Status
Available
Call number
Library's review
Indeholder "Introduction The Moral Landscape", "Chapter 1: Moral Truth", "Chapter 2: Good and Evil", "Chapter 3: Belief", "Chapter 4: Religion", "Chapter 5: The Future of Happiness", "Acknowledgements", "Notes", "Reference", "Index".
Hmm, den var ikke så god, som jeg havde troet.
Hmm, den var ikke så god, som jeg havde troet.
Publication
Simon & Schuster Ome (2010), Paperback, 291 pages
Description
Sam Harris dismantles the most common justification for religious faith--that a moral system cannot be based on science.
Media reviews
The Moral Landscape is a well-written and thoughtful exercise in secular moral realism, but it attempts to do something far more ambitious—it purports to give us the basis for a science of morality. While the subtitle of Harris' book insists otherwise, science cannot determine human values—it
Show More
can do no more than tell us how to best implement the values we already have. Show Less
Westminster Theological Journal
In sum, Harris's fight against relativism, his desire to inform morality with the sciences, and his quest to bring philosophical and scientific topics to those outside the academic world are all praiseworthy goals and should be mimicked by Christian thinkers. However, Harris's tendancy [sic.] to
Show More
write as if there are simply no other arguments around besides his own, certainly no rival ethical (much less scientific) theories, is nothing less than astonishing. It relieves him of any epistemic obligation to answer serious objections to his ethical theory. Show Less
In the end, it’s odd that one can share so many of Harris’s views and yet find his project largely unsuccessful. I certainly share his vision of the well-being of conscious creatures as a sensible end for ethics. And I agree that science can and should help us to attain this end. And I
Show More
certainly agree that religion has no monopoly on morals. The problem—and it’s one that Harris never faces up to—is that one can agree with all these things and yet not think that morality should be “considered an undeveloped branch of science.” Show Less
Yet such science is best appreciated with a sense of what we can and cannot expect from it, and a real contribution to the old project of a “naturalized ethics” would have required a fuller engagement with its contradictions and complications. Instead, the landscape that the book calls to mind
Show More
is that of a city a few days after a snowstorm. A marvelously clear avenue stretches before us, but the looming banks to either side betray how much has been unceremoniously swept aside. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member haig51
I am sympathetic to Harris' attempt at framing morality on scientific grounds, and so I was biased in his favor prior to reading this book, however, though I enjoyed his thoughts and agree with his efforts, I certainly expected more.
My summary of his main thesis, which I agree with, is that
Many of Harris' critics reiterate David Hume's is/ought distinction as the last word on this issue, and though Harris does attack this line of thinking, I don't think he completely remedies their concerns. The crux of this issue is why we should adhere to the assumption that well-being ought to be maximized. He comes awfully close to a rebuttal many times throughout the book, but never completes the argument. He more than successfully argues why science can and should inform our morality in achieving these states of well-being, but does not address the fundamental issue of why we should do those things in the first place. Yes, our brains evolved to include our innate moral intuitions as a result of surviving in close social contact with others, but unless you make the claim that evolution has a point or direction (which I doubt, but am also sympathetic towards) then what we consider well-being is an arbitrarily evolved brain state of an arbitrarily evolved organism. It matters to us as we sit here today as already evolved primates bumbling about, of course, but if we were to restart the whole process of life, the universe, and everything, why would it be moral to have organisms experiencing well-being at all rather than nothing? Alternatively, what if a certain subset of humans, if able, decided to relocate to another planet and modify their brains so that everyone was a psychopath and masochism and ruthless survival was the cultural norm--what argument is there to stop them from doing that? You might argue that this is an unstable social state and they would quickly go extinct or else revert back to some sort of cooperation and morality similar to our own evolved morals, but that is a much stronger metaphysical claim, that our morality and brain-states are baked into the structure of the universe. Robert Wright takes this perspective in his latest books Nonzero and The Evolution of God, but I somehow doubt Harris agrees with him.
If we forgive Sam Harris for failing to deliver on the promise of revolutionizing the is/ought dichotomy, we can still appreciate the book as contributing an important mode of thinking within morality by extrapolating on the concept of a moral landscape, that morality is more of an optimization problem instead of a black and white codification of things one ought to do or not do. This is not necessarily groundbreaking, but it is useful and important.
My summary of his main thesis, which I agree with, is that
Show More
morality should be based on maximizing the well-being of conscious agents. He, admittedly, ambiguously defines well-being as those brain-states that are synonymous with flourishing or what the Greeks called Eudaimonia. The details of these brain-states are open questions left to be answered by scientists, but he stresses that even if such questions are not answered in practice does not mean they are unanswerable in theory and thus we can climb our way towards peaks of well-being on a landscape of experience, and morality should guide us towards maximizing those peaks. Many of Harris' critics reiterate David Hume's is/ought distinction as the last word on this issue, and though Harris does attack this line of thinking, I don't think he completely remedies their concerns. The crux of this issue is why we should adhere to the assumption that well-being ought to be maximized. He comes awfully close to a rebuttal many times throughout the book, but never completes the argument. He more than successfully argues why science can and should inform our morality in achieving these states of well-being, but does not address the fundamental issue of why we should do those things in the first place. Yes, our brains evolved to include our innate moral intuitions as a result of surviving in close social contact with others, but unless you make the claim that evolution has a point or direction (which I doubt, but am also sympathetic towards) then what we consider well-being is an arbitrarily evolved brain state of an arbitrarily evolved organism. It matters to us as we sit here today as already evolved primates bumbling about, of course, but if we were to restart the whole process of life, the universe, and everything, why would it be moral to have organisms experiencing well-being at all rather than nothing? Alternatively, what if a certain subset of humans, if able, decided to relocate to another planet and modify their brains so that everyone was a psychopath and masochism and ruthless survival was the cultural norm--what argument is there to stop them from doing that? You might argue that this is an unstable social state and they would quickly go extinct or else revert back to some sort of cooperation and morality similar to our own evolved morals, but that is a much stronger metaphysical claim, that our morality and brain-states are baked into the structure of the universe. Robert Wright takes this perspective in his latest books Nonzero and The Evolution of God, but I somehow doubt Harris agrees with him.
If we forgive Sam Harris for failing to deliver on the promise of revolutionizing the is/ought dichotomy, we can still appreciate the book as contributing an important mode of thinking within morality by extrapolating on the concept of a moral landscape, that morality is more of an optimization problem instead of a black and white codification of things one ought to do or not do. This is not necessarily groundbreaking, but it is useful and important.
Show Less
LibraryThing member heinous-eli
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
Show More
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 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
LibraryThing member Unicycledad
I got a little bogged down in the neuroscience, and in flipping back to the endnotes with my Kindle buttons (which would have been much harder with a real book). But I found the book refreshing and cathartic in many ways. A very productive way to think about moral reasoning in the age of science.
Show More
The premise of the book (that moral values should be determined based on what increases individual and collective well-being) seems to be repeated a bit too much, in slightly different ways. But the truth of such a statement seems utterly reasonable and useful to me, and I hope it gains ground in our culture. Show Less
LibraryThing member ClifSven
Sam Harris continues to astound and astonish me with his insights! I always learn something new and amazing from reading his books. He also gives me vast new ways of seeing things. Always worth the time and effort to read him!!!
LibraryThing member deusvitae
The author's attempt to establish a moral system of values using scientific principles.
I can agree with the author that there is right and wrong-- it's a sad commentary on society when this is something that has to even be addressed.
I can even appreciate the scientific research and the use of that
But, as usual, Harris takes everything beyond its proper bounds. He continues to kick against the goads of the limitations of science relative to other fields; toward the end, he admits that he has entered the realm of philosophy, but still wants to cling to the pretense of science. Of course, in so doing, he distorts the nature of what science is and what science can tell-- a sure sign of overreach.
Trying to bring everything down to the level of maximizing well-being sounds great in theory. But who gets to determine well-being? How can science analyze a value that is rooted in such subjectivism? And how can science declare x to be consistent with maximizing well-being, and y is not? Brain scans? What does a brain scan tell you about the actual function? This is not to say that values do not exist, nor that science has nothing to say about them-- but science cannot get one to a full moral system.
This book is a wonderful display of scientism and its sophomoric arrogance-- the presumption of what can be understood from nascent forms of scientific inquiry. The conclusions are far from scientific and there will likely be much that will prove embarrassing in the future when things are better understood and seen as more complex than is being admitted now. It is akin to the know-it-all nature of a teenager; hopefully, as with such a teenager, the damage can be minimized until a better idea of perspective can be learned and humility swallowed.
And it's difficult to believe much of what Harris has to say about religion. If he spent half the time seeking to understand what he distorts, he might have a different view of things. How is what he does and the way he does it any better than that which he attempts to condemn by strawman arguments?
I can agree with the author that there is right and wrong-- it's a sad commentary on society when this is something that has to even be addressed.
I can even appreciate the scientific research and the use of that
Show More
research in helping to anchor a concept of morality and moral living.But, as usual, Harris takes everything beyond its proper bounds. He continues to kick against the goads of the limitations of science relative to other fields; toward the end, he admits that he has entered the realm of philosophy, but still wants to cling to the pretense of science. Of course, in so doing, he distorts the nature of what science is and what science can tell-- a sure sign of overreach.
Trying to bring everything down to the level of maximizing well-being sounds great in theory. But who gets to determine well-being? How can science analyze a value that is rooted in such subjectivism? And how can science declare x to be consistent with maximizing well-being, and y is not? Brain scans? What does a brain scan tell you about the actual function? This is not to say that values do not exist, nor that science has nothing to say about them-- but science cannot get one to a full moral system.
This book is a wonderful display of scientism and its sophomoric arrogance-- the presumption of what can be understood from nascent forms of scientific inquiry. The conclusions are far from scientific and there will likely be much that will prove embarrassing in the future when things are better understood and seen as more complex than is being admitted now. It is akin to the know-it-all nature of a teenager; hopefully, as with such a teenager, the damage can be minimized until a better idea of perspective can be learned and humility swallowed.
And it's difficult to believe much of what Harris has to say about religion. If he spent half the time seeking to understand what he distorts, he might have a different view of things. How is what he does and the way he does it any better than that which he attempts to condemn by strawman arguments?
Show Less
LibraryThing member Niecierpek
In a nutshell, Harris argues that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science, and questions about values- about meaning, morality, and life’s larger purpose- are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values therefore translate into facts that can be
Circumstances in the life of a conscious creature that are conducive to happy and safe life in harmony with others contribute to the increased well-being of that creature, and should be considered morally sound, whereas circumstances that diminish it through cruelty, hatred, terror, etc., should be considered morally wrong. He calls it a science of human flourishing and argues that religion isn’t necessary to know what’s morally sound and what’s not.
I found the thesis for this book morally and scientifically satisfying, yet rated it down because Harris kept repeating himself, and also perhaps because I was already familiar with some of the research he quoted.
Show More
scientifically understood, and easily quantifiable. Meaning, values, morality must relate to facts about conscious creatures and must relate to the states of the conscious brain. Circumstances in the life of a conscious creature that are conducive to happy and safe life in harmony with others contribute to the increased well-being of that creature, and should be considered morally sound, whereas circumstances that diminish it through cruelty, hatred, terror, etc., should be considered morally wrong. He calls it a science of human flourishing and argues that religion isn’t necessary to know what’s morally sound and what’s not.
I found the thesis for this book morally and scientifically satisfying, yet rated it down because Harris kept repeating himself, and also perhaps because I was already familiar with some of the research he quoted.
Show Less
LibraryThing member AshRyan
Despite his vague support for environmentalism, and his tendency to commit the fallacy of composition when discussing human well-being or flourishing as the standard of value and arriving at a sort of utilitarian ethics, most of Harris's latest book is extremely good.
His basic argument that
Unfortunately, he occasionally takes a wrong turn and his ability to reason so clearly and cut through the nonsense permeating both sides of the culture seems to temporarily abandon him, such as the end of the second chapter in which he gives a lot of blatantly self-contradictory behaviorist arguments that free will is an illusion (which clearly undercuts the entire project he's undertaken in the rest of the book). The philosophical implications he draws from the results of neuroscience in chapter three are also badly mixed, in both content and method. But he gets back on track in chapters four and five.
Harris basically presents ethics as principles for flourishing life---not dogmatic rules or subjective whims (both of which are arbitrary). So, overall, The Moral Landscape (or at least parts of it) gets my nomination for best half a book of 2010.
His basic argument that
Show More
conservative intrinsicism and liberal subjectivism is a false alternative and that moral realism requires only that values be epistemologically objective, not ontologically objective, and that this criterion can be met, is sound and important. The book is full of clear and insightful examples, often humorous and sometimes horrifying (although he does tend to slip into irrelevant "lifeboat scenarios" on occasion).Unfortunately, he occasionally takes a wrong turn and his ability to reason so clearly and cut through the nonsense permeating both sides of the culture seems to temporarily abandon him, such as the end of the second chapter in which he gives a lot of blatantly self-contradictory behaviorist arguments that free will is an illusion (which clearly undercuts the entire project he's undertaken in the rest of the book). The philosophical implications he draws from the results of neuroscience in chapter three are also badly mixed, in both content and method. But he gets back on track in chapters four and five.
Harris basically presents ethics as principles for flourishing life---not dogmatic rules or subjective whims (both of which are arbitrary). So, overall, The Moral Landscape (or at least parts of it) gets my nomination for best half a book of 2010.
Show Less
LibraryThing member tyomero
I am very unfamiliar to this topic but still I think this book is a good read because it stimulates critical thinking.
The thesis Sam Harris proposes is quite straightforward, he basically explores the implications of defining good as anything that contributes to the well-being of a conscious
In talking with various people, I noticed that their (and mine as well) intuitive notions of good and bad are in line with what Harris is talking about, they may be reduced to concerns about harm. So in this sense the average Joe idea of what morality is about is deciding what good and bad, but it seems that in the very specialized groups this is not so, since many critics of the book say that the book fails to show how science can tell us what morality is about, and it focuses in a sciences of flourishing.
All in all, I highly recommend this book, the goals proposed, and the vision of a civilization in which cooperation is a given (due to common shared values) is very tantalizing.
The thesis Sam Harris proposes is quite straightforward, he basically explores the implications of defining good as anything that contributes to the well-being of a conscious
Show More
creature and bad as anything that does the opposite. If you grant that then his conclusions seem pretty reasonable, nevertheless there's still one point which I must admit goes beyond my comprehension, I've read in some review of this book that Harris totally ducks the real question, can science tell us what morality is about?In talking with various people, I noticed that their (and mine as well) intuitive notions of good and bad are in line with what Harris is talking about, they may be reduced to concerns about harm. So in this sense the average Joe idea of what morality is about is deciding what good and bad, but it seems that in the very specialized groups this is not so, since many critics of the book say that the book fails to show how science can tell us what morality is about, and it focuses in a sciences of flourishing.
All in all, I highly recommend this book, the goals proposed, and the vision of a civilization in which cooperation is a given (due to common shared values) is very tantalizing.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Cheryl_in_CC_NV
I'm sure it's not a perfect book. ?Clearly Harris knows that he was just opening the conversation. ?áI started to read the fairly long introduction, and within just a couple of pages realized that I, as it happens, already am in full agreement with his premise, and have a basic understanding of
If you are not convinced by the description, you might be more interested. ?áFor example, if you're an atheist or skeptic, but want to be tolerant of others' religious beliefs/ values, you might cringe when you learn of barbaric practices, for example female genital mutilation. ?áBut at the same time you might figure 'well, it's their right to believe what they believe, and probably the tradition is based on some evolutionary advantage or something. ?áHarris and I call "Bullshit." ?áThese traditions are only memes. ?áThey do not confer survival of the most fit benefits, they are not even harmless. ?áEven those that are derived from a biological imperative no longer need to be obeyed, because we are intelligent enough to make choices rather than be driven by instinct.
Science can reveal to us the best practices to enable the largest majority of us to shape our own destinies and reach our fullest potential, so that we have the best chance to live the most satisfying, safe, happy lives.
Though Harris (probably, remember, I did not read the whole book) probably never actually goes this far, I will say it: ?áWe can each be our own Gods."
Show More
the justification and as many details as he seemed ready to share. ?áIow, I decided not to bother to read the rest.If you are not convinced by the description, you might be more interested. ?áFor example, if you're an atheist or skeptic, but want to be tolerant of others' religious beliefs/ values, you might cringe when you learn of barbaric practices, for example female genital mutilation. ?áBut at the same time you might figure 'well, it's their right to believe what they believe, and probably the tradition is based on some evolutionary advantage or something. ?áHarris and I call "Bullshit." ?áThese traditions are only memes. ?áThey do not confer survival of the most fit benefits, they are not even harmless. ?áEven those that are derived from a biological imperative no longer need to be obeyed, because we are intelligent enough to make choices rather than be driven by instinct.
Science can reveal to us the best practices to enable the largest majority of us to shape our own destinies and reach our fullest potential, so that we have the best chance to live the most satisfying, safe, happy lives.
Though Harris (probably, remember, I did not read the whole book) probably never actually goes this far, I will say it: ?áWe can each be our own Gods."
Show Less
LibraryThing member PickledOnion42
Harris presents the case that human morality falls within the purview of scientific inquiry, thus declaring religion's singular claim on the subject false. While by no means an extensive exploration (with no pretension to being so) Harris nevertheless offers a very compelling argument, however I
Show More
did at times find myself questioning the relevance of certain parts of the book. In its entirety an intriguing thesis well presented, The Moral Landscape has released me from my previous assumption that science has nothing to say on what is without doubt humanity's most important subject. Show Less
LibraryThing member HadriantheBlind
Extremely interesting paremise - neuropsychology and science as a basis for objective morality. Incomplete, but the author admits his ideas are just a beginning.
LibraryThing member chaosmogony
The Moral Landscape centers on the argument that morality derives from actions which promote well-being, which is itself predictable from the neurological structures and biological processes which form the basis of mind. Harris suggests that right and wrong can be determined by science, in
By evaluating trends in psychology and neuro-imaging research, Harris argues that we can indeed say, in principle, which actions are right -- improving well-being -- and which are wrong. Harris's moral landscape is defined by the array of peaks and valleys that respectively maximize or take away from that well-being. There is no need to appeal to the supernatural nor the moral relativism that condones atrocities under the guise of tolerance.
When I first read this, I thought it was an excellent read if for no other reason than Harris's dismantling of popular conservative thinking and the more irritating trends in liberal thinking. However, thanks to a complete break in my thinking since that time, I've come to believe the approach here is flawed and does not achieve what Harris set out to do in bridging the is-ought gap. I don't want to write the book off entirely, as it is interesting and Harris presents what I believe to be an agreeable moral position (mostly), but I've become far more skeptical of the movement to push science into domains where it is not appropriate.
Morality is one of those realms, and I cannot say that Harris did what he set out to do in bridging the gap between is and ought. The position here is interesting, but I want to emphasize the need for caution when presenting science as a totalizing account of any non-empirical sphere.
Show More
opposition to the long-standing notion expressed by Hume's is-ought problem -- that the empirical can say nothing about the ethical. By evaluating trends in psychology and neuro-imaging research, Harris argues that we can indeed say, in principle, which actions are right -- improving well-being -- and which are wrong. Harris's moral landscape is defined by the array of peaks and valleys that respectively maximize or take away from that well-being. There is no need to appeal to the supernatural nor the moral relativism that condones atrocities under the guise of tolerance.
When I first read this, I thought it was an excellent read if for no other reason than Harris's dismantling of popular conservative thinking and the more irritating trends in liberal thinking. However, thanks to a complete break in my thinking since that time, I've come to believe the approach here is flawed and does not achieve what Harris set out to do in bridging the is-ought gap. I don't want to write the book off entirely, as it is interesting and Harris presents what I believe to be an agreeable moral position (mostly), but I've become far more skeptical of the movement to push science into domains where it is not appropriate.
Morality is one of those realms, and I cannot say that Harris did what he set out to do in bridging the gap between is and ought. The position here is interesting, but I want to emphasize the need for caution when presenting science as a totalizing account of any non-empirical sphere.
Show Less
LibraryThing member SpaceyAcey
This book is a rephrasing of utilitarianism. He doesn't address any of the traditional criticisms of that system. Half-way through he launches a ridiculous attack on free will, he doesn't believe in free-will but apparently he isn't a fatalist. He is popular for being a fanatic.
LibraryThing member JorgeCarvajal
One of those books that change your life.
LibraryThing member heradas
Terrific. The main concept is that although moral questions are often very difficult to answer, and there are usually many satisfactory answers to each one, we can use the principles of science to eliminate the obviously bad answers to those questions.
LibraryThing member markwhiting
Lots of problems but a lot of interesting thinking too.
LibraryThing member Jiraiya
My brain is creaking under the weight of relevant fact assimilated from The Moral Landscape. This book is a re read, a thing I'm not reticent of admitting. I had forgotten nearly everything of this book. Except if you count for the fact that I emerged wiser from reading it. This statement is
Wisdom, indeed, opens up pathways in the brain for ever, even if one does not remember the cleverness and salient logic. I think that Sam Harris exposes his work to attack by denying that he doesn't draw on extreme examples of fundamentalist Christian cruelties. He clearly did. But his major focus were on barriers between Religion and Science. His pieces on Collins, Polkingthorne, C.S Lewis et al are a pleasure to read. The statistics are still impressive as this book is not yet dated. This book earns its positive reviews and it should have been more universally known. To read it is its own reward.
Show More
supported by the "experiencing self" and "remembering self" duality that is one of the many things explained in The Moral Landscape. Wisdom, indeed, opens up pathways in the brain for ever, even if one does not remember the cleverness and salient logic. I think that Sam Harris exposes his work to attack by denying that he doesn't draw on extreme examples of fundamentalist Christian cruelties. He clearly did. But his major focus were on barriers between Religion and Science. His pieces on Collins, Polkingthorne, C.S Lewis et al are a pleasure to read. The statistics are still impressive as this book is not yet dated. This book earns its positive reviews and it should have been more universally known. To read it is its own reward.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Michael_Rose
A noble attempt, but a futile one if trying to convince the opposition, I imagine. Would you like to get a perspective on morality without deferring entirely to philosophy or authority? You might want to read this then.
LibraryThing member mrgan
Harris makes a pretty convincing case for the role of science - and, more broadly, rational thought - in deciding moral questions. If this sounds patently obvious, it's not so to many. There are a few tangents in the book, but they still make for good reading.
LibraryThing member Paul-the-well-read
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
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 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 More
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 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
LibraryThing member Paul-the-well-read
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
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 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 More
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 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
LibraryThing member Paul_S
Doesn't deliver on the promise on the cover. All that it manages to do is put forward a bit very controversial claim that morality doesn't require religion.
LibraryThing member bartt95
A clear, important book that seems to provide all the arguments one needs to battle the moral relativists, clowns, charlatans and ignorant apologists that seem to be spreading like the plague all over the globe.
If the goal of morality is not to create as much human flourishing, or well-being, or
The moral relativists seem to be the only ones who are not concerned with human well-being. If they consider child sacrifice morally equivalent to soccer practice, then why don't we, as a cultural thing, shove them off a cliff?
If the goal of morality is not to create as much human flourishing, or well-being, or
Show More
happiness, as possible, then what is its goal? And if a culture, or society, is laced with lies, political repression, gender discrimination, torture and murder, then how can anyone make any claim to its moral equivalence to a free society? The moral relativists seem to be the only ones who are not concerned with human well-being. If they consider child sacrifice morally equivalent to soccer practice, then why don't we, as a cultural thing, shove them off a cliff?
Show Less
LibraryThing member kenshin79
I agree in principle - but that's it: a principle.
The book is a long long long sequence of "it can be done: you'll see". Not much else in there...
The book is a long long long sequence of "it can be done: you'll see". Not much else in there...
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2010
Physical description
291 p.; 22.8 cm
ISBN
9781451612783
Local notes
Omslag: Eric Fuentecilla
Omslaget er bare titlen sat på en guldfarvet baggrund
Side 1: Albansk form for vendetta kaldet Kanun, hvor man må hævne sig på alle mandlige slægtninge til en morder.
Indskannet omslag - N650U - 150 dpi
Omslaget er bare titlen sat på en guldfarvet baggrund
Side 1: Albansk form for vendetta kaldet Kanun, hvor man må hævne sig på alle mandlige slægtninge til en morder.
Indskannet omslag - N650U - 150 dpi
Pages
291
DDC/MDS
| 171.2 |