This document summarizes the second meeting of the Grand Junction Socratic Club held on December 17th, 2011. The meeting included a presentation by the author on slides discussing whether morality is transcendental or based on human empiricism. The opposing position was presented via a video of Sam Harris' TED talk arguing science can determine what is right. Questions were raised about defining and measuring concepts like well-being. Examples of applying science to morality, such as treatment of women in Islamic cultures and the Sand Creek Massacre, revealed challenges. The club meets monthly to discuss these types of issues.

1. Meeting Number 2 of the Grand Junction Socratic Club
December 17 th , 2011

2. Notes for SlideShare presentation
The following slides are basically the ones used in the
presentation I gave at our second Socratic Club meeting.
Many of the points require further elaboration to be
made well, but the slides here presented give a basic
idea.
At this club meeting, the opposing position was given in
the form of a video presentation of Sam Harris’s TED
talk on the subject.

3. (Source, unless otherwise indicated: Merriam Webster)
 Science
the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or
misunderstanding
 Scientific Method
the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and
testing of hypotheses
 Morality -> Moral
of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior, ethical
 Ethics
The science of morality; the department of study concerned with human duty (Oxford
English Dictionary)

4.  Transcendentalism
Moral guidelines exist independently from the human
mind
 Empiricism
Morality is a contrivance of the human mind
Edward O. Wilson – American biologist, theorist, naturalist and author.
Well-known secular humanist and chief proponent of “sociobiology.”

5. The choice between transcendentalism and empiricism
will be the coming century's version of the struggle for
men's souls. Moral reasoning will either remain centered
in idioms of theology and philosophy, where it is now, or
shift toward science-based material analysis. Where it
settles will depend on which world view is proved
correct, or at least which is more widely perceived to be
correct.
Edward O. Wilson, The Atlantic, 1998

6.  Usually we end up talking about the origin of morality
(backward looking)

7.  The origin of moral judgment is not the real issue,
although it would be an interesting discussion
 Morality, as in the determination of intrinsic “right”
and “wrong” is
outside the realm
of science
 Ockham’s razor is
the best way of
deciding who needs
to demonstrate the
burden of proof

8. http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_sho
w_what_s_right.html
If you haven’t watched it, do it now and come back

9. Emotionally based argumentation, evidenced by Harris’s
quotes…
“Now the irony, from my perspective, is that the only people
who seem to seem to generally agree with me and who think
that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions are
religious demagogues of one form or another.”
“And of course they think they have the right answers to moral
questions because they got these answers from a voice in a
whirlwind, not because they made an intelligent analysis of the
causes and condition of human and animal well-being.”

10. He uses emotionally charged slides, such as this one of 3
ugly old men that no one much likes, to demonize
opponents

11. Questions that Arise
 How do we define “well-being”?
 Is it at an individual or group level?
 What happens when the well-being of two individuals
or two groups are in competition?
 To what degree is an individual given autonomy in
deciding their own well-being, and what is the role of
society in forcing it’s own conception of “well-being”
on an autonomous individual?

12. Let’s Take the Example of Islamic Treatment of Women and
ask, what is the science behind these underlying
assumptions:
 Women should have
personal choice about
their clothing
 It’s wrong for a woman
to be raped
 It’s wrong for a raped
woman to be killed
 The life of the woman
has more value than the
honor of her father

13.  Someday we’ll be able to scan a brain and quantify
whether the position of the Afghan father is not based
on love
 Yet, we already can
identify the physical
seat of emotions, yet
it has not clarified
the moral landscape
 Consider The
Question of the genetic
factors in the origin of
Psychopaths

14.  “Values are facts about the well-being of conscious
creatures”
 “Why is it that we don’t have ethical obligations toward
rocks … because we don’t think that rocks can suffer”
 “We know, we know that there are right and wrong answers
to how to move in this space [ the human condition ]”
 “How is the Talliban’s ignorance on the subject of human
well-being any less obvious [than their ignorance on the
subject of physics]?”
 “Positive social emotion, like empathy and compassion…”

15.  Science is concerned with “what is”
 Morality and human values deal with “what ought to
be”
 This is a key difference that is often overlooked
 According to Edward O. Wilson: Ought is the
translation not of human nature but of the public will
 Wilson also says: “Most of these proximate rewards are
converted into the universal bottom line of Darwinian
genetic fitness: greater longevity and a secure, growing
family.”

16.  You “ought” to rid society of inferior beings (expression of
Public Will)
Nazi Death Camps
 You “ought” to obey orders of your
societal superiors without question
(expression of Public Will)
Operate those death camps
 I ought to make room for my
national family to grow and
prosper
(Secure, growing family)
Implementation of German
“Lebensraum” policy

17. Example: Corporal Punishment of
Children
 Set a standard for human well-
being
 Evaluate scientific evidence
from brain studies
 Scientific evidence from a study
of different population groups
 Setting up of experiments and
judging results
 Establishing a moral code based
on the standard of “human well-
being” we have established

18.  Let’s try it out Colonel Chivington
 Example: Sand Creek
Massacre,
United States
 Let’s discuss this
massacre in a
scientific manner and
come to a moral
conclusion
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre

19. Jis to think of that dog Chivington
and his dirty hounds, up thar at Sand
Creek. His men shot down
squaws, and blew the brains out of
little innocent children. You call sich
soldiers Christians, do ye? And
Indians savages? What der yer 'spose
our Heavenly Father, who made both
them and us, thinks of these things? I
tell you what, I don't like a hostile red
skin any more than you do. And when
they are hostile, I've fought 'em, hard
as any man. But I never yet drew a
bead on a squaw or papoose, and I
despise the man who would.
Kit Carson

20. The Grand Junction Socratic Club
Meeting the 1st and 3rd Saturdays of Every
Month
For more information, please email
info@gjsocraticclub.org