TED2010
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
Filmed:
Readability: 4.3
6,257,604 views
Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.
Sam Harris - Neuroscientist, philosopher
Sam Harris's work focuses on how our growing understanding of ourselves and the world is changing our sense of how we should live. Full bio
Sam Harris's work focuses on how our growing understanding of ourselves and the world is changing our sense of how we should live. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
I'm going to speak today about the relationship
0
0
3000
00:18
between science and human values.
1
3000
4000
00:22
Now, it's generally understood that
2
7000
2000
00:24
questions of morality --
3
9000
2000
00:26
questions of good and evil and right and wrong --
4
11000
2000
00:28
are questions about which science officially has no opinion.
5
13000
3000
00:31
It's thought that science can help us
6
16000
3000
00:34
get what we value,
7
19000
2000
00:36
but it can never tell us what we ought to value.
8
21000
3000
00:39
And, consequently, most people -- I think most people
9
24000
2000
00:41
probably here -- think that science will never answer
10
26000
3000
00:44
the most important questions in human life:
11
29000
3000
00:47
questions like, "What is worth living for?"
12
32000
2000
00:49
"What is worth dying for?"
13
34000
2000
00:51
"What constitutes a good life?"
14
36000
2000
00:53
So, I'm going to argue
15
38000
2000
00:55
that this is an illusion -- that the separation between
16
40000
2000
00:57
science and human values is an illusion --
17
42000
2000
00:59
and actually quite a dangerous one
18
44000
3000
01:02
at this point in human history.
19
47000
2000
01:04
Now, it's often said that science
20
49000
2000
01:06
cannot give us a foundation for morality and human values,
21
51000
3000
01:09
because science deals with facts,
22
54000
3000
01:12
and facts and values seem to belong to different spheres.
23
57000
4000
01:16
It's often thought that there's no description
24
61000
3000
01:19
of the way the world is
25
64000
2000
01:21
that can tell us how the world ought to be.
26
66000
4000
01:25
But I think this is quite clearly untrue.
27
70000
2000
01:27
Values are a certain kind of fact.
28
72000
4000
01:31
They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.
29
76000
4000
01:35
Why is it that we don't have ethical obligations toward rocks?
30
80000
4000
01:39
Why don't we feel compassion for rocks?
31
84000
3000
01:42
It's because we don't think rocks can suffer. And if we're more
32
87000
2000
01:44
concerned about our fellow primates
33
89000
2000
01:46
than we are about insects, as indeed we are,
34
91000
3000
01:49
it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range
35
94000
2000
01:51
of potential happiness and suffering.
36
96000
3000
01:54
Now, the crucial thing to notice here
37
99000
3000
01:57
is that this is a factual claim:
38
102000
2000
01:59
This is something that we could be right or wrong about. And if we
39
104000
2000
02:01
have misconstrued the relationship between biological complexity
40
106000
3000
02:04
and the possibilities of experience
41
109000
3000
02:07
well then we could be wrong about the inner lives of insects.
42
112000
3000
02:10
And there's no notion,
43
115000
4000
02:14
no version of human morality
44
119000
2000
02:16
and human values that I've ever come across
45
121000
3000
02:19
that is not at some point reducible
46
124000
2000
02:21
to a concern about conscious experience
47
126000
3000
02:24
and its possible changes.
48
129000
2000
02:26
Even if you get your values from religion,
49
131000
3000
02:29
even if you think that good and evil ultimately
50
134000
2000
02:31
relate to conditions after death --
51
136000
2000
02:33
either to an eternity of happiness with God
52
138000
3000
02:36
or an eternity of suffering in hell --
53
141000
2000
02:38
you are still concerned about consciousness and its changes.
54
143000
4000
02:42
And to say that such changes can persist after death
55
147000
3000
02:45
is itself a factual claim,
56
150000
2000
02:47
which, of course, may or may not be true.
57
152000
3000
02:50
Now, to speak about the conditions of well-being
58
155000
3000
02:53
in this life, for human beings,
59
158000
2000
02:55
we know that there is a continuum of such facts.
60
160000
3000
02:58
We know that it's possible to live in a failed state,
61
163000
3000
03:01
where everything that can go wrong does go wrong --
62
166000
2000
03:03
where mothers cannot feed their children,
63
168000
3000
03:06
where strangers cannot find the basis for peaceful collaboration,
64
171000
4000
03:10
where people are murdered indiscriminately.
65
175000
3000
03:13
And we know that it's possible to move along this continuum
66
178000
3000
03:16
towards something quite a bit more idyllic,
67
181000
2000
03:18
to a place where a conference like this is even conceivable.
68
183000
5000
03:23
And we know -- we know --
69
188000
3000
03:26
that there are right and wrong answers
70
191000
2000
03:28
to how to move in this space.
71
193000
2000
03:30
Would adding cholera to the water be a good idea?
72
195000
6000
03:36
Probably not.
73
201000
2000
03:38
Would it be a good idea for everyone to believe in the evil eye,
74
203000
3000
03:41
so that when bad things happened to them
75
206000
2000
03:43
they immediately blame their neighbors? Probably not.
76
208000
4000
03:47
There are truths to be known
77
212000
2000
03:49
about how human communities flourish,
78
214000
3000
03:52
whether or not we understand these truths.
79
217000
2000
03:54
And morality relates to these truths.
80
219000
3000
03:57
So, in talking about values we are talking about facts.
81
222000
4000
04:01
Now, of course our situation in the world can be understood at many levels --
82
226000
3000
04:04
from the level of the genome
83
229000
2000
04:06
on up to the level of economic systems
84
231000
2000
04:08
and political arrangements.
85
233000
2000
04:10
But if we're going to talk about human well-being
86
235000
2000
04:12
we are, of necessity, talking about the human brain.
87
237000
3000
04:15
Because we know that our experience of the world and of ourselves within it
88
240000
3000
04:18
is realized in the brain --
89
243000
3000
04:21
whatever happens after death.
90
246000
2000
04:23
Even if the suicide bomber does get 72 virgins in the afterlife,
91
248000
5000
04:28
in this life, his personality --
92
253000
3000
04:31
his rather unfortunate personality --
93
256000
2000
04:33
is the product of his brain.
94
258000
3000
04:36
So the contributions of culture --
95
261000
3000
04:39
if culture changes us, as indeed it does,
96
264000
2000
04:41
it changes us by changing our brains.
97
266000
2000
04:43
And so therefore whatever cultural variation there is
98
268000
3000
04:46
in how human beings flourish
99
271000
2000
04:48
can, at least in principle, be understood
100
273000
2000
04:50
in the context of a maturing science of the mind --
101
275000
3000
04:53
neuroscience, psychology, etc.
102
278000
3000
04:56
So, what I'm arguing is that
103
281000
2000
04:58
value's reduced to facts --
104
283000
2000
05:00
to facts about the conscious experience
105
285000
2000
05:02
of conscious beings.
106
287000
3000
05:05
And we can therefore visualize a space
107
290000
3000
05:08
of possible changes in the experience of these beings.
108
293000
3000
05:11
And I think of this as kind of a moral landscape,
109
296000
2000
05:13
with peaks and valleys that correspond
110
298000
2000
05:15
to differences in the well-being of conscious creatures,
111
300000
3000
05:18
both personal and collective.
112
303000
2000
05:20
And one thing to notice is that perhaps
113
305000
2000
05:22
there are states of human well-being
114
307000
2000
05:24
that we rarely access, that few people access.
115
309000
3000
05:27
And these await our discovery.
116
312000
2000
05:29
Perhaps some of these states can be appropriately called
117
314000
2000
05:31
mystical or spiritual.
118
316000
2000
05:33
Perhaps there are other states that we can't access
119
318000
2000
05:35
because of how our minds are structured
120
320000
3000
05:38
but other minds possibly could access them.
121
323000
4000
05:42
Now, let me be clear about what I'm not saying. I'm not saying
122
327000
2000
05:44
that science is guaranteed to map this space,
123
329000
5000
05:49
or that we will have scientific answers to every
124
334000
2000
05:51
conceivable moral question.
125
336000
2000
05:53
I don't think, for instance, that you will one day consult
126
338000
2000
05:55
a supercomputer to learn whether you should have a second child,
127
340000
4000
05:59
or whether we should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities,
128
344000
4000
06:03
or whether you can deduct the full cost of TED as a business expense.
129
348000
4000
06:07
(Laughter)
130
352000
2000
06:09
But if questions affect human well-being
131
354000
2000
06:11
then they do have answers, whether or not we can find them.
132
356000
3000
06:14
And just admitting this --
133
359000
2000
06:16
just admitting that there are right and wrong answers
134
361000
2000
06:18
to the question of how humans flourish --
135
363000
2000
06:20
will change the way we talk about morality,
136
365000
2000
06:22
and will change our expectations
137
367000
2000
06:24
of human cooperation in the future.
138
369000
4000
06:28
For instance, there are 21 states in our country
139
373000
4000
06:32
where corporal punishment in the classroom is legal,
140
377000
3000
06:35
where it is legal for a teacher to beat a child with a wooden board, hard,
141
380000
6000
06:41
and raising large bruises and blisters and even breaking the skin.
142
386000
4000
06:45
And hundreds of thousands of children, incidentally,
143
390000
2000
06:47
are subjected to this every year.
144
392000
2000
06:49
The locations of these enlightened districts, I think, will fail to surprise you.
145
394000
5000
06:54
We're not talking about Connecticut.
146
399000
3000
06:57
And the rationale for this behavior is explicitly religious.
147
402000
4000
07:01
The creator of the universe himself
148
406000
2000
07:03
has told us not to spare the rod,
149
408000
2000
07:05
lest we spoil the child --
150
410000
2000
07:07
this is in Proverbs 13 and 20, and I believe, 23.
151
412000
5000
07:12
But we can ask the obvious question:
152
417000
2000
07:14
Is it a good idea, generally speaking,
153
419000
4000
07:18
to subject children to pain
154
423000
3000
07:21
and violence and public humiliation
155
426000
3000
07:24
as a way of encouraging healthy emotional development
156
429000
2000
07:26
and good behavior?
157
431000
2000
07:28
(Laughter)
158
433000
1000
07:29
Is there any doubt
159
434000
4000
07:33
that this question has an answer,
160
438000
2000
07:35
and that it matters?
161
440000
3000
07:38
Now, many of you might worry
162
443000
2000
07:40
that the notion of well-being is truly undefined,
163
445000
3000
07:43
and seemingly perpetually open to be re-construed.
164
448000
3000
07:46
And so, how therefore can there be an
165
451000
2000
07:48
objective notion of well-being?
166
453000
3000
07:51
Well, consider by analogy, the concept of physical health.
167
456000
3000
07:54
The concept of physical health is undefined.
168
459000
3000
07:57
As we just heard from Michael Specter, it has changed over the years.
169
462000
3000
08:00
When this statue was carved
170
465000
2000
08:02
the average life expectancy was probably 30.
171
467000
3000
08:05
It's now around 80 in the developed world.
172
470000
3000
08:08
There may come a time when we meddle with our genomes
173
473000
3000
08:11
in such a way that not being able to run a marathon
174
476000
3000
08:14
at age 200 will be considered a profound disability.
175
479000
4000
08:18
People will send you donations when you're in that condition.
176
483000
3000
08:21
(Laughter)
177
486000
2000
08:23
Notice that the fact that the concept of health
178
488000
4000
08:27
is open, genuinely open for revision,
179
492000
3000
08:30
does not make it vacuous.
180
495000
2000
08:32
The distinction between a healthy person
181
497000
3000
08:35
and a dead one
182
500000
2000
08:37
is about as clear and consequential as any we make in science.
183
502000
3000
08:43
Another thing to notice is there may be many peaks on the moral landscape:
184
508000
3000
08:46
There may be equivalent ways to thrive;
185
511000
3000
08:49
there may be equivalent ways to organize a human society
186
514000
2000
08:51
so as to maximize human flourishing.
187
516000
2000
08:53
Now, why wouldn't this
188
518000
2000
08:55
undermine an objective morality?
189
520000
4000
08:59
Well think of how we talk about food:
190
524000
3000
09:02
I would never be tempted to argue to you
191
527000
3000
09:05
that there must be one right food to eat.
192
530000
2000
09:07
There is clearly a range of materials
193
532000
2000
09:09
that constitute healthy food.
194
534000
2000
09:11
But there's nevertheless a clear distinction
195
536000
2000
09:13
between food and poison.
196
538000
2000
09:15
The fact that there are many right answers
197
540000
3000
09:18
to the question, "What is food?"
198
543000
2000
09:20
does not tempt us
199
545000
3000
09:23
to say that there are no truths to be known about human nutrition.
200
548000
5000
09:28
Many people worry
201
553000
2000
09:30
that a universal morality would require
202
555000
3000
09:33
moral precepts that admit of no exceptions.
203
558000
3000
09:36
So, for instance, if it's really wrong to lie,
204
561000
2000
09:38
it must always be wrong to lie,
205
563000
2000
09:40
and if you can find an exception,
206
565000
2000
09:42
well then there's no such thing as moral truth.
207
567000
3000
09:45
Why would we think this?
208
570000
2000
09:47
Consider, by analogy, the game of chess.
209
572000
3000
09:50
Now, if you're going to play good chess,
210
575000
2000
09:52
a principle like, "Don't lose your Queen,"
211
577000
2000
09:54
is very good to follow.
212
579000
2000
09:56
But it clearly admits some exceptions.
213
581000
2000
09:58
There are moments when losing your Queen is a brilliant thing to do.
214
583000
3000
10:01
There are moments when it is the only good thing you can do.
215
586000
4000
10:05
And yet, chess is a domain of perfect objectivity.
216
590000
4000
10:09
The fact that there are exceptions here does not
217
594000
2000
10:11
change that at all.
218
596000
3000
10:14
Now, this brings us to the sorts of moves
219
599000
3000
10:17
that people are apt to make in the moral sphere.
220
602000
3000
10:20
Consider the great problem of women's bodies:
221
605000
5000
10:25
What to do about them?
222
610000
2000
10:27
Well this is one thing you can do about them:
223
612000
2000
10:29
You can cover them up.
224
614000
2000
10:31
Now, it is the position, generally speaking, of our intellectual community
225
616000
2000
10:33
that while we may not like this,
226
618000
4000
10:37
we might think of this as "wrong"
227
622000
2000
10:39
in Boston or Palo Alto,
228
624000
2000
10:41
who are we to say
229
626000
2000
10:43
that the proud denizens of an ancient culture
230
628000
3000
10:46
are wrong to force their wives and daughters
231
631000
3000
10:49
to live in cloth bags?
232
634000
2000
10:51
And who are we to say, even, that they're wrong
233
636000
2000
10:53
to beat them with lengths of steel cable,
234
638000
2000
10:55
or throw battery acid in their faces
235
640000
2000
10:57
if they decline the privilege of being smothered in this way?
236
642000
4000
11:01
Well, who are we not to say this?
237
646000
3000
11:04
Who are we to pretend
238
649000
2000
11:06
that we know so little about human well-being
239
651000
4000
11:10
that we have to be non-judgmental about a practice like this?
240
655000
4000
11:14
I'm not talking about voluntary wearing of a veil --
241
659000
4000
11:18
women should be able to wear whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned.
242
663000
2000
11:20
But what does voluntary mean
243
665000
3000
11:23
in a community where,
244
668000
2000
11:25
when a girl gets raped,
245
670000
3000
11:28
her father's first impulse,
246
673000
2000
11:30
rather often, is to murder her out of shame?
247
675000
5000
11:35
Just let that fact detonate in your brain for a minute:
248
680000
7000
11:42
Your daughter gets raped,
249
687000
2000
11:44
and what you want to do is kill her.
250
689000
3000
11:52
What are the chances that represents
251
697000
2000
11:54
a peak of human flourishing?
252
699000
5000
12:02
Now, to say this is not to say that we have got the
253
707000
2000
12:04
perfect solution in our own society.
254
709000
4000
12:08
For instance,
255
713000
2000
12:10
this is what it's like to go to a newsstand almost anywhere
256
715000
2000
12:12
in the civilized world.
257
717000
2000
12:14
Now, granted, for many men
258
719000
2000
12:16
it may require a degree in philosophy to see something wrong with these images.
259
721000
3000
12:19
(Laughter)
260
724000
3000
12:22
But if we are in a reflective mood,
261
727000
3000
12:25
we can ask,
262
730000
2000
12:27
"Is this the perfect expression
263
732000
2000
12:29
of psychological balance
264
734000
2000
12:31
with respect to variables like youth and beauty and women's bodies?"
265
736000
3000
12:34
I mean, is this the optimal environment
266
739000
2000
12:36
in which to raise our children?
267
741000
4000
12:40
Probably not. OK, so perhaps there's some place
268
745000
2000
12:42
on the spectrum
269
747000
2000
12:44
between these two extremes
270
749000
2000
12:46
that represents a place of better balance.
271
751000
3000
12:49
(Applause)
272
754000
8000
12:57
Perhaps there are many such places --
273
762000
2000
12:59
again, given other changes in human culture
274
764000
3000
13:02
there may be many peaks on the moral landscape.
275
767000
2000
13:04
But the thing to notice is that there will be
276
769000
2000
13:06
many more ways not to be on a peak.
277
771000
5000
13:11
Now the irony, from my perspective,
278
776000
2000
13:13
is that the only people who seem to generally agree with me
279
778000
3000
13:16
and who think that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions
280
781000
3000
13:19
are religious demagogues of one form or another.
281
784000
3000
13:22
And of course they think they have right answers to moral questions
282
787000
3000
13:25
because they got these answers from a voice in a whirlwind,
283
790000
4000
13:29
not because they made an intelligent analysis of the causes
284
794000
2000
13:31
and condition of human and animal well-being.
285
796000
4000
13:35
In fact, the endurance of religion
286
800000
2000
13:37
as a lens through which most people view moral questions
287
802000
4000
13:41
has separated most moral talk
288
806000
3000
13:44
from real questions of human and animal suffering.
289
809000
4000
13:48
This is why we spend our time
290
813000
2000
13:50
talking about things like gay marriage
291
815000
2000
13:52
and not about genocide or nuclear proliferation
292
817000
4000
13:56
or poverty or any other hugely consequential issue.
293
821000
5000
14:01
But the demagogues are right about one thing: We need
294
826000
2000
14:03
a universal conception of human values.
295
828000
4000
14:07
Now, what stands in the way of this?
296
832000
2000
14:09
Well, one thing to notice is that we
297
834000
2000
14:11
do something different when talking about morality --
298
836000
2000
14:13
especially secular, academic, scientist types.
299
838000
4000
14:17
When talking about morality we value differences of opinion
300
842000
3000
14:20
in a way that we don't in any other area of our lives.
301
845000
3000
14:23
So, for instance the Dalai Lama gets up every morning
302
848000
2000
14:25
meditating on compassion,
303
850000
2000
14:27
and he thinks that helping other human beings is an integral component
304
852000
2000
14:29
of human happiness.
305
854000
3000
14:32
On the other hand, we have someone like Ted Bundy;
306
857000
2000
14:34
Ted Bundy was very fond of abducting and raping
307
859000
2000
14:36
and torturing and killing young women.
308
861000
2000
14:38
So, we appear to have a genuine difference of opinion
309
863000
2000
14:40
about how to profitably use one's time.
310
865000
3000
14:43
(Laughter)
311
868000
2000
14:45
Most Western intellectuals
312
870000
2000
14:47
look at this situation
313
872000
2000
14:49
and say, "Well, there's nothing for the Dalai Lama
314
874000
2000
14:51
to be really right about -- really right about --
315
876000
3000
14:54
or for Ted Bundy to be really wrong about
316
879000
3000
14:57
that admits of a real argument
317
882000
4000
15:01
that potentially falls within the purview of science.
318
886000
3000
15:04
He likes chocolate, he likes vanilla.
319
889000
3000
15:07
There's nothing that one should be able to say to the other
320
892000
3000
15:10
that should persuade the other."
321
895000
3000
15:13
Notice that we don't do this in science.
322
898000
3000
15:16
On the left you have Edward Witten.
323
901000
2000
15:18
He's a string theorist.
324
903000
3000
15:21
If you ask the smartest physicists around
325
906000
2000
15:23
who is the smartest physicist around,
326
908000
2000
15:25
in my experience half of them will say Ed Witten.
327
910000
3000
15:28
The other half will tell you they don't like the question.
328
913000
3000
15:31
(Laughter)
329
916000
3000
15:34
So, what would happen if I showed up at a physics conference
330
919000
4000
15:38
and said,"String theory is bogus.
331
923000
2000
15:40
It doesn't resonate with me. It's not how I chose to
332
925000
2000
15:42
view the universe at a small scale.
333
927000
3000
15:45
I'm not a fan."
334
930000
2000
15:47
(Laughter)
335
932000
3000
15:50
Well, nothing would happen because I'm not a physicist;
336
935000
2000
15:52
I don't understand string theory.
337
937000
2000
15:54
I'm the Ted Bundy of string theory.
338
939000
2000
15:56
(Laughter)
339
941000
3000
15:59
I wouldn't want to belong to any string theory club that would have me as a member.
340
944000
3000
16:02
But this is just the point.
341
947000
2000
16:04
Whenever we are talking about facts
342
949000
3000
16:07
certain opinions must be excluded.
343
952000
2000
16:09
That is what it is to have a domain of expertise.
344
954000
3000
16:12
That is what it is for knowledge to count.
345
957000
3000
16:15
How have we convinced ourselves
346
960000
3000
16:18
that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise,
347
963000
4000
16:22
or moral talent, or moral genius even?
348
967000
3000
16:25
How have we convinced ourselves
349
970000
2000
16:27
that every opinion has to count?
350
972000
2000
16:29
How have we convinced ourselves
351
974000
2000
16:31
that every culture has a point of view
352
976000
2000
16:33
on these subjects worth considering?
353
978000
3000
16:36
Does the Taliban
354
981000
2000
16:38
have a point of view on physics
355
983000
2000
16:40
that is worth considering? No.
356
985000
3000
16:43
(Laughter)
357
988000
5000
16:48
How is their ignorance any less obvious
358
993000
3000
16:51
on the subject of human well-being?
359
996000
2000
16:53
(Applause)
360
998000
6000
16:59
So, this, I think, is what the world needs now.
361
1004000
4000
17:03
It needs people like ourselves to admit
362
1008000
3000
17:06
that there are right and wrong answers
363
1011000
3000
17:09
to questions of human flourishing,
364
1014000
2000
17:11
and morality relates
365
1016000
2000
17:13
to that domain of facts.
366
1018000
2000
17:15
It is possible
367
1020000
2000
17:17
for individuals, and even for whole cultures,
368
1022000
4000
17:21
to care about the wrong things,
369
1026000
2000
17:23
which is to say that it's possible for them
370
1028000
3000
17:26
to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead
371
1031000
2000
17:28
to needless human suffering.
372
1033000
2000
17:30
Just admitting this will transform our discourse about morality.
373
1035000
5000
17:35
We live in a world in which
374
1040000
3000
17:38
the boundaries between nations mean less and less,
375
1043000
3000
17:41
and they will one day mean nothing.
376
1046000
3000
17:44
We live in a world filled with destructive technology,
377
1049000
2000
17:46
and this technology cannot be uninvented;
378
1051000
2000
17:48
it will always be easier
379
1053000
2000
17:50
to break things than to fix them.
380
1055000
4000
17:54
It seems to me, therefore, patently obvious
381
1059000
2000
17:56
that we can no more
382
1061000
4000
18:00
respect and tolerate
383
1065000
2000
18:02
vast differences in notions of human well-being
384
1067000
4000
18:06
than we can respect or tolerate vast differences
385
1071000
3000
18:09
in the notions about how disease spreads,
386
1074000
3000
18:12
or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes.
387
1077000
3000
18:15
We simply must converge
388
1080000
3000
18:18
on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life.
389
1083000
4000
18:22
And to do that, we have to admit that these questions have answers.
390
1087000
5000
18:27
Thank you very much.
391
1092000
2000
18:29
(Applause)
392
1094000
23000
18:52
Chris Anderson: So, some combustible material there.
393
1117000
4000
18:56
Whether in this audience or people elsewhere in the world,
394
1121000
3000
18:59
hearing some of this, may well be doing the
395
1124000
2000
19:01
screaming-with-rage thing, after as well, some of them.
396
1126000
5000
19:06
Language seems to be really important here.
397
1131000
2000
19:08
When you're talking about the veil,
398
1133000
2000
19:10
you're talking about women dressed in cloth bags.
399
1135000
3000
19:13
I've lived in the Muslim world, spoken with a lot of Muslim women.
400
1138000
4000
19:17
And some of them would say something else. They would say,
401
1142000
2000
19:19
"No, you know, this is a celebration
402
1144000
3000
19:22
of female specialness,
403
1147000
3000
19:25
it helps build that and it's a result of the fact that" --
404
1150000
2000
19:27
and this is arguably a sophisticated psychological view --
405
1152000
4000
19:31
"that male lust is not to be trusted."
406
1156000
3000
19:34
I mean, can you engage in a conversation
407
1159000
3000
19:37
with that kind of woman without seeming kind of cultural imperialist?
408
1162000
5000
19:42
Sam Harris: Yeah, well I think I tried to broach this in a sentence,
409
1167000
3000
19:45
watching the clock ticking,
410
1170000
2000
19:47
but the question is:
411
1172000
2000
19:49
What is voluntary in a context
412
1174000
3000
19:52
where men have certain expectations,
413
1177000
2000
19:54
and you're guaranteed to be treated in a certain way
414
1179000
4000
19:58
if you don't veil yourself?
415
1183000
2000
20:00
And so, if anyone in this room
416
1185000
2000
20:02
wanted to wear a veil,
417
1187000
2000
20:04
or a very funny hat, or tattoo their face --
418
1189000
3000
20:07
I think we should be free to voluntarily do whatever we want,
419
1192000
3000
20:10
but we have to be honest about
420
1195000
3000
20:13
the constraints that these women are placed under.
421
1198000
2000
20:15
And so I think we shouldn't be so eager
422
1200000
3000
20:18
to always take their word for it,
423
1203000
2000
20:20
especially when it's 120 degrees out
424
1205000
2000
20:22
and you're wearing a full burqa.
425
1207000
3000
20:25
CA: A lot of people want to believe in this
426
1210000
2000
20:27
concept of moral progress.
427
1212000
2000
20:29
But can you reconcile that?
428
1214000
2000
20:31
I think I understood you to say that you could
429
1216000
2000
20:33
reconcile that with a world that doesn't become
430
1218000
2000
20:35
one dimensional, where we all have to think the same.
431
1220000
3000
20:38
Paint your picture of what
432
1223000
2000
20:40
rolling the clock 50 years forward,
433
1225000
3000
20:43
100 years forward, how you would like to think of
434
1228000
2000
20:45
the world, balancing moral progress
435
1230000
3000
20:48
with richness.
436
1233000
3000
20:51
SH: Well, I think once you admit
437
1236000
2000
20:53
that we are on the path toward understanding our minds
438
1238000
3000
20:56
at the level of the brain in some important detail,
439
1241000
3000
20:59
then you have to admit
440
1244000
2000
21:01
that we are going to understand all of the positive
441
1246000
4000
21:05
and negative qualities
442
1250000
2000
21:07
of ourselves in much greater detail.
443
1252000
2000
21:09
So, we're going to understand positive social emotion
444
1254000
2000
21:11
like empathy and compassion,
445
1256000
2000
21:13
and we're going to understand the factors
446
1258000
2000
21:15
that encourage it -- whether they're genetic,
447
1260000
2000
21:17
whether they're how people talk to one another,
448
1262000
2000
21:19
whether they're economic systems,
449
1264000
2000
21:21
and insofar as we begin to shine light on that
450
1266000
3000
21:24
we are inevitably going to converge
451
1269000
2000
21:26
on that fact space.
452
1271000
2000
21:28
So, everything is not going to be up for grabs.
453
1273000
2000
21:30
It's not going to be like
454
1275000
3000
21:33
veiling my daughter from birth
455
1278000
2000
21:35
is just as good as teaching her
456
1280000
3000
21:38
to be confident and well-educated
457
1283000
4000
21:42
in the context of men who do desire women.
458
1287000
3000
21:45
I mean I don't think we need an NSF grant to know
459
1290000
4000
21:49
that compulsory veiling is a bad idea --
460
1294000
3000
21:52
but at a certain point
461
1297000
2000
21:54
we're going to be able to scan the brains of everyone involved
462
1299000
3000
21:57
and actually interrogate them.
463
1302000
3000
22:00
Do people love their daughters
464
1305000
3000
22:03
just as much in these systems?
465
1308000
3000
22:06
And I think there are clearly right answers to that.
466
1311000
2000
22:08
CA: And if the results come out that actually they do,
467
1313000
3000
22:11
are you prepared to shift your instinctive current judgment
468
1316000
3000
22:14
on some of these issues?
469
1319000
2000
22:16
SH: Well yeah, modulo one obvious fact,
470
1321000
3000
22:19
that you can love someone
471
1324000
2000
22:21
in the context of a truly delusional belief system.
472
1326000
3000
22:24
So, you can say like, "Because I knew my gay son
473
1329000
2000
22:26
was going to go to hell if he found a boyfriend,
474
1331000
3000
22:29
I chopped his head off. And that was the most compassionate thing I could do."
475
1334000
3000
22:32
If you get all those parts aligned,
476
1337000
2000
22:34
yes I think you could probably be feeling the emotion of love.
477
1339000
3000
22:37
But again, then we have to talk about
478
1342000
2000
22:39
well-being in a larger context.
479
1344000
2000
22:41
It's all of us in this together,
480
1346000
2000
22:43
not one man feeling ecstasy
481
1348000
4000
22:47
and then blowing himself up on a bus.
482
1352000
2000
22:49
CA: Sam, this is a conversation I would actually love to
483
1354000
2000
22:51
continue for hours.
484
1356000
2000
22:53
We don't have that, but maybe another time. Thank you for coming to TED.
485
1358000
2000
22:55
SH: Really an honor. Thank you.
486
1360000
2000
22:57
(Applause)
487
1362000
3000
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Sam Harris - Neuroscientist, philosopherSam Harris's work focuses on how our growing understanding of ourselves and the world is changing our sense of how we should live.
Why you should listen
Sam Harris is the author of five New York Times bestsellers. His books include The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, The Moral Landscape, Free Will, Lying, Waking Up and Islam and the Future of Tolerance (with Maajid Nawaz). The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction. Harris's writing and public lectures cover a wide range of topics -- neuroscience, moral philosophy, religion, spirituality, violence, human reasoning -- but generally focus on how a growing understanding of ourselves and the world is changing our sense of how we should live.
Harris's work has been published in more than 20 languages and has been discussed in the New York Times, Time, Scientific American, Nature, Newsweek, Rolling Stone and many other journals. He has written for the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Economist, The Times (London), the Boston Globe, The Atlantic, The Annals of Neurology and elsewhere. Harris also regularly hosts a popular podcast.
Harris received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA.
Sam Harris | Speaker | TED.com