarianism).

To tie this back to Osama bin Laden's assassination, there are people who say this was an immoral act because it violated international law, or because it violated his legal rights, or simply because killing is always wrong. There are also people who say this is an unquestionably moral act, because the Bible says an eye for an eye, or because they think all Muslims are infidels, or because they think anyone who declares war on our country deserves to die.

For me, I think international law is a force for good in the world, so are legal rights, and so is respect for human life. But I also think Osama bin Laden was a big source of suffering in the world, not just for Americans, but for everyone everywhere. I say killing him is better for human welfare on the whole than the long-run negative impact of our violating international law, and way better than letting him live out his life in freedom.

I think people who want to argue that killing him was somehow immoral have a bit of an uphill climb. They either need to make the case that Osama bin Laden was not guilty of crimes warranting death, and didn't pose any meaningful threat to humanity in the future; or they need to make the case that killing him in this way will somehow substantially change the conventions of international law, criminal jurisprudence, or our general understanding that killing people is wrong.

What isn't sufficient is some vague hand wringing about legal rights, or specious invocations of the Constitution.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^kceaton1:
Habeas Corpus is the thing bothering me a lot. The fact that Obama almost flippantly discarded the issue angers me. As it means that: one, he doesn't care for habeas corpus when it comes to those that he believes committed crimes, and two, he wants him to rot for what he did, or lastly, he doesn't know enough about the issue to make a smart comment/decision.

Well, look at the transcript again. For one, we don't know what the question was, but we know the full answer was:

No, no, but look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source. That’s not how…the world works. If you’re in the military, and…I have to abide by certain classified information. If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law…We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate…
He broke the law.

Does that sound like he's responding to a question about Manning's case, or something along the lines of "You don't think the American people deserve the right to know what its government is doing?"
That kind of question presumes that Manning did what he's accused of, and makes the case that the law Manning broke shouldn't be there...to which Obama says "we can have a philosophical difference...but he broke the law." That's why my initial comment was "bad on the activists for making this about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial". That's an argument to take to the public in defense of Wikileaks, not an argument to take to Obama out of concern for Bradley Manning's treatment.
Don't get me wrong, I love to see everyone so concerned about habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence and all that, but I think people are misrepresenting what Obama actually meant here. I can live with the professional spin doctors willfully misreading the context to draw attention to their various rags, but I expect people here to be a touch more grounded.


This could very well be true. I just want to hear i from his mouth. The fact that it's been an issue for months with nothing said or done is the ridiculous part. No stance can change that part.

Yes, the activists do not follow the logic well. I'll agree with that. But, I also don't like my government hiding as much information as it does. I understand militarily it may be needed, but almost everywhere else it's fear of repercussions in politics and people trying to manipulate others.

>> ^kceaton1:

Habeas Corpus is the thing bothering me a lot. The fact that Obama almost flippantly discarded the issue angers me. As it means that: one, he doesn't care for habeas corpus when it comes to those that he believes committed crimes, and two, he wants him to rot for what he did, or lastly, he doesn't know enough about the issue to make a smart comment/decision.


Well, look at the transcript again. For one, we don't know what the question was, but we know the full answer was:

No, no, but look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source. That’s not how…the world works. If you’re in the military, and…I have to abide by certain classified information. If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law…We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate…

He broke the law.

Does that sound like he's responding to a question about Manning's case, or something along the lines of "You don't think the American people deserve the right to know what its government is doing?"

That kind of question presumes that Manning did what he's accused of, and makes the case that the law Manning broke shouldn't be there...to which Obama says "we can have a philosophical difference...but he broke the law." That's why my initial comment was "bad on the activists for making this about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial". That's an argument to take to the public in defense of Wikileaks, not an argument to take to Obama out of concern for Bradley Manning's treatment.

Don't get me wrong, I love to see everyone so concerned about habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence and all that, but I think people are misrepresenting what Obama actually meant here. I can live with the professional spin doctors willfully misreading the context to draw attention to their various rags, but I expect people here to be a touch more grounded.

>> ^blankfist:

I was specifically speaking about the Espionage Act. And according to the wiki page, even the Supreme Court ruled it wasn't a violation of one's right to free speech, which is hard for me to reconcile in a supposed free society. Either you have free speech or you don't. The first amendment of the US Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
What part about "Congress shall make no law" does Congress not understand? On its face, the Espionage Act should be unconstitutional.


Setting aside for a moment what the constitution says about the powers of the Supreme Court, does this ruling of the Supreme Court of Blankfist mean that any soldier has the right to march over to the enemy camp, and tell them the location and battle plan of the US Armed Forces, and be immune from prosecution?

How about fraud? Does this absolute ruling of yours mean that any attempt to control lying is also a violation of the 1st amendment?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.

It's about both. He should have a right to a trial, but beyond that this is a major encroachment on his first amendment right. Just read my comment above this one.
At best Manning should be sued for breach of contract with the U.S. Government, right? Treason is such an archaic thing that the Kings used to do; must we continue the barbarous behavior of monarchs? No one was killed or put into harm's way over these leaks. And all of the information leaked, we should have a right to because we all pay for it. And isn't government supposed to be transparent? Why such secrecy except to cover up the bad things they do?


What I meant was that people ambushing Obama about Manning should be hammering him about Manning's right to trial, about which there cannot and should not be any debate, especially from Obama.

In the larger sense, yes I think Manning did a service to his country, and I'm hoping that out of the associated fracas we see some movement to reform the rules around secrecy and National Security.

I don't have much hope of seeing that with politics being what they are these days, but it'd at least plant a seed in people's minds so that if/when sanity returns, people can rally around an effort to pare back secrecy laws.

>> ^NetRunner:

Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.


It's about both. He should have a right to a trial, but beyond that this is a major encroachment on his first amendment right. Just read my comment above this one.

At best Manning should be sued for breach of contract with the U.S. Government, right? Treason is such an archaic thing that the Kings used to do; must we continue the barbarous behavior of monarchs? No one was killed or put into harm's way over these leaks. And all of the information leaked, we should have a right to because we all pay for it. And isn't government supposed to be transparent? Why such secrecy except to cover up the bad things they do?

>> ^NetRunner:

Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.


Very good point. Yes, he can legally be Court-martialed, but that is a much lower standard of justice. One which should only be used when a proper trial is truly not possible. The same goes for everyone accused of terrorism.

The ethics of what he did is much harder to defend. Most leaks are done to expose specific crimes or wrongdoing, and they are a courageous act of patriotism when that is the case. But leaking a database of hundreds of thousands of documents in the hopes that some will show wrongdoing (or at least be embarrassing), is not really the same as what Daniel Ellsberg did.

Of course, his treatment while awaiting court-martial is unacceptable. Unless he genuinely is suicidal, even then they could handle it in a less cruel manner.

Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.

>> ^spoco2:

Yeah, you know... I'm going to be a massive dick and killjoy here, but after watching http://videosift.com/video/Killing-Us-Softly-Volume-4 just last week I'm going to have to say this is a shit video.
There's nothing wrong with nudity, nudity is great, natural, wonderful.
But treating women as purely objects, and showing forceful violence against them (holding foot during presumably sex, chloroforming a woman) is not cool.
As you were, and sorry for being a dick killjoy.


The cool thing about the internet is that people with different moral values from around the world actually talk to each other..


And they even apologise for beeing different... I like hat.

And I like boobs.

@hpqp

I think the NY Times Review of the book gives some pretty compelling reasons why it isn't at all obvious why science should determine our morals/values.

I absolutely agree; Harris thinks it is irresponsible of scientists to just had over the moral questions to religion or philosophy without thoroughly investigating those questions scientifically and I agree with him. While science may not be able to provide concrete answers to some of the questions, I believe that it can do a lot more to shed light on the answers than many people give it credit for.

>> ^bareboards2:

I think what Harris wants is for science to tackle the question. Isn't he saying that science doesn't even attempt to tackle the question? That is not the scientific way, to abdicate before exploration, is it?
It amuses me that some true believer atheists are so angry at him for approaching the morality question. They are just as dogmatic, it seems to me, as any religious person who rejects intellectual exploration out of hand.


>> ^SDGundamX:
I thought this was a good piece. I didn't know about Harris' plans to develop a path to spirituality without involving a diety. Sounds something like the Religion of Humanity that Comte tried to start.
I still have no idea how science is supposed to determine moral values though. I saw his TED TALK, but it still isn't clear to me how science can come up to any absolute conclusions about morality.

I think what Harris wants is for science to tackle the question. Isn't he saying that science doesn't even attempt to tackle the question? That is not the scientific way, to abdicate before exploration, is it?

It amuses me that some true believer atheists are so angry at him for approaching the morality question. They are just as dogmatic, it seems to me, as any religious person who rejects intellectual exploration out of hand.





>> ^SDGundamX:

I thought this was a good piece. I didn't know about Harris' plans to develop a path to spirituality without involving a diety. Sounds something like the Religion of Humanity that Comte tried to start.
I still have no idea how science is supposed to determine moral values though. I saw his TED TALK, but it still isn't clear to me how science can come up to any absolute conclusions about morality.

I thought this was a good piece. I didn't know about Harris' plans to develop a path to spirituality without involving a diety. Sounds something like the Religion of Humanity that Comte tried to start.

I still have no idea how science is supposed to determine moral values though. I saw his TED TALK, but it still isn't clear to me how science can come up to any absolute conclusions about morality.

>> ^bobknight33:

Loving someone enough to tell them that what they are doing is wrong is a good thing. Turning your head and letting wrong behavior continue doesn't help anyone.
Sadly the younger generation has been fed such a pack a moral lies that they don't know the difference between right and wrong.
For the most part what is morally right today was morally wrong 30 years ago. Has man obtained such wisdom in this short period of time to discount the wisdom of the past thousand years?
>> ^bareboards2:
What I find is that some Christians are quick to call it "evil" when more truly loving folk call it "compassion" and "acceptance of diversity."


There is no such thing as a behavior that is wrong. Wrongness is comes from morality. If a person doesn't share the same morality, then it can't be wrong to them. While you might make a universalistic claim that Christian morality is the true and only morality, but you can't prove it. And even in the bible itself, it says that the motivations of our heart our are the concern. To convince someone whom isn't a believer that cursing is wrong benefits him none. Youngness has nothing to do with wrongness. As King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. The world has always been corrupt and generally morally bankrupt. But to the point, we all fall short of even our own personal moral convictions; the theist and the atheist.

There are some things that were wrong that are now considered acceptable, and vice versa. Universal claims of a general depreciation of moral values seem trite, and lacks a full view of world events at large. Man has always been corrupt and corrupted even in our own lives. Heaping down judgment for judgments is not the point of Jesus...heaping down forgiveness for loves sake, however, is. Loving someone enough to forgive their actions is much greater than telling them they are wrong, IMO. Behavior is nothing, the soul is everything.

(Grammar edit )

Since Cenk talks a fair bit about the inhuman treatment of Bradley Manning in the above TYT video, I'm going to touch on that briefly. To start, he is being held in a military prison and has had military charges brought against him. Having signed on the dotted line when he entered the service, he is subject to the military code of conduct and the entire judicial process of that system. It would take an inordinate amount of government pressure to have his living conditions changed. Seeing as how Obama doesn't exactly approve of his actions, this is not going to happen. Liberal human rights groups can complain all they want, but I guarantee you not a damn thing will change before his pretrial hearing. From a legal standpoint, the military's actions thus far fall well within the breadth of the law. Whether or not these actions are justifiable from an ethical standpoint is debatable, but I wouldn't waste your breath. Strong moral values and military doctrine are mutually exclusive.

And still, when it comes to other people and their beliefs we do not always respect them (or their beliefs). Imagine someone who believes that Elvis is still alive and "preaches" it. We effectively marginalize such people and do not respect their views. I would go so far to say we do not even respect them.

In most other areas, as Sam Harris puts it, to be highly certain of something with a low order of evidence is a sign that something is wrong with your mind. However, when it comes to religion, we must suddenly flip this on its end and respect other people's beliefs. Why?

When it comes to tolerance, I could care less what people believe in their own heads. If it would only stay there. I do not want their views imposing on my life as it does now through the hindering of science and an attachment to ancient moral values. They are actively hindering me from fulfillment in this the only life I think I have. And while their lives appear better to themselves it comes at the cost of almost endless suffering felt by others. Condoms in Africa anyone?

Summing it up: Believe what you want, but as soon as you put it out there and it affects others be ready to have your reasons inspected and challenged.

>> ^SDGundamX:

I'm 100% with mgittle on this. You don't convince people by disrespecting them. While you don't have to respect people's ideas, in a civilized society at least, you should respect the person who formed them and not assume they are a total idiot just because they don't agree with you.
My basic problem with his argument is that it assumes that faith is somehow imposed from the outside--as if the faithful have all been suckered--and he's here to save them all from it. A lot of faithful that I know are willingly faithful. They know there is no "hard" evidence. They have a choice and they choose to be faithful. Why? The answer is simple really: because their faith makes their lives better.
And how can you argue with that? Would you honestly accept someone else telling you demanding that you change because that's what they think is going to make you happy? It works both ways, of course. Most of us here hate it when one of the overzealous faithful shows up on our doorstep to proclaim how much better we'll be worshiping their particular deity. This guy is just doing the same thing in reverse. Like mgittle said, showing them how happy you can be is far more persuasive.
Problem, of course, is that again it works both ways. Some people see how happy a certain faithful person is and choose to embrace the faith as well. I honestly think certain people are happier and more productive when they are practicing a religion and others are happier and more productive when atheist. It just depends on the individual. And I absolutely agree with justanotherday that it is entirely possible for all of us to get along... if we all learn some respect.
That said, there are serious problems within many major organized religions, and these do need to be addressed. But I see that as a separate issue from that of faith (in Christianity), which is mostly what the video was about.