The 'science' of economics (or rather sciences, since there has never been any broad consensus in economics & probably never will be) seems no more than a pseudo-science to me. One major fallacy most economist seem to fall into (excluding Marx & Keynes) is the assumption that everyone participating in an economy must have some common interest. It scarcely ever seems to occur to them that some interests may be irreconcilable. Philosophers make the same mistake in ethics.
I haven't read Harris' book yet, but from the way you describe it, it sounds as if Harris never read Brave New World; or if he did read it, he mistook Huxley for a utopian. In any case, if happiness were our aim we wouldn't need to work for something as revolutionary as a utopia;, all that would be necessary would be to lower people's expectations or dazzle them with some new age fraud like the law of attraction (or an old age one like Christianity). It's easy to be happy. I've seen people living in the most appalling squalor, poverty & ignorance who were happy. There are happy homeless people. Happy potheads & drunks. Even happy slaves. Dogs live in a near constant state of happiness.
Of course, I do not mean to say that we should instead strive to be miserable & make others miserable. But as human beings, I think we should set our sights a little higher than happiness. If we can experience a little happiness on the way, that is good, but I would rather learn about the world than merely enjoy it.
I believe economic propagandists reply to the charge that their assumptions are unrealistic, by saying their models are idealizations like in the special sciences. All generalizations are falsifications, strictly speaking, as Nietzsche and nominalists point out. When we generalize, we simplify and ignore complexity for pragmatic purposes. We limit the subject matter to that which "interests" us.
But there's a line between the pragmatic use of models (which requires that the models be useful in making predictions that have technological applications), and the propagandistic use. Clearly, whole schools of economics are currently sheer propaganda for the plutocratic effects of social Darwinian capitalism.
The Sam Harris stuff goes back to a couple of articles I wrote some years ago (2012), including a more detailed study of Harris's tactics. His view of happiness isn't quite so simple, since he'd say it requires the fulfillment of our potential, not just feelings of pleasure. The problem is that the broader the sense of happiness and the further it is from just contentment, the more incoherent the concept becomes, as I show in the article. Fulfilling our potential could include a sense of duty that flies in the face of happiness-as-contentment.
Sam Harris never speaks of superfluous or selfish happiness, and the duty is something criminal and anti life, Nietzsche attacked Kant for that very reason, for that categorical imperative.
No, Sam Harris doesn't say we should be selfish, but neither does he recognize that once you allow for altruism, you undermine the ideal of happiness as contentment, because altruistic people suffer on behalf of the victims they can't help. Remember the end of Schindler's List, when Schindler goes crazy with regret when he realizes he could have saved more Jewish lives just by selling his watch?
Who cares if Nietzsche attacked Kant? Kant's categorical imperative isn't the only kind of duty. There are also duties arising from the code of honour or from an existential or religious awakening.
I think you're saying moral duties are "criminal and antilife." What about the duty to obey the law? Is that criminal too?
The 'science' of economics (or rather sciences, since there has never been any broad consensus in economics & probably never will be) seems no more than a pseudo-science to me. One major fallacy most economist seem to fall into (excluding Marx & Keynes) is the assumption that everyone participating in an economy must have some common interest. It scarcely ever seems to occur to them that some interests may be irreconcilable. Philosophers make the same mistake in ethics.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read Harris' book yet, but from the way you describe it, it sounds as if Harris never read Brave New World; or if he did read it, he mistook Huxley for a utopian. In any case, if happiness were our aim we wouldn't need to work for something as revolutionary as a utopia;, all that would be necessary would be to lower people's expectations or dazzle them with some new age fraud like the law of attraction (or an old age one like Christianity). It's easy to be happy. I've seen people living in the most appalling squalor, poverty & ignorance who were happy. There are happy homeless people. Happy potheads & drunks. Even happy slaves. Dogs live in a near constant state of happiness.
Of course, I do not mean to say that we should instead strive to be miserable & make others miserable. But as human beings, I think we should set our sights a little higher than happiness. If we can experience a little happiness on the way, that is good, but I would rather learn about the world than merely enjoy it.
I believe economic propagandists reply to the charge that their assumptions are unrealistic, by saying their models are idealizations like in the special sciences. All generalizations are falsifications, strictly speaking, as Nietzsche and nominalists point out. When we generalize, we simplify and ignore complexity for pragmatic purposes. We limit the subject matter to that which "interests" us.
DeleteBut there's a line between the pragmatic use of models (which requires that the models be useful in making predictions that have technological applications), and the propagandistic use. Clearly, whole schools of economics are currently sheer propaganda for the plutocratic effects of social Darwinian capitalism.
The Sam Harris stuff goes back to a couple of articles I wrote some years ago (2012), including a more detailed study of Harris's tactics. His view of happiness isn't quite so simple, since he'd say it requires the fulfillment of our potential, not just feelings of pleasure. The problem is that the broader the sense of happiness and the further it is from just contentment, the more incoherent the concept becomes, as I show in the article. Fulfilling our potential could include a sense of duty that flies in the face of happiness-as-contentment.
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2012/03/sam-harris-science-of-morality-case.html
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2014/02/answer-to-sam-harriss-moral-landscape.html
Sam Harris never speaks of superfluous or selfish happiness, and the duty is something criminal and anti life, Nietzsche attacked Kant for that very reason, for that categorical imperative.
ReplyDeleteNo, Sam Harris doesn't say we should be selfish, but neither does he recognize that once you allow for altruism, you undermine the ideal of happiness as contentment, because altruistic people suffer on behalf of the victims they can't help. Remember the end of Schindler's List, when Schindler goes crazy with regret when he realizes he could have saved more Jewish lives just by selling his watch?
DeleteWho cares if Nietzsche attacked Kant? Kant's categorical imperative isn't the only kind of duty. There are also duties arising from the code of honour or from an existential or religious awakening.
I think you're saying moral duties are "criminal and antilife." What about the duty to obey the law? Is that criminal too?