The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
- Downloads：4774
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-06-24 09:54:04
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Sam Harris
- ISBN：0552776386
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Sam Harris's first book， The End of Faith， ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion。 In the aftermath， Harris discovered that most people - from religious fundamentalists to nonbelieving scientists - agree on one point: science has nothing to say on the subject of human values。 Indeed， our failure to address questions of meaning and morality through science has now become the primary justification for religious faith。
In this highly controversial book， Sam Harris seeks to link morality to the rest of human knowledge。 Defining morality in terms of human and animal well-being， Harris argues that science can do more than tell how we are; it can， in principle， tell us how we ought to be。 In his view， moral relativism is simply false - and comes at an increasing cost to humanity。 And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra， there can be no Christian or Muslim morality。 Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience， along with his experience on the front lines of our 'culture wars'， Harris delivers a game-changing book about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation。
In this highly controversial book， Sam Harris seeks to link morality to the rest of human knowledge。 Defining morality in terms of human and animal well-being， Harris argues that science can do more than tell how we are; it can， in principle， tell us how we ought to be。 In his view， moral relativism is simply false - and comes at an increasing cost to humanity。 And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra， there can be no Christian or Muslim morality。 Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience， along with his experience on the front lines of our 'culture wars'， Harris delivers a game-changing book about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation。
Reviews
Wellas Throway
，
Any rational， non-bias reader will see that Harris is presenting a very well thought out， very fair argument。 You will rightly challenge everything he says， just as you should with anyone。 He does a great job of addressing the most pressing objections， as well as some more obscure ones that would be easy to not take seriously。 Harris openly admits that we do not have all the answers at this moment， and we can't see where the road of reason will take us。 Does this mean that physics is an invalid Any rational， non-bias reader will see that Harris is presenting a very well thought out， very fair argument。 You will rightly challenge everything he says， just as you should with anyone。 He does a great job of addressing the most pressing objections， as well as some more obscure ones that would be easy to not take seriously。 Harris openly admits that we do not have all the answers at this moment， and we can't see where the road of reason will take us。 Does this mean that physics is an invalid science because we don't know all the secrets of the universe？ No。 There should be no double standard held when talking about a science of morality， which is one of Harris's main arguments。 I hope this book opens eyes to the possibilities of science， well and we'll bring， and leads m。 My on screen keyboard is gl itching now and I cannot see what I am typing。 I'm going to submit the review and hope for the best。 。。。more
Seth Smith
，
Sam Harris makes some good points here， but he seems incapable of using the word “objectivity” correctly。 He relies too much on the premise that everyone agrees with him。 I’d describe the moral system he presents as worthy of pursuit， but far from objective。Still， anything by Harris is guaranteed to be intelligent and well written。 The Moral Landscape is a good read for nihilists or anyone who’s interested in moral philosophy and has a few hours to spare。 Otherwise， not a crucial thing to consid Sam Harris makes some good points here， but he seems incapable of using the word “objectivity” correctly。 He relies too much on the premise that everyone agrees with him。 I’d describe the moral system he presents as worthy of pursuit， but far from objective。Still， anything by Harris is guaranteed to be intelligent and well written。 The Moral Landscape is a good read for nihilists or anyone who’s interested in moral philosophy and has a few hours to spare。 Otherwise， not a crucial thing to consider。 。。。more
Leonidas
，
Blazing through all of Sam Harris' books is on my agenda， so I admit I took this on at 1。5x audio-listening speed。Most of it was a blur because of the high-level philosophy and mental-masterb*tion （I'm a huge fan of Sam harris nonetheless）。My main take away was that the moral-relativism of science compared to what religion can provide is 'relatively' much better。With science you try to aim for an empirical good vs。 bad using studies， technology， and a general understanding of what provides human Blazing through all of Sam Harris' books is on my agenda， so I admit I took this on at 1。5x audio-listening speed。Most of it was a blur because of the high-level philosophy and mental-masterb*tion （I'm a huge fan of Sam harris nonetheless）。My main take away was that the moral-relativism of science compared to what religion can provide is 'relatively' much better。With science you try to aim for an empirical good vs。 bad using studies， technology， and a general understanding of what provides humans and animals with happiness。As opposed to Abrahamic religions （or the other ones as well）， which conjure up some fantastical stories with wishy-washy ambiguous verses that have for millennia provided ANYTHING BUT a clear happiness for humans。 。。。more
Blaze
，
NotesHarris' opening argument seems to be an attempt to disprove the is-ought distinction。 However， later on he seems to admit that this is impossible。 For example， on page 37: "Science cannot tell us why， scientifically， we should value health。 But once we admit that health is the proper concern of medicine， we can then study and promote it through science"。 Substitute the word "health" for "well being"， and Harris' is basically restating and agreeing with Hume's is-ought distinction。At other t NotesHarris' opening argument seems to be an attempt to disprove the is-ought distinction。 However， later on he seems to admit that this is impossible。 For example， on page 37: "Science cannot tell us why， scientifically， we should value health。 But once we admit that health is the proper concern of medicine， we can then study and promote it through science"。 Substitute the word "health" for "well being"， and Harris' is basically restating and agreeing with Hume's is-ought distinction。At other times it seems he is instead arguing that there is enough similarity between human beings， regardless of their culture， that we already share a lot of basic normative values， such as the general desire to avoid pain and suffering， to have close friendships， good health etc。 Because these normative values are widely shared， we can then make prescriptive moral claims that will maximise "well being"。 I agree with this， however， this is clearly different from arguing that we can actually derive values from facts。 If a psychopath said that torturing innocent people maximises his well being， I don't see how any description of facts could convince him to alter his values。 However， becau 。。。more
Carolyn
，
A really good read although there are a few chapters where it gets pretty technical into neuroscience。 So many great ideas to think about though！
EppicNinjaBunny
，
Even though， self-admitted by Sam Harris - his philosophy （or rather said， ideology） is incomplete， perhaps even flawed， The Moral Landscape shines a new light on morality， religion， and science。 In just over two hundred pages， Sam Harris shows how psychology and neuroscience - even though it is still developing and the human brain has many unrevealed secrets - are the future for our morals and how under the surface， fundamental Christian scientists are opposing the end goal of science， in order Even though， self-admitted by Sam Harris - his philosophy （or rather said， ideology） is incomplete， perhaps even flawed， The Moral Landscape shines a new light on morality， religion， and science。 In just over two hundred pages， Sam Harris shows how psychology and neuroscience - even though it is still developing and the human brain has many unrevealed secrets - are the future for our morals and how under the surface， fundamental Christian scientists are opposing the end goal of science， in order to maintain their belief in God。 。。。more
Justyna Aleksandra
，
Sam and everything he says is music to my ears。 This book should be a mandatory read for every homo sapiens。 I am definetely not clever enough to give this book the review it deserves so I'm just going to stop there。。。 Sam and everything he says is music to my ears。 This book should be a mandatory read for every homo sapiens。 I am definetely not clever enough to give this book the review it deserves so I'm just going to stop there。。。 。。。more
Dustin Cubit
，
The biggest problem with Sam's argument here is that the main metric that he wants to build a scientific basis for morality is "Human and animal wellbeing。" The term is ill-defined and subjective。 Wellbeing isn't something that can be arrived at scientifically， as its entirely subjective concerning the individual as well as collectively。 Just take a look a politics for example。 The only way to make this objective and scientific morality come to fruition is to remove moral decision making from hu The biggest problem with Sam's argument here is that the main metric that he wants to build a scientific basis for morality is "Human and animal wellbeing。" The term is ill-defined and subjective。 Wellbeing isn't something that can be arrived at scientifically， as its entirely subjective concerning the individual as well as collectively。 Just take a look a politics for example。 The only way to make this objective and scientific morality come to fruition is to remove moral decision making from humans and to install some type of AI based decision making system。 I have a feeling that this book is mostly just another anti religion book， since he seems to mainly criticize faith based moral systems， and he tends to focus on extremes within WEIRD society， specifically American。 He also criticizes Jonathan Haidt， who's academic focus is Moral psychology。 。。。more
Marc Wolfgram
，
Sam Harris guides us through the concept of morality and the discourse between religion and science with regards to defining it。An interesting， well-presented exploration that illuminates the issue from a philosophical as well as a neuroscientific point-of-view。
Alan
，
This is a well presented argument for the existence of universal moral truths and science’s ability to establish what these truths are。 I am sympathetic to the thesis， especially the idea that morality can exist in the absence of a supernatural foundation for it。 However， I think Harris’s argument ultimately falls short。 If it is simply a matter of establishing a universal baseline for morality among all of humanity， that is fine， but you either have to have a superior force （god or the like） to This is a well presented argument for the existence of universal moral truths and science’s ability to establish what these truths are。 I am sympathetic to the thesis， especially the idea that morality can exist in the absence of a supernatural foundation for it。 However， I think Harris’s argument ultimately falls short。 If it is simply a matter of establishing a universal baseline for morality among all of humanity， that is fine， but you either have to have a superior force （god or the like） to establish the rules， or those rules are simply human constructions （usually based on biological and evolutionary factors）。 （And for the record， I fall on the latter side of that。） That can get uncomfortable。 Harris argues， for example， that forcing women to wear the burqua or genital mutilation， or killing an apostate （actions often cited using the first argument， i。e。 god） is never morally good。 And of course he is correct （if， as I do， you believe that any action that harms another human’s well being is morally wrong）。 But is there， as he argues， a universal， scientifically defined moral truth to that？ Or is it， as most scientists believe， outside the realm of science to determine and must therefore be argued by philosophers （who will forever argue it） and theologians （who will always base it on the wrong things）？ I did especially liked his strong argument against the compatibility of religion and science。 His rebuttal against Francis Collins and of the Templeton Foundation initiative， in particular， is logical and well-reasoned。If you were to put it to a universal vote， I suspect that almost every human being， excepting perhaps masochists， would vote yes on the question “Is it wrong for someone else to harm me or act in such a way that harms my well-being？”。 While that may not be a clean and unambiguous standard， perhaps it has to suffice （coupled with its corollary， “Is it wrong for me to harm another or act in such a way as to harm another’s well-being？”）。 。。。more
Mikey
，
3。5 stars
Andres Decormis
，
A concept truly important for people to understand。
Fletcher Neal
，
If you want to annoy a philosopher， bring up Sam Harris's idea of how to overcome the is/ought problem。 If you want to annoy a philosopher， bring up Sam Harris's idea of how to overcome the is/ought problem。 。。。more
Shem Doupe
，
Probably one of the worst books I've ever read。 I love Sam Harris but this is just torture to read。 Read the Righteous Mind if you want to understand morality better。 Pass on this。 Probably one of the worst books I've ever read。 I love Sam Harris but this is just torture to read。 Read the Righteous Mind if you want to understand morality better。 Pass on this。 。。。more
Max
，
One of the worst books on the topic of moral philosophy ever written。 The author completely avoids any serious counter arguments by simply labelling them as "semantic traps"。 For example， Hume's Guillotine is referred to as nonsense （with no explanation given by Harris as to why it is nonsense）， furthermore， he derides Moore's open question argument as simply unimportant; not to mention the numerous times he contradicts himself by saying that well-being is the only logical thing we can value， th One of the worst books on the topic of moral philosophy ever written。 The author completely avoids any serious counter arguments by simply labelling them as "semantic traps"。 For example， Hume's Guillotine is referred to as nonsense （with no explanation given by Harris as to why it is nonsense）， furthermore， he derides Moore's open question argument as simply unimportant; not to mention the numerous times he contradicts himself by saying that well-being is the only logical thing we can value， then goes on to propose three principles such as logical consistency （and other things） as important things to value。 Terrible book， would only recommend to people I hate so I could waste their time。 。。。more
Chikwelueze Iyizoba
，
The best defense of an objective morality without God。 I didn’t agree with everything but I loved it。
Daniel Pilz
，
“We will embarrass our descendants， just as our ancestors embarrass us。”My first audio book。 Obviously this is an incomplete idea， which is sort of the point。 Even so， it’s hard to argue with anything that Harris presents here。 I can’t help but feel like Harris is giving voice to what I’ve always felt but could never articulate。 Next time I hear someone say that raising children without religion will make the amoral， I will gladly offer to purchase this book for them。
Sam
，
Sam Harris eloquently explains how human beings can operate in an ethically and righteous framework without theological hypocrisy
Omar
，
https://www。youtube。com/watch？v=CVZp4。。。 https://www。youtube。com/watch？v=CVZp4。。。 。。。more
Beau Birkett
，
Sam Harris presents a very interesting and convincing argument for the role of science， reason and logic to be included in moral debates， which I'm astounded doesn't usually take the drivers wheel on many questions。 Sam Harris presents a very interesting and convincing argument for the role of science， reason and logic to be included in moral debates， which I'm astounded doesn't usually take the drivers wheel on many questions。 。。。more
Ardhi Listyar
，
I accept Sam Harris's thesis although I feel that he expresses with verbosity （philosophizing）。 Granted， there's a significant devotion to philosophical talk in the book， but sometimes it looks like a desperate attempt to justify his thesis。 I accept Sam Harris's thesis although I feel that he expresses with verbosity （philosophizing）。 Granted， there's a significant devotion to philosophical talk in the book， but sometimes it looks like a desperate attempt to justify his thesis。 。。。more
David
，
Written 11 years ago， this book provides a good starting point to discuss whether science can be the basis for morality。Sam's thesis may not be perfect but is still worth engaging with as it presents a view of values without religion。As with his previous book， his footnotes are as dense as the main text。 Written 11 years ago， this book provides a good starting point to discuss whether science can be the basis for morality。Sam's thesis may not be perfect but is still worth engaging with as it presents a view of values without religion。As with his previous book， his footnotes are as dense as the main text。 。。。more
James Pereira
，
It is possible to be wrong and to not know it （we call this “ignorance”）。 It is possible to be wrong and to know it， but to be reluctant to incur the social cost of admitting this publicly （we call this “hypocrisy”）。 And it may also be possible to be wrong， to dimly glimpse this fact， but to allow the fear of being wrong to increase one’s commitment to one’s erroneous beliefs （we call this “self-deception”）。 Wow， what a fascinating book！ Truly an intellectually stimulating experience。 While It is possible to be wrong and to not know it （we call this “ignorance”）。 It is possible to be wrong and to know it， but to be reluctant to incur the social cost of admitting this publicly （we call this “hypocrisy”）。 And it may also be possible to be wrong， to dimly glimpse this fact， but to allow the fear of being wrong to increase one’s commitment to one’s erroneous beliefs （we call this “self-deception”）。 Wow， what a fascinating book！ Truly an intellectually stimulating experience。 While he can be quite polemic in his remarks about religion， a nonetheless interesting discourse on Morality。 Gist of the book The book basically deals with the question， can we discover objective truths about the nature of morality？ Harris says yes， giving us a neuroscience account of how we could go about doing so， while at the same time giving us the practical implications of the sameArguments of the book Harris's argument basically （give or take）Premise 1: Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds。 Specifically， that such minds can experience various forms of wellbeing and suffering in this universe。Premise 2: Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena。 Fully constrained by the laws of nature， whatever these end up being。Conclusion: Therefore， there must be right or wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science。 While the is-ought problem generally prevents us from deriving an ought from an is， Harris states that Medicine does this all the time with Health， so why shouldn't we do this with Morality and well being。 We can objectively discriminate different types of medicine as being scientific or pseudoscientific/False （think of an approved medicine vs homoeopathy， astrology， crystals healing power）。 No one asks Medicine why it assumes the premise of Health in its definition of Medicine。 In the same sense， Harris redefines morality from good and evil to mean that which promotes well being。 （He argues that no rational person would object to this definition of morality。 And also on pragmatic grounds since we eventually need to leave the plains of philosophy and come to practical everyday life）Practical benefits include 1。 We can explain why people tend to follow certain patterns of thought and behavior （many of them demonstrably silly and harmful） in the name of “morality。”2。 We can think more clearly about the nature of moral truth and determine which patterns of thought and behavior we should follow in the name of “morality。” 3。 We can convince people who are committed to silly and harmful patterns of thought and behavior in the name of “morality” to break these commitments and to live better lives And so Harris proceeds onwards with his thesis on Morality。 Its implication being， we could be able to overcome cultural differences of opinions and make judgements about the rightness and wrongness of different actions。 Metaphor of the Moral landscapeBy 'moral landscape'， he means the conceptual space of all possible experience。 The peaks represent the heights of well-being， and the valleys the worst suffering。 Where differences in possible ways of achieving the good would not mean a refutation of the idea of objective morality but rather different paths to achieve a desired outcome， as different peaks on the landscape。 He also makes references to his prior books like Free Will to maintain logical consistency in his position。 As well as more than occasionally beat the strawman of religion that he's created for himself， which at times make you chuckle but at most times is just berating the point。 Needless to say， the book creates strong feelings on both ends of the spectrum of religion and science。What I liked about the book His book provides a good dialogue for exploring what objective morality would look like if it is somehow possible。 In fact， he reminds us time and again that just cuz we don't find answers in practice doesn't mean there are no answers in reality。 That is to say， just cuz we don't know yet doesn't mean there aren't possible right or wrong answers to questions of Morality。 He's also relatively honest in the sense that he acknowledges that his thesis could be falsified。 The purpose of the book， therefore， is to get us to start thinking about these issues and be honest about the limitations of our current systems of morality （religion）。 What I didn't like about the book While a lot could be said about the philosophical leaps and outright fallacies made by Harris in order to reach his Moral position， I am not currently equipped or qualified to do so。 Nevertheless his biting and scathing dismissal of religion is definitely something that he could work on if he wants to cater to a larger audience。 I'll leave y'all with this quote from the book “The fact that millions of people use the term "morality" as a synonym for religious dogmatism， racism， sexism， or other failures of insight and compassion should not oblige us to merely accept their terminology until the end of time。” So cheers and I'll catch y'all later， Uni assignments shall hamper my reading progress but I shall nonetheless try to push through 。。。more
Walter Harrington
，
I was asked to read this book a few years ago， and I finally got access to the audio version。 My review/rating of this book isn’t surprising as the philosophical worldviews that Sam Harris and I subscribe to are worlds apart。 That being said， what I found intriguing about this book is Harris’ affirmation of real， objective morality。 He derides the “moral relativists” on the left for their lack of acknowledgment （and I believe he would say lack of understanding） of reality。 However， Harris also h I was asked to read this book a few years ago， and I finally got access to the audio version。 My review/rating of this book isn’t surprising as the philosophical worldviews that Sam Harris and I subscribe to are worlds apart。 That being said， what I found intriguing about this book is Harris’ affirmation of real， objective morality。 He derides the “moral relativists” on the left for their lack of acknowledgment （and I believe he would say lack of understanding） of reality。 However， Harris also hates all religions， so he can’t get his morality from there。 So what does he do？ He turns to science。Though he denies it outright， science has become Harris’ god， as he looks to it to uncover and dictate morality。 He doesn’t appreciate claims of “scientism”， but it’s very hard to see how he isn’t worshipping at the feet of science， though he may not like that being pointed out。 He even recalls a meeting of atheists that he attended where they discussed matters of science and faith， and he stood aghast at all the scientists that wouldn’t claim that science should be the ultimate place to study and uncover moral truths， all but excommunicating those who did not share his doctrinal belief。 I suppose it isn’t science per se that Harris turns to， but rather his interpretation of science， which in the end boils down to what he believes about morality。At least Harris front-loads all his assumptions and positions in the introduction， so you know what you’re getting。 From the start， he paints all religions with a broad brush， using the worst examples to apply to faith as a whole。 He will use anecdotal stories from Islam and Christianity where they serve him best， and ignore the swaths of good in religion。 He sets up many strawmen just to easily knock them down and declare that he has routed religion and shown how morally reprehensible it is to believe in God。 But I doubt he would take too kindly to the same being done with atheism。 We can easily put forth examples of evil and vile people that did terrible things who did not believe in God。 Does that mean all atheists act this way， or would condone these actions because of their beliefs？ Of course not。 It is unfair to do the same to Christianity。 Especially when the very instances that Harris brings up would be denounced by Christians themselves based on their own moral beliefs。Harris focuses on extremes to prove his point。 How could we say that science can’t determine morality？ We all know that cold-blooded murder after nights of torture is inherently wrong！ It’s a scientific fact that this doesn’t increase the well-being of people！ Well… of course it doesn’t。 But Christian morality would say the same thing， without the need to appeal to science。 But Harris simply says “anything that religion has gotten right， it has gotten right by accident。” That’s just a philosophical assertion with no evidential basis （something that supposedly Harris values）。 Further， the devil is in the details。 Sure， we might all agree that cold-blooded murder is wrong， but what about the areas that are very grey？ Harris is sure that science will develop to the point where we can put a number on these moral values and determine their value precisely。 I think this is blind optimism （or delusion）， and that’s coming from a blind optimist。But just what does Harris mean when he says science can determine morality？ Well， it’s not really science， per se。 He himself sets the goal of maximizing human flourishing， or what he calls “well-being”。 This is a nebulous concept， but he justifies it again by using extremes。 He says things similar to it is an objective fact that if all the people on earth lived in torture， there would clearly be a lower amount of human well being than if we all lived peaceful lives （this is not the exact example he uses， but it’s the sentiment）。 But again， we must ask what this proves when it comes to the details。 He believes that science will be able to quantify overall human well-being and put a number on it， so to speak。 Then we just work towards that goal。 Again， it is doubtful that this could be the case even in principle。I agree with Harris’ moral outrage at the atrocities he describes in the book。 Ironically， he and I would likely share the majority of our moral beliefs （which is likely a product of both being Westerners heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values， even if he doesn’t admit it）。 I agree that there is objective morality。 However， Harris’ god called science cannot currently， by his own admission， determine the state in which maximum well-being can be achieved。 And it is highly doubtful that it will ever be able to do so。 But what’s more， Harris’ god is not really science， but his interpretation and understanding of science， and the goals he sets for human flourishing。 Therefore， Harris’ god is ultimately himself。 Do not misunderstand me， I am in no way saying that I think Harris is immoral。 I think he cares deeply about morality and sincerely wants to make the world better。 I just think relying on ourselves to accomplish that goal is a doomed endeavor。There are many incongruencies in logic in this book。 For example， he claims that scientifically derived morality and the morality of religion are incompatible， and one is most definitely more preferred than the other （I’ll let you guess which one he thinks is actually evil）。 But then he describes a “moral landscape” that may have many peaks representing moralities that score high amidst the valleys of low morality systems （determined scientifically， I suppose， however that would work）。 If this is the case， however， then whos to say that Christianity， truly practiced， doesn’t occupy one of those peaks？ The science isn’t to the point where it can make any practical judgments on morality， even by Harris’ standards- so how would he know if the peak of the Christian religion is not the same height as the peak of his science？ Harris falls in the same trap that many neuroscientists do， detailing the biases and explaining away the actions of their subjects， all while assuming that they themselves are above the very same pitfalls they are describing。He discusses how different sections of the brain are used for multiple cognitive processes and that it is very unlikely to evolve a new section for a new specific task， but then relies on overlapping brain scans and areas of the brain to deduce what is going on in a subject’s mind。Further， Harris tries to deny free will and keep it at the same time。 We do not freely choose our states of mind or the processes that lead to our actions， but somehow we can have reasoning and logic behind our actions。 It seems that he wants to keep free will when it suits him （such as when he is trying to persuade people he is right about this very subject） and dismiss it when it doesn’t （such as when people try to hold criminals as responsible for their actions）。 The cliche holds true here: you can’t have your cake and eat it too。His penultimate chapter is a diversion to a polemic against religion that has little to do with his overall thesis。 Here he doubles down on his claims against religion， using largely the same tactics as he does in his introduction。 He focuses the brunt of his attack on scientists who are Christians， namely Francis Collins， accusing them of intellectual dishonesty。 Ironically， I doubt Harris would score very high on his scientifically derived morality scale if it were applied to himself， as the polemic is in a word， unkind。The final few paragraphs in the book are telling。 Harris respectably devotes time to weaknesses in his proposal， but in the end asserts that whether or not we can ever come to precision on deciding what is the best morality for everyone through scientific reasoning or if there even is such a state， there must be better and worse states of the world and society for the well being of humanity。 I agree。 As do most people， I would assume。 However， he makes his problem clean when he then asserts that we shouldn't allow morality to be the domain of “bigoted” religion any longer。 His reasoning？ Because if we allow that， then we waste our time arguing over moral points that， let the reader understand， Harris seems stupid and don't discuss points that Harris thinks are worth discussing。 So， in the end， it would seem that it all comes back to “morality should be what I think it should be。” Science has not told him that these are the points worth discussing。 These points are high on his moral compass。 And I would venture to guess many of the points he thinks we should be discussing are shared by many religious adherents。 I don't think Harris wants to believe that though。There are many problems I have with this book， but there is one problem in logic that I think causes Harris’ whole system to fail。 He often derides religious adherents for their focus on an “afterlife” as a rewards system to do good （or evil？） here。 But if you deny that there is anything beyond this physical life here and that we do not carry on after we die， then I think you have a much bigger problem。 Namely， ultimately why does any of this matter？ In the heat death of the universe， will it make even the slightest difference whether or not we kept people from lying in court？ Or let’s go further。 What difference， in the end， does it make if someone is murdered or if they live a long peaceful life？ There is none。 As one dies， so does the other， and there is no feeling， no change， no consequence in the end。 All is nothing。 Sure， you could say we could eek out a few more years here to enjoy the good life， but even that wouldn’t matter。 You won’t remember it。 Because you will be nothing。 Even your legacy will die。So， Harris can make fun of religious adherents all he wants。 I honestly can’t see how his worldview offers any basis of meaning or reason to even write this book。 Even if science were able to determine some states of the world in which well-being might be maximized， it would still just be describing what is。 And I would venture to guess that when Harris finally climbs that mountain to reach the scientifically determined peak on the moral landscape， he will be quite surprised to see that the saints have been there the whole time。 。。。more
Justine Oh
，
A book with notions to ponder。
Leonardo
，
A really fun ride！ This was an easy to read book that gives a powerful message to cut through the moral relativism that we see so much and offers a somewhat clear vision of how to create a better way to develop and asses human morality without the monopoly of faith-based religions。 It also gives good fodder to not shy away and denounce the harm and damage that superstition causes in the world。
Jim
，
While I agree with him almost entirely， I'm a bit put off by the repetition or what I see as repetition， anyway。 Since I agree， I don't need all of minor details hashed out so thoroughly。 The problem is that moral relativism & the subject - the basics of moral behavior - are both so slippery & ill defined so he comes at them from quite a few angles with specific examples。He defines moral relativism in its worst form - those who believe anything dictated by the local culture， mores， & religion ar While I agree with him almost entirely， I'm a bit put off by the repetition or what I see as repetition， anyway。 Since I agree， I don't need all of minor details hashed out so thoroughly。 The problem is that moral relativism & the subject - the basics of moral behavior - are both so slippery & ill defined so he comes at them from quite a few angles with specific examples。He defines moral relativism in its worst form - those who believe anything dictated by the local culture， mores， & religion are sacrosanct。 They shouldn't be。 There is no justification for mutilating people due to the strictures of old myths & science can point many of these out。 Unfortunately， most of the science is pretty soft （e。g。， psychiatry） & the mores are deeply embedded in their societies with many roots。 One example is the sexual mutilation & suppression of women in many cultures。 Our fledgling sciences can prove that worst of such actions aren't moral in any rational sense & this is where we need to start pushing science into a realm that conventional wisdom says belongs to religion。He also points out that there are few absolutes & this is where he has to spend so much time separating out moral relativism from our lack of rigid sciences dealing with societies。 There are many gray areas that we just can't answer or can answer in many ways without a certainty of being correct。 Is it moral to restrict individual freedom if doing so will make some others safe？ How many others？ A large majority certainly， but what about one in a million？ Where do we draw the line？He also makes a great case that just because we can't definitely answer these questions at this time & that we may never be able to， it's no reason not to pose them， study them， & build a better science around them。 It's past time to keep treating horrendous behavior as if it is sacrosanct & to make better decisions about the even thornier problems that are constantly arising as resources dwindle， our population climbs， & our technology opens up new vistas。 。。。more
Paul
，
I found it difficult to follow the Author's flow of ideas and， if there was a defining moment in the book which summarised/encapsulated the central idea， then I'm afraid I missed it。Some of the book was engaging and， unlike other reviewers， I found the frequent examples to be useful。I think that I may need to read the book again before I can say that I understand the argument made。 Maybe I'm just not smart enough to be part of the author's intended audience。 I found it difficult to follow the Author's flow of ideas and， if there was a defining moment in the book which summarised/encapsulated the central idea， then I'm afraid I missed it。Some of the book was engaging and， unlike other reviewers， I found the frequent examples to be useful。I think that I may need to read the book again before I can say that I understand the argument made。 Maybe I'm just not smart enough to be part of the author's intended audience。 。。。more
Alex Kahn
，
Discusses scientifically-informed consequentialism， asserts that there is no other reasonable basis for morality， criticizes religious morality and irrationality。
Curtis Strong
，