• In total there are 12 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 12 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Is it ethical to kill people for their beliefs? Chapter 2.

#26: April - June 2006 & Nov. - Dec. 2010 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Is it ethical to kill people for their beliefs? Chapter 2.

Unread post

Chris recommended attention-getting thread titles, so I obliged! Something I'll say for Sam Harris is that he doesn't back down or take the easy way out. This tendency has earned him a reputation as the most uncompromising and strident detractor of religion. I've tried to present a case that this is not necessarily so. He takes up some of the concerns of traditional religion in a way I don't see the others doing. He acknowledges that there were some important needs being served by religion, but that we now need to see that faith is not the vehicle that should be meeting them.

Anyway, Harris does say, early in this chapter, the following: "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them...otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing [believers] in self-defense" (52-53). I said, "hold on" when I read this, but then reflected that this is pretty much what we're doing in Afghanistan with broad popular support (at least until recently). It's important to note that Harris equates real belief with actions, saying that it's difficult to conceive a belief that doesn't result in an action, such as joining the Taliban. It would of course be way beyond the pale to consider killing someone for a belief we think is implanted in his mind, minus the action. And we would still capture enemy combatants when possible rather than kill them. So his statement comes off as being not so extreme after all.

Maybe someone would like to comment. Other possible topics for comment from this chapter:

---Harris' definition of belief as a representation of the world

--faith as consolation

--the unreasonable actions of the faithful are often rational

--if nothing more than faith is supposedly needed for the assurance that propositions are true, why then do the faithful show such interest in seeking evidence for these propositions?

--faith bears a strong similarity to madness

--faith motivates people to self-sacrifice
Last edited by DWill on Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Is it ethical to kill people for their beliefs? Chapter 2.

Unread post

That's a tough one. Perhaps there is a line that could be crossed, but I think it would be very difficult. If we could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that someone was going to attempt to murder as many people as possible based on their beliefs, we would have to rule out the option to imprison them. What beliefs would be so bad that killing that person is ethical? A number of examples come to mind, but most of them are colored by the fact that I recognize them as harmful only in hindsight. Two men with nearly identical beliefs could differ in only a few small details, yet be complete opposites with respect to their moral agenda. That's only speculation, but if it's a possibility, then it must be considered. We have no way to read people's minds.

Beliefs alone may not be enough, but analysis of both belief and past actions could be. If a person is Islamic and believes precisely the same as a member of the Taliban, yet does not join any militant group, the only distinction is that of action. Meaning, the only way to distinguish which of two people with identical beliefs is more dangerous is by their actions, in this case joining a militant group. It's hard to see how belief alone is enough to condemn a man.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Is it ethical to kill people for their beliefs? Chapter 2.

Unread post

Harris does say the ethical thing is to capture if possible, but often that isn't possible. There does have to be some threat displayed in order to kill anyone, but Harris is saying that the belief can sometimes be considered the primary threat, regardless of any action having occurred. When you think about it, we would never be in Afghanistan just because of what is essentially a civil war. We consider the existence of the Taliban to be an existential threat to us, however, and this is because of their beliefs. Their beliefs about spreading Muslim rule cause them to harbor Al Qaeda, which has vowed to destroy us. So we go after the Taliban as well as Al Qaeda in what is basically a preemptive action. Somewhat the same fear was present before Vietnam, with communist belief constituting the threat. We're on better footing with our choice of enemies today, though.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Is it ethical to kill people for their beliefs? Chapter 2.

Unread post

Sam Harris is a sick and twisted person. It is unfathomable to me that intelligent people would waste their time reading his books. The statement he makes beginning on the bottom of page 52 that the link between belief and behavior has the potential to be so dangerous that some people should be killed merely for their beliefs is not the worst offense he commits. A far more insidious one is on page 51 where SH posits that our humanness is a function of our ability to perceive the world. This is a perverse view of humanity and devalues us to the point where there need be no hesitation about killing someone whose beliefs are unacceptable to us than to squash the bug that is annoying us. Let's carry the argument one step farther. It is not ony ethical but necessary to kill people if their beliefs are potentially harmful.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Is it ethical to kill people for their beliefs? Chapter 2.

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:Sam Harris is a sick and twisted person. It is unfathomable to me that intelligent people would waste their time reading his books. The statement he makes beginning on the bottom of page 52 that the link between belief and behavior has the potential to be so dangerous that some people should be killed merely for their beliefs is not the worst offense he commits. A far more insidious one is on page 51 where SH posits that our humanness is a function of our ability to perceive the world. This is a perverse view of humanity and devalues us to the point where there need be no hesitation about killing someone whose beliefs are unacceptable to us than to squash the bug that is annoying us. Let's carry the argument one step farther. It is not only ethical but necessary to kill people if their beliefs are potentially harmful.
You have such a hair-trigger. Looking for things to pounce on, or conclusions to jump to, you don't sometimes appear to read what's in front of you. Is there no difference to be observed between your statement that Harris defines our humanness as a function of our ability to perceive, and what he really says, "the very humanness of any brain consists largely in its capacity to evaluate new statements of propositional truth"? (emphasis added) Similarly, there are qualifiers in his statement about killing for beliefs that you could notice if you chose to. But then you'd have less opportunity for high dudgeon.
Last edited by DWill on Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Is it ethical to kill people for their beliefs? Chapter 2.

Unread post

DWill wrote:
stahrwe wrote:Sam Harris is a sick and twisted person. It is unfathomable to me that intelligent people would waste their time reading his books. The statement he makes beginning on the bottom of page 52 that the link between belief and behavior has the potential to be so dangerous that some people should be killed merely for their beliefs is not the worst offense he commits. A far more insidious one is on page 51 where SH posits that our humanness is a function of our ability to perceive the world. This is a perverse view of humanity and devalues us to the point where there need be no hesitation about killing someone whose beliefs are unacceptable to us than to squash the bug that is annoying us. Let's carry the argument one step farther. It is not only ethical but necessary to kill people if their beliefs are potentially harmful.
You have such a hair-trigger. Looking for things to pounce on, or conclusions to jump to, you don't sometimes appear to read what's in front of you. Is there no difference to be observed between your statement that Harris defines our humanness as a function of our ability to perceive, and what he really says, "the very humanness of any brain consists largely in its capacity to evaluate new statements of propositional truth"? (emphasis added) Similarly, there are qualifiers in his statement about killing for beliefs that you could notice if you chose to. But then you'd have less opportunity for high dudgeon.
First of all, I am not offended by SH. Frankly I think he is laughing all the way to the bank. He knows that the more outlandish he is the more books he will sell, and he is right.

Our humanness is not a function of any of our traits. From my perspective we are different from all other animals because we have a soul. SH does not believe that. You don't believe that, perhaps. But because our soul differentiates us from all other animals the killing of a human being is murder. When SH and others reduce the human to just another animal killing for convenience is not only justifiable but logical. Do you see the trap? Admittedly I simplified Harris' definition of human but using your expanded statement: Is a baby human? How about an alzheimer's patient? What about those religious people who are incorrectly evaluating statements of propositional truth? Maybe, in SH's world they are still human but just not quite as human are others. Perhaps they are subhumans.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Is it ethical to kill people for their beliefs? Chapter 2.

Unread post

Stahrwe, the problem is you aren't capable of seeing the moral conundrum. It is equivalent to the question of whether or not you would kill Adolf Hitler if you were transported back in time and were introduced to him as a child. It's not a simple problem, but to your polarized perspective it may seem so. My problem, in both cases, is that even the most destructive beliefs(all humans must die!) cannot be proven to be held to such an extent that death is warranted. Only when mixed with action, which is observable, can a decision be made. SH's argument is that action and belief are equivalent.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Is it ethical to kill people for their beliefs? Chapter 2.

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Stahrwe, the problem is you aren't capable of seeing the moral conundrum. It is equivalent to the question of whether or not you would kill Adolf Hitler if you were transported back in time and were introduced to him as a child. It's not a simple problem, but to your polarized perspective it may seem so. My problem, in both cases, is that even the most destructive beliefs(all humans must die!) cannot be proven to be held to such an extent that death is warranted. Only when mixed with action, which is observable, can a decision be made. SH's argument is that action and belief are equivalent.
I'm not sure what you mean by the Hitler comparison. My answer to that puzzle would not be to kill him but to alter his life situation so that he would not become the evil man he ulitimately was.

As for SH arguing that action and belief are equivalent, I wonder if he knows that he is promoting something Jesus said. When talking about lust, Jesus said that if a man lusts in his heart, it is as if he had committed the act.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Is it ethical to kill people for their beliefs? Chapter 2.

Unread post

From your answers, you are truly missing the point. The conundrum in question, you have only a few minutes before you're returned to the future. With belief being equal to action, what is to be done for the person who wants nothing more than to murder and rape as many people as possible? If the two are equal, it's as if he's already done it. So, what is the punishment?
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Is it ethical to kill people for their beliefs? Chapter 2.

Unread post

Interbane wrote:From your answers, you are truly missing the point. The conundrum in question, you have only a few minutes before you're returned to the future. With belief being equal to action, what is to be done for the person who wants nothing more than to murder and rape as many people as possible? If the two are equal, it's as if he's already done it. So, what is the punishment?
Sorry, I missed the time restriction on how long I had to act. Perhaps you should resubmit the puzzle with all of the errors corrected before I respond to it.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
Post Reply

Return to “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason - by Sam Harris”