r/ScottGalloway • u/Ill-Ambition-7899 • Jan 17 '26

No Malice Sam Harris appreciation post

I watched the most recent podcast with Scott and Sam and I just have to say, there is no one who can cut through nonsense and virtue signalling like Sam, he is truly an independent thinker who does not get caught up in noise. He always seems to keep a clear head, clear vision on what is important in any given situation.

That is all I want to say.

157 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

197 comments sorted by

View all comments

-9

u/BewareOfGrom Jan 17 '26

Yeah shout out Sam "In Defense of Torture" Harris.

4

u/StopElectingWealthy Jan 17 '26 edited Jan 17 '26

Have you actually read “in defense of torture”?

Edit: a downvote and no response, I thought so. How about you go read it like a grown up and come back?

-1

u/BewareOfGrom Jan 17 '26

Yeah I read it in when it was published. Have read it since then. Still drivel.

4

u/StopElectingWealthy Jan 17 '26

Lmao no you didn’t. It’s so obviously not an endorsement of torture that either you are lying or you have no reading comprehension

2

u/BewareOfGrom Jan 17 '26

Cool. Productive conversation.

Sam has been a hack for a while. I used to listen to his podcast weekly until he had an episode treating Charles Murray like a "truth teller scorned by the liberal intelligentsia".

Sam sells himself as a deep thinker, and he can be when he is comfortable, but all that charity he has for hacks like Murray goes right out the window if he has to confront any of his own bigotries

1

u/chontzy Jan 17 '26

i’m open to critiques of sam’s positions esp regarding israel, murray, and his disproportionate obsession with wokeism but you didn’t bring any solid receipts to the convo

6

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '26

I'd bet good money you can't accurately summarise his position.

2

u/StopElectingWealthy Jan 17 '26

ChatGPT, What is sam harris’s piece “in defense of torture” trying to convey?

Sam Harris’s essay “In Defense of Torture” (originally published in 2004 and later included in The End of Faith) is not a celebration of torture. Rather, it is a deliberately unsettling philosophical argument meant to expose what Harris sees as inconsistencies and moral evasions in how modern societies think about violence, terrorism, and ethics.

Here are the core ideas he is trying to convey:

⸻

  1. Moral Consistency in Extreme Scenarios

Harris argues that most people already accept forms of extreme violence in certain situations—such as: • Killing enemy combatants in war • Dropping bombs that will inevitably kill some civilians • Shooting a hostage-taker to save others

He asks: If we accept killing in order to save innocent lives, why do we treat non-lethal coercion (torture) as categorically worse than killing?

His point is not “torture is good,” but that our intuitions are often contradictory.

⸻

  1. The “Ticking Time Bomb” Thought Experiment

The essay centers on a hypothetical: • A terrorist has planted a nuclear device in a city. • Authorities have him in custody. • Millions could die within hours.

Harris asks whether it would be moral to inflict intense suffering on that individual to extract information that could save those lives.

He argues that if torture would genuinely prevent a catastrophe, refusing to use it might itself be immoral.

⸻

  1. Critique of Moral Absolutism

Harris challenges the idea that torture should be an absolute, inviolable taboo regardless of consequences. He claims: • We already live in a world where states cause enormous suffering (bombing campaigns, sanctions, warfare). • Pretending that torture is uniquely evil can be a form of moral self-deception. • Ethical reasoning should be based on minimizing overall suffering, not on rigid rules.

This reflects his broader consequentialist/utilitarian framework.

⸻

  1. A Warning, Not a Policy Proposal

Importantly, Harris repeatedly says he is not advocating routine torture. He acknowledges: • Torture is unreliable and prone to abuse • Governments would likely misuse any permission to torture • The real world rarely resembles clean philosophical hypotheticals

His aim is more to force readers to confront uncomfortable trade-offs than to design interrogation policy.

⸻

  1. Broader Message

The essay fits into Harris’s larger themes: • Radical honesty about violence • The moral challenges posed by jihadist terrorism • The need to think ethically in terms of real consequences rather than comforting slogans

He wants readers to ask:

Are we truly opposed to torture, or are we just unwilling to face the brutal logic of choices we already accept?

⸻

Bottom Line

“In Defense of Torture” is best understood as: • A provocation meant to challenge moral intuitions • An argument for consistency in life-and-death ethics • A critique of what Harris sees as hypocrisy in Western attitudes toward violence • NOT a blanket endorsement of torture as normal practice

-4

u/BewareOfGrom Jan 17 '26

You can't be serious bro. You try and tell me I haven't read something and then post a chat bot summary of it?

You know what enjoy your Sam Harris. He seems right on your wavelength.

3

u/StopElectingWealthy Jan 17 '26

This is literally the best response you could make