Philosophical Vegan Forum

Sam Harris takes more stabs at Noam Chomsky in his latest podcast

At 1:55:30
http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/o ... vilization

Harris has described the US as a clumsy, well-intentioned giant before.

Is there any proof of this? Or is Chomsky right that US foreign policy is all about attaining more power

I'm not sure what is going on with Sam Harris these days... In the first segment where he is talking about his statements on Ben Carson, he talks about how 'journalists' have misrepresented his views on him, thinking some people now don't like him because of it. What he doesn't get is that his views in context are not all that better; misrepresentation is not even needed. It's just ridiculous to think the 'dangerously deluded religious imbecile' Ben Carson has a better idea of what is going on in the middle east than someone like Noam Chomsky who has intensely studied the subject.

In the earlier mail conversation he had with Chomsky I actually would take it up for Sam regarding the tone of the conversation (contentwise not so on many points). But what he does here in his podcast exceeds what Chomsky did; he's actually pilling up more misrepresentations and straw men. Something he is accusing many people of ad nauseam. Now I can understand Chomsky not willing to publicly discuss these matters with Harris.

knot wrote:Harris has described the US as a clumsy, well-intentioned giant before.

Is there any proof of this? Or is Chomsky right that US foreign policy is all about attaining more power

It is mostly acting out of what it thinks is rational self-interest, yes. Like pretty much all big powers have done in history. But what Chomsky tried to make clear is that everyone can say they are well-intentioned, and might actually believe that to be true as well, but if you look at the intentions themselves, it doesn't look good at all in moral terms. In the case of the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceuticals plant, Chomsky believes that Clinton just didn't care about the civilian casualties, which aren't particularly good intentions. So to say you're well-intentioned is irrelevant, you would have to evaluate the actual intentions on a case by case basis.

Sam Harris of all people should understand this, as the writer of The Moral Landscape. It's a good book, so it has always surprised me that he puts so much weight on intentions. Utilitarianism doesn't care about the intentions: suffering is suffering is suffering. Intentions are relevant on another level, namely to inform your decisions on how to deal with certain issues. For example how to prevent something from happening or punish someone having evil or ill-informed intentions. You have to take completely different measures in the case of a murderous psychopath killing someone because he likes to kill than a kid killing someone with a knife by accident, while the outcomes regarding the amount of suffering in the world might be very similar.

Volenta wrote: In the earlier mail conversation he had with Chomsky I actually would take it up for Sam regarding the tone of the conversation (contentwise not so on many points).

This is why I would be more inclined to blame Chomsky for this. Although it was Harris' fault for not apologizing to Chomsky in that discussion, Chomsky's assumption of bad faith kind of spoiled it, and Harris was, as always, open to dialogue. I have to favor the person who is open to dialogue, regardless of that person being more or less wrong.

Of course, they're both making mistakes and misrepresenting each other. It's a shame.

Volenta wrote: But what Chomsky tried to make clear is that everyone can say they are well-intentioned, and might actually believe that to be true as well,

Intentions are important to how we address things, though.

If the intentions are good, the only remaining questions are those of reasoning/knowledge in the philosophical sense and power/intel in the military sense (since knowledge and power are slightly interchangeable here).

If you have good intentions, correct knowledge/reasoning, and enough power/intel to execute the actions you need to take, you will do good.
If you have wicked intentions, you'll do the opposite with that knowledge and power.

Is the U.S. government harmful because it's wicked, or because it's incompetent, irrational, and ignorant, or because it's just not powerful enough/doesn't have perfect intel? These have different solutions.

To put it crudely: Sam is suggesting it's a lack of power or intel. Chomsky is suggesting it's an inherent wickedness.
I don't agree with either.
I think it's incompetence and ignorance/irrationality that is to blame.

Is this irrationality a lack of 'intel', or a form of 'wickedness'? It's not entirely clear which it can be better categorized as.

Harris' perfect weapon thought experiment was a good one, and in that sense Harris may be right.
But then again, put a perfect weapon in the hands of an Islamist, and I really doubt he'd kill more than the leadership and opposition necessary to force the whole world to become Muslim -- that is, I also disagree with Harris that the problem is that the Islamists are inherently wicked. They're just irrational in their beliefs, and are following a flawed ideology (as is the U.S.).

Volenta wrote: Intentions are relevant on another level, namely to inform your decisions on how to deal with certain issues.

Which is what politics is all about. Pointing fingers is pretty useless in politics; it doesn't matter who was to blame so much as how we fix these things and keep them from happening again.

brimstoneSalad wrote:This is why I would be more inclined to blame Chomsky for this.

I wouldn't go as far as to blame Chomsky for Harris now misrepresenting him. That's something Harris is responsible for himself and could easily have avoided, although the causal link is clearly there, yes.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Volenta wrote: But what Chomsky tried to make clear is that everyone can say they are well-intentioned, and might actually believe that to be true as well,

Intentions are important to how we address things, though.

Absolutely. What I was getting at is that there is a difference between being well-intentioned and the raw intentions themselves. Harris seemed to suggest that the U.S. being well-intentioned is enough for him. Not completely out of nowhere Chomsky called him out on this (in a demeaning tone).

brimstoneSalad wrote:Which is what politics is all about. Pointing fingers is pretty useless in politics; it doesn't matter who was to blame so much as how we fix these things and keep them from happening again.

That's indeed what politics is about. But Harris clearly does this in ethical discussions (even more clearly in this conversation than the one with Chomsky: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... nterview-1). His view is that if you're doing an action with good intentions, that more moral than doing the same thing with bad intentions. The consequences are the same though, so I can't quite understand him holding this view other than to be consistent with his views on U.S. foreign policy (which would be sad if true).

Volenta wrote:although the causal link is clearly there, yes.

That's all I meant. Of course, Harris is also to blame for not being more careful, but since Chomsky won't engage to correct him, it's hard to blame him: I think it's an honest mistake on Harris' part and that he's not trying to misrepresent Chomsky. Of course, I also think Reza Aslan etc. are making honest mistakes in misunderstanding Sam's position, and he's a bit less charitable to them than he should be in considering the nuances of his position are not easily understood (that's all on him).

Volenta wrote:That's indeed what politics is about. But Harris clearly does this in ethical discussions (even more clearly in this conversation than the one with Chomsky: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... nterview-1). His view is that if you're doing an action with good intentions, that more moral than doing the same thing with bad intentions. The consequences are the same though, so I can't quite understand him holding this view other than to be consistent with his views on U.S. foreign policy (which would be sad if true).

Well, there is some distinction, but that relies on rational behavior and good methodology. So, it's kind of complicated. I'll check out that link later and see what he's saying.

I can't find the fragment to be honest. I now begin to doubt it was this conversation. It might as well been another one.

Volenta wrote:I can't find the fragment to be honest. I now begin to doubt it was this conversation. It might as well been another one.

Oh, alright. I'll take your word for it, since he suggested as much in the Chomsky discussion. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt for now and assume he's making the same distinction I would, but he might not be.