Metaethical Moral Relativism versus Sam Harris

Hello,Really enjoying this conversation, interested to know where it will end up.Rebuttal #1: You ask the question of how we can universally know what is good or bad, as that is key to accepting the argument from the good and bad life. Remember, this argument starts from the point that the worst possible universe is the one that contains the greatest amount of suffering for everyone. Why is suffering bad? Well, because we are sentient beings who have the capacity of experiencing this suffering and it generally is not deemed a pleasant thing. It is not a pleasant thing for that woman to be on the run for her life after witnessing your seven-year-old daughter raped and dismembered by your son. It is my contention that this must be demonstrated how this could possibly be anything but absoutely terrible and bad.This experience would also be bad universally, because we are going beyond the context of the culture but to the individual brain states. We must remember that these aren't entirely abstract concepts we are dealing with, as moral judgements are made not by some non-physical entity but by an organ our bodies, the brain. The Prefrontal Cortex and the Temporal Lobe are the regions of the brain most responsible for where our moral judgements take place. Those who suffer from Psycopathy or have experienced brain damage to areas such as the Medial Prefrontal Cortex have strong behavioral consequences, especially in regards to their actions toward others.This reveals that there is a way that our brain ought to function when healthy that allows us to empathize and make moral judgments. And consequently also reveals that certain behaviors that can be objectively seen as harmful (rape, murder, assault) can be llinked to these regions of the brain and thus shown that they are not how they ought to be.More simply though, I stand by my contention that the burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate how the worst possible universe is not where there is the greatest amount of suffering for everyone. As the conclusions I have drawn can be founded from this contention which is I believe rather simple and obvious.Rebuttal #2: In a way it is based upon perceptions, because this moral theory is a scientifically grounded theory and thus empirical. It is not based upon opinion, but upon the objectively harmful brain states that are experiences for those who live the "Bad Life" versus the objectively beneficial brain states that the "Good Life" comes with. You also mention that the person with the bad life has no perception of what a better life might be, this is refuted by the fact that as human beings we have the ability to conceptualize. This woman will absolutely have a hopeful concept of a better future for her children, to live a long life, healthy, free from suffering and doing what they love. It would be madness to think she concludes, "well this right here is as good as it gets."Rebuttal #3:You attempted to refute my point of why we should value sentient beings by making the following contention. You appealed to the fact that sentient beings (i.e. humans) have a shorter existence than non-sentient (i.e. rocks) and thus what would maximising the experience of a finite sentient being when they ultimately die.This seems to be built off of your own assumption that something that if something doesn't last forever, it doesn't really matter. To address this point, I would like to allude to something Sam Harris has said in a Q&A, as I am defending his viewpoint it would be appropriate I believe to provide this."The subtext of this question is that, ‘unless experience lasts forever, there is no point. It means nothing.’ Just try to map this onto your life: every good meal you’ve had, every pleasant experience as opposed to an unpleasant one, every relationship, none of it means anything, because it ends. A good movie is meaningless — it’s no better than a bad movie — because it ends. This is a strange idea, that unless we disappear into infinity with our experience, there is no difference between the most sublime and rare happiness on earth and the most abject suffering. I think when you actually try to connect with that intuition, it’s strange and really insupportable in our moment-to-moment experience. We care very deeply about the character of our experience. In fact, it is the only thing we can care about."[1]The important phrase in this paragraph is that, "we care very deeply...," and it is the fact that this only can possibly matter to people who have the capacity to value it, therefore if this experience and life is all there is it should be valued higher than anything else, as nothing else would matter in comparison.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman[1] http://jrbenjamin.com...