The Moral Landscape: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 5:

| language = English

| country = United States

| published = 2010 (Free Press)

| publisher = [[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]]

| isbn = 978-1-4391-7121-9

| image = The Moral Landscape.jpg

| image_size = 200px

| subjectsubjects = [[Morality]], [[science]], [[humanism]], [[personism]]

| media_type = Print ([[hardcover]] and [[paperback]])

| pages = 322

| dewey =

Line 19 ⟶ 20:

}}

'''''The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values''''' is a 2010 book by [[Sam Harris]], in which the authorhe promotes a [[science of morality]] and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationship between morality, facts, and science. He aims to carve a third path between secularists who say morality is subjective (e.g. [[Moral relativism|moral relativists]]), and religionists who say that morality is givendictated by God and scripture. Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.

ChallengingHarris contends that the traditionalonly philosophicalviable notionmoral framework is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that, humansproblems canwith neverphilosophy getof science and reason in general notwithstanding, moral questions have objectively right and wrong answers grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish. Challenging the traditional philosophical notion that an '"ought'" cannot follow from an '"is'" (the so-called [[Is–ought problem|Hume's law]]), Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using not just philosophy, but the [[scientific method|methods of science]]. Thus, "sciencebecause can determine human values" translates to "science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing". It is in this sense that Harris advocates that scientists begin conversations about a normative science of "morality".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.samharris.org/ |title=Sam Harris |publisher=Sam Harris |access-date= |accessdate=2012-08-05}}</ref>

Publication of the book followed Harris's 2009 receipt of a [[doctor of philosophy|Ph.D.]] in cognitive neuroscience from the [[University of California, Los Angeles]] with a similarly titled thesis: ''The Moral Landscape: How Science Could Determine Human Values''.<ref name="thesis">{{cite thesis |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/366925574/ |title=The moral landscape: How science could determine human values |website=[[ProQuest]]|publisher=UCLA |type=PhD |date=2009 |access-date=28 January 2019 |last=Harris|first=Sam|isbn=9781124011905}}</ref>

==Synopsis==

{{Primary sources|synopsis|date=August 2012}}

Sam Harris's case starts with two premises: "(1) some people have better lives than others, and (2) these differences are related, in some lawful and not entirely arbitrary way, to states of the human brain and to states of the world".<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 15</ref> The idea is that a person is simply describing material facts (many about their brain) when they describe possible "better" and "worse" lives for themselves. Granting this, Harris says we must conclude that there are facts about which courses of action will allow one to pursue a better life.

Harris attests toemphasizes the importance of admitting that such facts exist, because he says this logic also applies to groups of individuals as wellpeople. He suggests that there are better and worse ways for whole societies to pursue better lives. Just likeas atfor the scale of thean individual, there may be multiple different paths and "peaks" to flourishing for societies—and many more ways to fail.

Harris then makes a case that science couldcan usefully define "morality" according to suchusing facts (about people's wellbeing)well-being. Often hisHis arguments point outacknowledge that problems with this scientific definition of morality seem to be problems shared by all science, or reason and words in general. Harris also spends some time describing how science might engage nuances and challenges of identifying the best ways for individuals, and groups of individuals, to improve their lives. Many of these issues are covered below.

===Philosophical case===

Line 36 ⟶ 39:

{{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"/>}}

The way he thinks science might engage moral issues draws on various philosophical positions like [[Moral realism|ethical realism]] (there are facts worth calling 'moral facts'), and [[ethical naturalism]] (these facts relate to the physical world). Harris says a [[science of morality]] may resemble [[utilitarianism]], but that the science is, importantly, more open-ended because it involves an evolving definition of well-being. Rather than committing to [[Type physicalism|reductive materialism]], then, Harris recognizes the arguments of [[Revisionary materialism|revisionists]] that psychological definitions themselves are contingent on research and discoveries. Harris adds that any science of morality must consider everything from emotions and thoughts to the actual actions and their consequences.<ref name=EdgeHarris>{{cite web|url=http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality10_index.html |title=The New Science Of Morality |publisher=Edge |access-date= |accessdate=2012-08-05}}</ref>

ToFor Harris, moral propositions, and explicit values in general, are concerned with the flourishing of conscious creatures in a society.<ref name=tedharris>{{cite web|author=TED2010 |url=http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html |title=Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions &#124; Video on |publisher=Ted.com |access-date= |accessdate=2012-08-05}}</ref> He argues that, "Social morality exists to sustain cooperative social relationships, and morality can be objectively evaluated by that standard."<ref name=HarrisCFI1>{{cite web|author=Washington, D.C. |url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/video_of_sam_harris_talking_the_moral_landscape_in_nyc/ |title=Sam Harris Talks "The Moral Landscape" in NYC |publisher=Center for Inquiry |date=2010-10-13 |accessdateaccess-date=2012-08-05}}</ref> Harris sees some philosophers' talk of strictly ''private'' morality as akin to unproductive discussion of somea private, personal physics. "If philosophers want to only talk about some bizarrely unnatural private morality, they are just changing the subject"..."<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 147</ref>

Harris also discusses how [[veil of ignorance|interchangeability of perspective]] might emerge as an important part of moral reasoning. He alludes to an '"unpleasant surprise principle'", where someone realizes they have been supporting an ineffective moral norm (e.g. reported cases of Jew-hunting Nazis discovering that they themselves were of Jewish descent).<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 81</ref>

===Science and moral truths===

Harris identifies three projects for science as it relates to morality: (1) explaining why humans do what they do in the name of "morality" (e.g., traditional [[evolutionary psychology]]), (2) determining which patterns of thought and behaviourbehavior humans actually ''should'' follow (i.e. the [[science of morality]]), and (3) generally persuading humans to change their ways.<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 49</ref> Harris says that the first project is focusedfocuses only on describing what is, whereas projects (2) and (3) are focusedfocus on what should and could be, respectively. Harris'sHis point is that this second, prescriptive project should be the focus of a [[science of morality]].<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 42</ref> He mentions,also however, thatsays we should not fear an "[[Orwellian]] future" with scientists at every door—vitaldoor: vital progress in the science of morality could be shared in much the same way as advances in medicine.<ref name=SalonHarris>{{cite web|last=Don |first=Katherine |url=http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/10/17/sam_harris_interview/ |title="The Moral Landscape": Why science should shape morality |publisherwork=Salon.com |date=2010-10-17 |accessdateaccess-date=2012-08-05}}</ref>

Harris says it is important to delineate project (1) from project (2), or elselest we risk committingcommit a [[moralistic fallacy]].<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 101</ref> He also highlights the importance of distinguishing between project (2) (asking—asking what is right) from projectright—from (3) (trying—trying to change behaviour)behavior. He says we must realize that the nuances of human motivation isare a challenge in itselfthemselves; humanspeople often fail to do what they "ought" to do, even to be successfully selfish—thereselfish: there is every reason to believe that discovering what is best for society would not change every member's habits overnight.<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 92</ref>

Harris does not imagine that people, even scientists, have always made the right moral decisions—indeeddecisions; indeed it is precisely his argument that many of them are wrong about moral facts.<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 42–44</ref> This is due to the many real challenges of good science in general, including human cognitive limitations and biases (e.g., [[loss aversion]] can sway human decisions on important issues like medicine). He mentions [[psychic numbing#Paul SlovicConceptualizations|the research of Paul Slovic]] and others to describe just a few of these established mental [[heuristic]]s that mightcan keep us from reasoning properly.<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 69</ref> Although he mentions that training might temper the influence of these biases, Harris worries about research showing that incompetence and ignorance in a domain leads to confidence (the [[Dunning–Kruger effect]]).<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 123</ref>

Harris explains that debates and disagreement are a part of the [[scientific method]], and that one side can certainly be wrong.<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 88</ref> He also explainssays that all the debates still available to science illustrate how much work couldcan still be done, and how much conversation must continue.<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 67</ref>

===Harris's positive beliefs===

The book is full of issues that Harris thinks are far from being empirically, morally greygray areas. That is, besides saying that 'reasonable' thinking about moral issues amounts to scientific thinking. For instance, he references one poll that found that 36 percent% of British Muslims think apostates should be put to death for their unbelief,<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-432075/Multiculturalism-drives-young-Muslims-shun-British-values.html | location=London | work=Daily Mail | title=Multiculturalism 'drives young Muslims to shun British values' | date=2007-01-29}}</ref> and he says that these individualspeople are "morally confused".<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 90</ref> He also suggests it is obvious that loneliness, helplessness, and poverty are "bad", but that thesethat areis by no means as far as [[positive psychology]] has taken, and will take us.<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 183</ref>

In one section, called ''"The illusion of free will''", Harris argues that there is a wealth of evidence in [[psychology]] (e.g. the [[illusion of introspection]]) or specifically related to the [[neuroscience of free will]] that suggests that metaphysically free will does not exist. This, he thinks, is intuitive; "trains of thought...convey the apparent reality of choices, freely made. But from a deeper perspective...thoughts simply arise (what else could they do?)".<ref name="The Moral Landscape, pg. 105">''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 105</ref> He adds, "The illusion of free will is itself an illusion".<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 112</ref> The implications of free will's non-existencenonexistence may be a working determinism, and Harris warns us not to confuse this with [[fatalism]].<ref name="The Moral Landscape, pg. 105"/>

One implication of a determined will, Harris says, is that it becomes unreasonable to punish people out of retribution—only behaviour modification and the deterrence of others still seem to be potentially valid reasons to punish.<ref name="The Moral Landscape, pg. 109">''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 109</ref> This, especially because behaviour modification is a sort of cure for the evil behaviours; Harris provides a thought experiment: {{quote|Consider what would happen if we discovered a cure for human evil. Imagine, for the sake of argument...the cure for psychopathy can be put directly into the food supply like [[vitamin D]]...consider, for instance, the prospect of withholding the cure for evil from a murderer as part of his punishment. Would this make any moral sense at all?<ref name="The Moral Landscape, pg. 109"/>}}

Harris acknowledges a hierarchy of moral consideration (e.g., humans are more important than bacteria or mice). He says it follows that there could, in principle, be a species compared to which we are relatively unimportant (although he doubts such a species exists).<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 210</ref>

Harris supports the development of [[lie- detection]] technology and believes it would be, on the whole, beneficial for humanity.{{Citation Heneeded|date=February also supports the formation of an explicit global civilization because of the potential for stability under a [[world government]].<ref name="SalonHarris"/>2020}}

====Religion: good or bad?====

Consistent with Harris's definition of morality, he says we must ask whether religion increases human flourishing today (regardless of whether it increased it in the distant past).<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 148</ref> He argues that religions may largely be practiced largely because they fit well with human cognitive tendencies (e.g. [[animism]]).<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 150</ref> In Harris's view, religion and religious dogma is an impediment to reason, and he takes [[Francis Collins]] as an example.

In Harris's view, religion and religious dogma is an impediment to reason, and he discusses the views of [[Francis Collins]] as one example.

Harris criticizes the tactics of secularists like [[Chris Mooney (journalist)|Chris Mooney]], who argue that science is not fundamentally (and certainly not superficially) in conflict with religion. Harris sees this as a verypatronizing serious disagreement, that patronizingly attemptsattempt to pacify more devout theists.<ref>''The Moral Landscape'', pg. 175</ref> HarrisHe claims that societiessociety can move away from deep dependence on religion just as it has from witchcraft, which he says was once just as deeply ingrained.<ref name="SalonHarris"/>

==Promotion==

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]], offered their praise for the book. 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 |accessdateaccess-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= |accessdate=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 webbook |author=The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values |url=https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211 |title=The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (9781439171219): Sam Harris: Books |publisherdate=Amazon.com5 October 2010 |datepublisher=Free Press |accessdateisbn=2012978-081439171219 |url-05access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/morallandscapeho00harr_0 }}</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 web|author=The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values |url=https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211 |title=The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (9781439171219): Sam Harris: Books |publisher=Amazon.com |date= |accessdate=2012-08-05}}</ref>}}

McEwan wrote that, "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 opinedwrote 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"/>

==Reception==

''The Moral Landscape'' reached 9th in [[The New York Times Best Seller list|''The New York Times'' Best Seller list]] for Hardcover Non-Fiction in October 2010.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/2010-10-24/hardcover-nonfiction/list.html | work=The New York Times | first=Jennifer | last=Schuessler | title=Hardcover}}</ref>

===Reviews and criticism===

[[Eastern Connecticut State University|ECSU]] Associate Professor of Philosophy James W. Diller<ref>{{cite web|title=Research Gate|url=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Diller/publications|accessdateaccess-date=25 January 2015}}</ref> and Andrew E. Nuzzolilli wrote a generally favorable review in a journal of the [[Association for Behavior Analysis International]]:

{{quote|''The Moral Landscape'' represents an important contribution to a scientific discussion of morality. It explicates the determinants of moral behavior for a popular audience, placing causality in the external environment and in the organism's correlated neurological states.<ref>{{cite webjournal|title="The Science of Values: The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris"|journal=The -Behavior US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of HealthAnalyst|volume=35|issue=2|pages=265–273|pmc=3501430|year=2012|last1=Diller|first1=J. W.|last2=Nuzzolilli|first2=A. E.|doi=10.1007/BF03392286}}</ref>}}

In his review for [[Barnes & Noble]], [[California State University|Cal State]] Associate Professor of Philosophy Troy Jollimore wrote that the book "has some good, reasonable, and at times persuasive things to say" to people who are unfamiliar with [[moral skepticism]], but "has little to say to those people who actually do know what the arguments are, and it will not help others become much better informed." Jollimore also worried that Harris wrongly presents complex issues as having simple solutions.<ref>[http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Reviews-Essays/The-Moral-Landscape/ba-p/3477T. Jollimore, ''Barnes & Noble Review''], Oct. 22, 2010.</ref>

[[Kwame Anthony Appiah]] wrote in ''[[The New York Times]]'' "when [Harris] stays closest to neuroscience, he says much that is interesting and important...".,<ref name=Times>[https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/books/review/Appiah-t.html K.A. Appiah, "Science Knows Best"], ''The New York Times'', Oct. 1, 2010</ref> He laterbut criticized Harris for failing to articulate "his central claim" and to identify how science has "revealed" that human well-being has an objective component.<ref name= Times/> Appiah argued that Harris "ends up endorsing ... something very like [[utilitarianism]], a philosophical position that is now more than two centuries old, ... that faces a battery of familiar problems,", which Harris merely "push[es] ... aside."<ref name= Times/> Harris responded to Appiah in the afterword of the paperback version, writingclaiming that all of Appiah's criticisms had already beenare addressed in the chapter "Good and Evil".

Cognitive anthropologist [[Scott Atran]] criticized Harris for failing to engage with the philosophical literature on ethics and the problems in attempting to scientifically quantify human well -being, noting that

{{quote|Nobel Prize-winner Daniel Kahneman studies what gives Americans pleasure—watching TV, talking to friends, having sex—and what makes them unhappy—commuting, working, looking after their children. So this leaves us where ... ?<ref name=atran>{{cite web|last=Atran|first=Scott|author-link=Scott Atran|publisher=The National Interest|title=Sam Harris's Guide to Nearly Everything|url=http://nationalinterest.org/bookreview/sam-harriss-guide-nearly-everything-4893?page=show|accessdatedate=23 February 2011|access-date=24 September 2011}}</ref>|sign=|source=}}

Critiquing the book, [[Kenan Malik]] wrote:

{{quote|Imagine a sociologist who wrote about evolutionary theory without discussing the work of Darwin, Fisher, Mayr, Hamilton, Trivers or Dawkins on the grounds that he did not come to his conclusions by reading about biology and because discussing concepts such as "adaptation", "speciation", "homology", "phylogenetics" or "kin selection" would "increase the amount of boredom in the universe". How seriously would we, and should we, take his argument?<ref>{{cite news|last=Malik|first=Kenan|title=Test tube truths|accessdateaccess-date=12 November 2011|newspaper=New Humanist|page=26|date=May–June 2011|url=http://newhumanist.org.uk/2538/test-tube-truths}}</ref>}}

David Sexton of the London ''[[Evening Standard]]'' described Harris's claim to provide a science of morality as "the most extraordinarily overweening claim and evidently flawed. Science does not generate its own moral values; it can be used for good or ill and has been. Harris cannot stand outside culture, and the 'better future' he prophesies is itself a cultural projection. "<ref>{{cite web|title=The King James Bible bashers|url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23938503-the-king-james-bible-bashers.do|accessdateaccess-date=13 May 2011|deadurlurl-status=yesdead|archiveurlarchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110430172150/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23938503-the-king-james-bible-bashers.do|archivedatearchive-date=30 April 2011|df=}}</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>▼

[[John Horgan (American journalist)|John Horgan]], journalist for the ''[[Scientific American]]'' blog and author of ''The End of Science'', wrote, "Harris further shows his arrogance when he claims that neuroscience, his own field, is best positioned to help us achieve a universal morality. ... Neuroscience can't even tell me how I can know the big, black, hairy thing on my couch is my dog Merlin. And we're going to trust neuroscience to tell us how we should resolve debates over the morality of abortion, euthanasia and armed intervention in other nations' affairs?"<ref name="Horgan">[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2010/10/11/be-wary-of-the-righteous-rationalist-we-should-reject-sam-harriss-claim-that-science-can-be-a-moral-guidepost/ J. Horgan, "Be wary of the righteous rationalist: We should reject Sam Harris's claim that science can be a moral guidepost"], ''Scientific American'' blog, Oct. 11, 2010.</ref>▼

▲David Sexton of the London ''[[Evening Standard]]'' described Harris's claim to provide a science of morality as "the most extraordinarily overweening claim and evidently flawed. Science does not generate its own moral values; it can be used for good or ill and has been. Harris cannot stand outside culture, and the 'better future' he prophesies is itself a cultural projection. "<ref>{{cite web|title=The King James Bible bashers|url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23938503-the-king-james-bible-bashers.do|accessdate=13 May 2011|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110430172150/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23938503-the-king-james-bible-bashers.do|archivedate=30 April 2011|df=}}</ref>

[[Russell Blackford]] saidwrote, "''The Moral Landscape'' is an ambitious work that will gladden the hearts, and strengthen the spines, of many secular thinkers" but that he nonetheless had "serious reservations" about a goodthe book".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://jetpress.org/v21/blackford3.htm |title=Book review: Sam Harris’Harris' The Moral Landscape |publisher=Jetpress.org |access-date= |accessdate=2012-08-05}}</ref>▼

▲[[John Horgan (American journalist)|John Horgan]], journalist for the ''[[Scientific American]]'' blog and author of ''The End of Science'', wrote "Harris further shows his arrogance when he claims that neuroscience, his own field, is best positioned to help us achieve a universal morality. ... Neuroscience can't even tell me how I can know the big, black, hairy thing on my couch is my dog Merlin. And we're going to trust neuroscience to tell us how we should resolve debates over the morality of abortion, euthanasia and armed intervention in other nations' affairs?"<ref name="Horgan">[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2010/10/11/be-wary-of-the-righteous-rationalist-we-should-reject-sam-harriss-claim-that-science-can-be-a-moral-guidepost/ J. Horgan, "Be wary of the righteous rationalist: We should reject Sam Harris's claim that science can be a moral guidepost"], ''Scientific American'' blog, Oct. 11, 2010.</ref>

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]]'' finds thatwrote, "Despitedespite Harris's bravado about 'how science can determine human values,' ''The Moral Landscape'' delivers nothing of the kind."<ref>[http{{cite web|url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may05/12/science-right-and-wrong/?page|title=2 The Science of Right and Wrong]|last=Orr|first=H. by [[Allen|author-link=H. Allen Orr]] |work=[[New York Review of Books]] |date=May 2011 issue. ''Archived copy''12, – [2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/2011042701180120121025081501/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/science-right-and-wrong]/?pagination=false|archive-date=October 25, 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref>▼

▲[[Russell Blackford]] said "The Moral Landscape is an ambitious work that will gladden the hearts, and strengthen the spines, of many secular thinkers" but that he had "serious reservations about a good book".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://jetpress.org/v21/blackford3.htm |title=Book review: Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape |publisher=Jetpress.org |date= |accessdate=2012-08-05}}</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 webbook|author=Mining The Moral Landscape: Why Science Does Not (and cannot) Determine Human Values |url=https://www.amazon.com/Mining-Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine/dp/1480292680 |title=Mining The Moral Landscape: Why Science Does Not (and cannot) Determine Human Values (978-1480292680): Steve Isaacson: Books |publisherdate=Amazon.com 2012-11-19|datepublisher=CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform |accessdateisbn=2012978-11-201480292680 }}, page 38</ref>▼

▲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]]'' finds that "Despite Harris's bravado about 'how science can determine human values,' The Moral Landscape delivers nothing of the kind."<ref>[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/science-right-and-wrong/?page=2 The Science of Right and Wrong] by [[H. Allen Orr]] [[New York Review of Books]] May 2011 issue. ''Archived copy'' – [https://web.archive.org/web/20110427011801/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/science-right-and-wrong]</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>

▲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 web|author=Mining The Moral Landscape: Why Science Does Not (and cannot) Determine Human Values |url=https://www.amazon.com/Mining-Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine/dp/1480292680 |title=Mining The Moral Landscape: Why Science Does Not (and cannot) Determine Human Values (978-1480292680): Steve Isaacson: Books |publisher=Amazon.com |date= |accessdate=2012-11-20}}, page 38</ref>

At the Moving Naturalism Forward workshop, [[Nobel Prize]]-winning physicist [[Steven Weinberg]] described how in his youth he had been a utilitarian but had been dissuaded of the notion that "the fundamental principle that guides our actions should be the greatest happiness for the greatest number" by reading [[Aldous Huxley]]'s ''[[Brave New World]]''. Weinberg went on to say: "Now, Sam Harris is aware of this kind of counter argument [to utilitarianism], and says it's not happiness, it's human welfare. Well, as you make things vaguer and vaguer, of course, it becomes harder and harder to say it doesn't fit your own moral feelings, but it also becomes less and less useful as a means of making moral judgements. You could take that to the extreme and make up some nonsense word and say that's the important thing and no-one could refute it but it wouldn't be very helpful. I regard human welfare and the way Sam Harris refers to it as sort of halfway in that direction to absolute nonsense."<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebuve4INdAU&list=PLrxfgDEc2NxYQuZ5T6CSdS8uafdh0kmDL</ref>▼

▲At the Moving Naturalism Forward workshop, [[Nobel Prize]]-winning physicist [[Steven Weinberg]] described how in his youth he had been a utilitarian but had been dissuaded of the notion that "the fundamental principle that guides our actions should be the greatest happiness for the greatest number" by reading [[Aldous Huxley]]'s ''[[Brave New World]]''. Weinberg went on to say:added, "Now, Sam Harris is aware of this kind of counter argument [to utilitarianism], and says it's not happiness, it's human welfare. Well, as you make things vaguer and vaguer, of course, it becomes harder and harder to say it doesn't fit your own moral feelings, but it also becomes less and less useful as a means of making moral judgements. You could take that to the extreme and make up some nonsense word and say that's the important thing and no- one could refute it, but it wouldn't be very helpful. I regard human welfare and the way Sam Harris refers to it as sort of halfway in that direction to absolute nonsense."<ref>{{cite AV media |url-status = live |archive-url = https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/ebuve4INdAU |archive-date = 2021-12-11| url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebuve4INdAU&list=PLrxfgDEc2NxYQuZ5T6CSdS8uafdh0kmDL |title = Moving Naturalism Forward: Day 2, Morning, 1st Session |website=[[YouTube]]}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

A few months after the book's release, Sam Harris wrote a follow-up at ''[[HuffPost|The Huffington Post]]'' responding to his critics.<ref name="huffingtonpost.com">{{cite news| url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-response-to-critics_b_815742.html | work=Huffington Post | first=Sam | last=Harris | title=A Response to Critics | date=2011-05-25}}</ref>▼

===TheResponse Moralto Landscapecritics Challengefrom Harris===

▲A few months after the book's release, Sam Harris wrote a follow-up at ''[[HuffPost|The Huffington Post]]'' responding to his critics.<ref name="huffingtonpost.com">{{cite news| url=httphttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-response-to-critics_b_815742.html | work=Huffington Post | first=Sam | last=Harris | title=A Response to Critics | date=2011-05-25}}</ref>

On August 31, 2013, in response to the negative reviews of his book, Harris issued a public challenge for anyone to write an essay of less than 1,000 words rebutting the book's "central argument" of the book.<ref name="MLChallenge">[httphttps://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge1/ The Moral Landscape Challenge : : Sam Harris]</ref> The submissions were vetted by Russell Blackford, with the author of the essay judged best to receive $2,000, or $20,000 if they succeeded in changing Harris's mind.<ref name="MLChallenge"/> Four hundred and twenty-four essays were received by the deadline.<ref>[https://twitter.com/Metamagician/status/433134620637274113 "Twitter Russell Blackford"]</ref> On March 11, 2014, Blackford announced the winning essay was written by philosophy instructor Ryan Born.<ref>[httphttps://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge ''The Moral Landscape Challenge: The Winning Essay'']</ref>

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

{{Ethics}}

{{Sam Harris}}

Line 129 ⟶ 130:

[[Category:Free Press (publisher) books]]

[[Category:Thought experiments in ethics]]

[[Category:Moral psychology books]]