Sam Harris

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Yes, he does appear to have "refined" his position from "profile Muslims/Muslim-looking people" to "profile people looking/acting suspicious" - which is what already happens at airports, etc.

I found the criterion of people who speak Arabic quite ridiculous - according to his earlier thinking, all you need to be able to do is read/study the Qu'ran in English to be a "Muslim terrorist".

And given that Harris has read/studied the Qu'ran...!!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dogma's Demise]

If we'd step away for a moment from the obvious impossibility of what Harris proposes, do you also feel that there is something ethically wrong with Harris' suggestion?

Yes, I do see an ethical problem here, it makes regular Muslims who don't want to blow up planes feel singled out.

 

[Noth]

If we'd step away for a moment from the obvious impossibility of what Harris proposes, do you also feel that there is something ethically wrong with Harris' suggestion?

Yes, I do see an ethical problem here, it makes regular Muslims who don't want to blow up planes feel singled out.

Yet offending someone's sensibilities is not being ethically wrong per sé. What would be ethically wrong about implementing such a measure, do you think?

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Well going back to exactly what Harris said, it's also this assumption that Muslims "look" in a certain way.

Also, it's not so much the sensibilities as the fact that you're burdening one specific group, imagine you're Muslim and you fly a lot and you have to go through extensive searches every single time, while others get off easy. I know that's strange when I've said in the past to interview immigrants and deport the ones who want Sharia/totalitarianism, but at least I want all immigrants interviewed, I don't want them to say "Oh, this one isn't a Muslim, skip the interview".

 

[Laurens]

Yet offending someone's sensibilities is not being ethically wrong per sé. What would be ethically wrong about implementing such a measure, do you think?

I'd agree that we could debate about whether or not making one group feel singled out and offending their sensibilities is wrong. However I'd put forth that such a policy is extremely ill considered at the very least, for the following reason:

Singling out Muslims in such a way does not send out the right message. What I strongly feel needs to be done to deal with Islamic extremists is to gain as much support and cooperation from non-radical Muslims as we can achieve. Singling out an entire religion for profiling goes against this aim. It will create a climate in which Muslims will feel singled out as being suspects - which may very well feed into the anti-Western rhetoric of radical Islam, and thus rather than tackling it, may lead to a situation in which Muslims who are feeling increasingly marginalized and persecuted become more susceptible to becoming radicalised.

I feel that intelligence regarding the activity of radical groups and individuals would be more effective than simply screening all Muslim-looking people that pass through airports. In order to gain such intelligence, it is important to ally ourselves with Muslim communities and gain their support in reporting any suspicious activity that may occur. I do not feel that Harris' profiling suggestion would be conducive to this aim. As I mentioned previously it may lead to increased radicalism.

This doesn't answer whether or not profiling is ethically wrong, but I think it is adequate reason to dismiss it as a poorly considered policy.

 

[Noth]

Well going back to exactly what Harris said, it's also this assumption that Muslims "look" in a certain way.

Also, it's not so much the sensibilities as the fact that you're burdening one specific group, imagine you're Muslim and you fly a lot and you have to go through extensive searches every single time, while others get off easy.

I agree that would make me feel pretty unpleasant. But I'm still digging to look for a true ethical problem. Not a problem of consequences (for the record @Laurens, I agree completely ) but one that is an issue regardless of other circumstances such as reliable future events.

For hypothetical's sake, let's assume there is something like a "Muslim look". Why would it be ethically wrong to single them out in e.g. airports. I don't think it matters whether we see "Muslim look" as meaning strictly people of the religion, but "looks that we would instinctively associate with Muslims".
Now how they would personally feel about this is, I think, not what we're looking for. I think we can all agree that we'd feel pretty shitty if we were singled out like that.

The reason for my fishing, btw, is that I think we can find an actual ethical problem with what Harris seems (seemed?) to suggest. (I admit, I haven't read Harris' post or the responses back and forth, but for the argument's sake that shouldn't matter). Something that is, if you will, intrinsicly wrong with such an implementation that goes beyond how it makes people feel, what the consequences will be on a grander scale given a probable trajectory, etc.

 

[Laurens]

This might be of interest: Sam Harris, uncovered

 

[Dogma's Demise]

People still don't seem to want to accept that PNA's corrupt Islamofascist rule of Fatah and Hamas is NEVER EVER going to make indefinite peace with Israel or recognize its legitimacy, the only resolution they will ever accept is Israel disappearing from the map and the Jews either killed, expelled or living as dhimmis under an Islamic rule. That's it. There is nothing to negotiate with the PNA, they have repeatedly shown bad faith in the "peace process".


(And speaking of suicide bombers, they tend to rationalize it as "not 'true' suicide but martyrdom". I'm afraid it's not as simple as saying "oh that's not true Islam".)

Also WTF is this crap: "far-right nationalists like Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes"?

I'm sorry but Robert Spencer is NOT "far-right". He is simply right-wing or conservative if you will.

And personally I'm more of a centrist, but that won't stop Islamofascists and their left-wing useful idiots from calling me "far-right" on a single issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

Okay let's use that logic: I support universal healthcare. Conclusion: I must be far-left?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This might be of interest: Sam Harris, uncovered

Well... unsurprising in that bigotry and dishonesty go hand-in-hand, whether it is a famous writer or a random people you see posting online. Part of the way bigotry works is you start with the irrational hate, and then twist reality to justify that hate.

 

[televator]

This might be of interest: Sam Harris, uncovered

Wow... That's putting some nails in the proverbial coffin. This actually exposes some outright denialist attributes in Harris' mentality, albeit tentative.

 

[Laurens]

People still don't seem to want to accept that PNA's corrupt Islamofascist rule of Fatah and Hamas is NEVER EVER going to make indefinite peace with Israel or recognize its legitimacy, the only resolution they will ever accept is Israel disappearing from the map and the Jews either killed, expelled or living as dhimmis under an Islamic rule. That's it. There is nothing to negotiate with the PNA, they have repeatedly shown bad faith in the "peace process".

I think you commit the fallacy of assuming anti-Israel = pro Hamas. I support the rights of Palestinian men and women not to have the homes (for which they can provide legitimate proof of ownership) bulldozed by Israelis who have absolutely no lawful right to do so and other such offences to decency and justice. I'm tired of this rhetoric that Israel is a poor do-gooder who is only forced into a conflict by violent radicals who have no axe to grind other than their own religiously sanctioned vitriol and hatred.

(And speaking of suicide bombers, they tend to rationalize it as "not 'true' suicide but martyrdom". I'm afraid it's not as simple as saying "oh that's not true Islam".)

I think the problem is that Harris will use what it says in the Koran to justify his arguments when it suits him. Yet when it states things that are contrary to his bigoted views on Islam he states, 'well they all ignore that part', whilst not allowing for the possibility that Muslims might legitimately ignore the parts that he eagerly quotes to bolster his arguments.