Sam Harris doesn’t understand consciousness
Since consciousness exists, its experiences are not subjective
This post is an exact transcript from a private forum called Harry Binswanger Letter. If interested in these topics, consider subscribing to the forum to enjoy other intellectual posts related to Objectivism.
I was listening to a podcast between Alex O’ Connor and Sam Harris discussing the objectivity of moral values. Sam is making the case that science can lead to higher peaks of human happiness and pleasure, and we ought to strive to find the right answers, much the same way we explore the natural world. In his view, there are clear right and wrong values to pursue that lead to “well-being” or “suffering.” While he seems to get the basics right, insofar that he strives to ground his moral theories upon pleasure or pain of a conscious being, there is a major flaw in his reasoning related to his understanding of consciousness.
He contends that the “fact of anything mattering is a subjective reality.” In other words, since all values cash out in terms of positive or negative conscious experiences, thereby all values are ultimately subjective. Sam elaborates his reasoning further by making a distinction between “ontological” versus “epistemological” subjectivity. Epistemological subjectivity are propositions that are based on whims or emotions rather than fact, thus a divide between “scientific and non-scientific” claims is possible. These kind of propositions can be checked against the evidence using logic and the scientific method. So, if someone claims that the earth is flat, for example, the curvature of the earth can be confirmed using observation and logical inference to validly conclude that proposition is false.
“Ontological” subjectivity, on the other hand, has no such divide; there is no scientific method available to establish the truth or falsehood of subjective experiences. If one feels a value is rewarding or painful, then it is therefore “ontologically” rewarding or painful. Sam stresses this idea to a logical extreme later on in this podcast, suggesting a sadist’s or masochist’s desire to abuse or be abused could be considered a moral “peak” worth pursuing. So, if a someone “just has a has a mind of this sort that has an S&M reward function”, then it’s conceivable that this person should pursue these rewards that satisfy these desires. Whatever pain-pleasure mechanism that is experienced by a consciousness goes, full-stop.
In short, “ontological” subjective experiences are taken to be irreducible primaries that cannot be related to any objective standard. If someone enjoys the pain of their hand being seared by a hot stove, all one could say objectively is that this action would harm their body, but nothing in regards to their mind. This idea ultimately reduces consciousness itself into, as Ayn Rand would put it, “a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm.” What’s ironic is that Sam wants to deliver ethics from the subjectivity of moral relativism into the province of science, but doesn’t recognize that by excluding consciousness from the Law of Identity, that’s exactly what he is doing.
What Sam doesn’t understand is that consciousness has identity. It has a particular nature and it works in a particular way. There are ways one could abuse their consciousness such that they could enjoy dominating another human being or burning their hand on a hot stove. But before one attempts to evaluate whether or not the operations of a human consciousness are healthy or unhealthy, one has to establish that consciousness has a nature as such. If someone takes seriously this view of consciousness, how then can one assert any objective moral claim about “ontological” experiences within anyone’s mind?
There is more I could say about this podcast, and much more that could be explored about the implications of this post. But what is fundamental about Sam’s views on consciousness is that he thinks consciousness as such is subjective, yet he doesn’t fully grasp the weight of this conclusion in regards to morality. There are objective criteria that must be met in order to achieve happiness. But one will never achieve that outcome by rationalizing whim worship.
