The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values

Reading Sam Harris is an intellectual treat, a feast for the brain cells, an oasis amidst today's current 'sea of twaddle'. His arguments sizzle and his support for them is full, complete and unemotional. He is the absolute best author to return to after reading a bunch of escapist things, even good escapism so that the intellect can be re-calibrated, often with the bar raised from its previous place.
This book argues for a science-based approach to determining morality. It is an interesting argument, clearly well thought out, strong and enticing, but I still have reservations.
While, as Harris argues, a science of morality may be possible, human beings do things that are totally irrational, often very impulsive and frequently even in show more violation of their own best interests. Harris realizes this, but I believe that there are practical models for morality that can be more fully and regularly applied by people in their normal decision making.
Using Harris' technique, consider this: Captain Kirk (Star Trek) makes a decision. Mr. Spock gives him one of the "Spook is puzzled looks" and says, "Is that logical, Captain?" A science of morality is Dr. Spock, Captain Kirk is the rest of us.
Still, I like the thinking and arguments. It was a pleasure to get back to reading Harris after such a long time since my last visit to his work.
Still, however, for a clear presentation on human morality, I recommend the incomparable six stages of morality developed by Lawrence Kohlberg as well as the clear reasoning and concrete examples of Jacob Bronowski. Kohlberg's book is difficult to obtain and expensive, but a search of him and a glance at the Wikipedia article will give people the idea of the power of his work. Bronowski's book, The Ascent of Man" became a PBS series a few years ago. show less

Reading Sam Harris is an intellectual treat, a feast for the brain cells, an oasis amidst today's current 'sea of twaddle'. His arguments sizzle and his support for them is full, complete and unemotional. He is the absolute best author to return to after reading a bunch of escapist things, even good escapism so that the intellect can be re-calibrated, often with the bar raised from its previous place.
This book argues for a science-based approach to determining morality. It is an interesting argument, clearly well thought out, strong and enticing, but I still have reservations.
While, as Harris argues, a science of morality may be possible, human beings do things that are totally irrational, often very impulsive and frequently even in show more violation of their own best interests. Harris realizes this, but I believe that there are practical models for morality that can be more fully and regularly applied by people in their normal decision making.
Using Harris' technique, consider this: Captain Kirk (Star Trek) makes a decision. Mr. Spock gives him one of the "Spook is puzzled looks" and says, "Is that logical, Captain?" A science of morality is Dr. Spock, Captain Kirk is the rest of us.
Still, I like the thinking and arguments. It was a pleasure to get back to reading Harris after such a long time since my last visit to his work.
Still, however, for a clear presentation on human morality, I recommend the incomparable six stages of morality developed by Lawrence Kohlberg as well as the clear reasoning and concrete examples of Jacob Bronowski. Kohlberg's book is difficult to obtain and expensive, but a search of him and a glance at the Wikipedia article will give people the idea of the power of his work. Bronowski's book, The Ascent of Man" became a PBS series a few years ago. show less

Reading Sam Harris is an intellectual treat, a feast for the brain cells, an oasis amidst today's current 'sea of twaddle'. His arguments sizzle and his support for them is full, complete and unemotional. He is the absolute best author to return to after reading a bunch of escapist things, even good escapism so that the intellect can be re-calibrated, often with the bar raised from its previous place.
This book argues for a science-based approach to determining morality. It is an interesting argument, clearly well thought out, strong and enticing, but I still have reservations.
While, as Harris argues, a science of morality may be possible, human beings do things that are totally irrational, often very impulsive and frequently even in show more violation of their own best interests. Harris realizes this, but I believe that there are practical models for morality that can be more fully and regularly applied by people in their normal decision making.
Using Harris' technique, consider this: Captain Kirk (Star Trek) makes a decision. Mr. Spock gives him one of the "Spook is puzzled looks" and says, "Is that logical, Captain?" A science of morality is Dr. Spock, Captain Kirk is the rest of us.
Still, I like the thinking and arguments. It was a pleasure to get back to reading Harris after such a long time since my last visit to his work.
Still, however, for a clear presentation on human morality, I recommend the incomparable six stages of morality developed by Lawrence Kohlberg as well as the clear reasoning and concrete examples of Jacob Bronowski. Kohlberg's book is difficult to obtain and expensive, but a search of him and a glance at the Wikipedia article will give people the idea of the power of his work. Bronowski's book, The Ascent of Man" became a PBS series a few years ago. show less

I'm struggling to overcome the overt racism of an author who seemingly gets his information on Islam from Fox news. The book reads like an attempt to vilify Muslims and polarize religions. While Christianity doesn't get out scot-free, it escapes the false claims and sweeping generalizations made about their Abrahamic brethren, Muslims. The author seems to have little worldly experience and little capability to consider ideas from any perspective other than his own. Given this, it's an effort to put stock into his arguments and hear out his ideas.

I had seen Harris speak on this book before I read it, and honestly, I was disappointed that the book had almost less content in it than his lecture. Harris succeeds at providing a framework by which to navigate the idea that religious people don't have a monopoly on morality and that you can logically set up an objective morality without religion. However, he does not suggest how we might actually implement this morality, i.e. how would we convince people that this is a compelling and reasonable argument. Furthermore, his footnotes' defense of James Watson's racist remarks make it seem like he does not understand the history of racial issues in the Western world. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and although I understand that cultural show more relativism is a problem, ignoring the history of racism in the Western world is not exactly a solution. Overall, I would say that the book is worth reading, but that it is sorely lacking in terms of suggesting actual action and implementation. show less

Okay, I'm convinced. The basis of morality should probably be based on the spectrum of effect that our actions have on the well-being of other conscious beings. We don't rely on centuries-old folklore to define our medical treatments; why rely on the same for our moral values? Some actions create greater happiness and well-being than others, and the extent to which actions lead to happiness is something that psychology and neuroscience can help measure and evaluate. The basis of a well-considered and defensible system of moral behaviour may therefore be validly based upon science, as opposed to faith in some imaginary creator. I may need to read this again, but I feel like I've got an ample amount of philosophy to chew on for the show more moment. Recommended. show less

I approached this book reluctantly as the premise (morality as a scientific pursuit) seemed at best unnecessary and at worst misguided. I was, however, eventually brought ‘round by Sam Harris’s persuasive reasoning and ability to anticipate, articulate and effectively counter my various doubts. It provided the framework and language to approach morality in a modern context, though provided no answers to the fundamental obstacle of choosing how to weight the well-being of individuals with the well-being of others. The largest failing in the book turns out to be its tiresome and wholly irrelevant tirade against modern religion which, though solidly reasoned and perfectly rational, had little to do with the subject at hand. show more ‘Discussion of religion poisons everything’, an agnostic Christopher Hitchens might conclude. show less