The Moral Landscape: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit

Line 35:

===Philosophical case===

[[File:Researchers using Niskin bottle to collect water sample · DN-SD-01-00282.JPEG|thumb|right|Harris says science requires that one acknowledge certain values (e.g. curiosity)]]Although Harris's book discusses the challenges that a [[science of morality]] must face, he also mentions that his scientific argument is indeed [[Philosophy of science|philosophical]]. Furthermore, he says that this is the case for almost all scientific investigation. He mentions that modern science amounts to careful practice of accepted [[First principle|first philosophical the non principles]] like [[empiricism]] and [[physicalism]].<ref name="The Moral Landscape, pg. 180">''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 180</ref> He also suggests that science has already very much settled on ''values'' in answering the question "what should I believe, and why should I believe it?".<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 144</ref> Harris says it should not be surprising that normative ethical sciences are, or would be, similarly founded on bedrock assumptions ([[basic norm]]s). Harris says:

{{quote|...science is often a matter of philosophy in practice. It is probably worth recalling that the original name for the physical sciences was, in fact, 'natural philosophy'... One could call [my proposal in ''The Moral Landscape''] a 'philosophical' position, but it is one that directly relates to the boundaries of science.<ref name="The Moral Landscape, pg. 180"/>}}

Line 73:

In advance of publication, four personal and professional acquaintances of the author offered their praise for the book,<ref>See, for example, [http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/god-and-science-dont-mix1/L. Krauss, "God and Science Don't Mix"], ''The Wall Street Journal'' (describing Harris and Dawkins as his "friends") (accessed on Harris's personal website, Nov. 7, 2010)</ref> including biologist and science popularizer [[Richard Dawkins]], novelist [[Ian McEwan]], psycholinguist [[Steven Pinker]], and theoretical physicist [[Lawrence M. Krauss|Lawrence Krauss]]. They each serve on the Advisory Board of Harris's [[Project Reason]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.project-reason.org/about/advisory_board/ |title=Project Reason Advisory Board |publisher=Project-reason.org |date=1989-02-14 |access-date=2012-09-09}}</ref> and their praise appears as [[blurb]]s (released by the book's publisher on Harris's website and reproduced on the book's [[dust jacket]]).<ref name="blurb">{{cite web|author=Tweet |url=http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape/ |title=www.samharris.org |publisher=www.samharris.org |access-date=2012-09-09}}</ref> Dawkins said,

{{quote|I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. To my surprise, ''The Moral Landscape'' has changed all that for me. It should change it for philosophers too. Philosophers of mind have already discovered that they can't duck the study of neuroscience, and the best of them have raised their game as a result...".<ref>{{cite book |author=The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values |title=The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (9781439171219): Sam Harris: Books |date=5 October 2010 |publisher=Free Press |isbn=978-1439171219 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/morallandscapeho00harr_0 }}</ref>}}

McEwan wrote, "Harris breathes intellectual fire into an ancient debate. Reading this thrilling, audacious book, you feel the ground shifting beneath your feet. Reason has never had a more passionate advocate."<ref name="blurb"/> Pinker said that Harris offers "a tremendously appealing vision, and one that no thinking person can afford to ignore."<ref name="blurb"/> Krauss wrote that Harris "has the rare ability to frame arguments that are not only stimulating, they are downright nourishing, even if you don't always agree with him!"<ref name="blurb"/> Krauss predicted that "readers are bound to come away with previously firm convictions about the world challenged, and a vital new awareness about the nature and value of science and reason in our lives."<ref name="blurb"/>

Line 104:

The philosopher [[Simon Blackburn]], reviewing the book, described Harris as "a knockabout atheist" who "joins the prodigious ranks of those whose claim to have transcended philosophy is just an instance of their doing it very badly", pointing out that "if [[Jeremy Bentham|Bentham]]'s hedonist is in one brain state and [[Aristotle]]'s active subject is in another, as no doubt they would be, it is a moral, not an empirical, problem to say which is to be preferred."<ref>[http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2011/03/blackburn-ethics-without-god-secularism-religion-sam-harris/ Morality without God] [[Prospect magazine]] 23 March 2011</ref> And [[H. Allen Orr]] in ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'' wrote, "despite Harris's bravado about 'how science can determine human values,' ''The Moral Landscape'' delivers nothing of the kind."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/05/12/science-right-and-wrong/|title=The Science of Right and Wrong|last=Orr|first=H. Allen|author-link=H. Allen Orr|work=[[New York Review of Books]]|date=May 12, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025081501/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/science-right-and-wrong/?pagination=false|archive-date=October 25, 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Steve Isaacson wrote ''Mining The Moral Landscape: Why Science Does Not (and cannot) Determine Human Values''. Isaacson concludes, "The largest objection to Harris' argument is still Moore's [[open-question argument]]. Harris dismisses the argument as a word game easily avoided, but he never explains the game nor how to avoid it. He just ignores it."<ref>{{cite book|author=Mining The Moral Landscape: Why Science Does Not (and cannot) Determine Human Values |title=Mining The Moral Landscape: Why Science Does Not (and cannot) Determine Human Values (978-1480292680): Steve Isaacson: Books |date= 2012-11-19|publisher=CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform |isbn=978-1480292680 }}, page 38</ref>

American novelist [[Marilynne Robinson]], writing in ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', asserted that Harris fails to "articulate a positive morality of his own" but, had he done so, would have found himself in the company of the "[[Unitarianism|Unitarians]], busily cooperating on schemes to enhance the world's well being, as they have been doing for generations."<ref>[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703882404575520062380030080 M. Robinson, "What Unitarians Know (and Sam Harris Doesn't)"], ''The Wall Street Journal'', Oct. 2, 2010</ref>

Line 118:

{{reflist}}

{{Ethics}}

{{Sam Harris}}