The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris is a look into how science can play a role in Moral Philosophy.
Started: 2/4/2017
Completed: 2/15/2017
Recommendation: Highly Recommended to those who can tolerate a strong atheist
Recommended By: Nobody
Review:
The idea that science has nothing to say about morality seems counter intuitive, particularly in the time of scientific studies of happiness. Mr. Harris spends the vast amount of the book talking about why science should talk about Morality and saying far less about how science can talk about Morality. At this point in the process, it would seem that "why" is far more important than "how" given that scientists have their credibility questioned the instant they start talking about morality. To my mind, it makes perfect sense that science should wade into these waters. If in no other way than by explaining how one could "treat others as one would like to be treated." Even if you disagree whether that is a particularly moral goal, few would argue that science should have nothing to say about how to implement it.
I think some sort of study that helps people evaluate how they would like to be treated, for example, would be time well spent. I say that because there seems to be a chasm between how people claim they would like to be treated and how they react when actually treated that way. Of course, that leaves open the debate about whether treating people that way is even a morally good thing (and that is at the hear of Mr. Harris' efforts).
In a broad sense, Mr. Harris accepts that morality likely does not have a knife edge along which one must daintily and carefully walk. He suggests that the landscape of morality may well have multiple local optimizations and numerous optimizations in general (although, I think, if really pushed...Mr. Harris would, himself, argue that there is probably only one true optimization, but that it might be hard to define). It is interesting to me, as well, that Mr. Harris completely skirts the question of whether anyone would be inclined to follow a truly moral path even if it was presented all nicely packaged. All of that is well and good--one man cannot cover everything--and I see no reason why this should tend to take away from the quality of his work. It just seems like a big enough issue that it would be worth a tiny fraction of the space that was used to justify scientific interest in this field at all.
It is my feeling that there are many issues that we have felt have been "decided" (the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it come to mind) which have found themselves subject to analysis from science that few anticipated when that analysis started. Having seen science attempt to move into and (in my opinion flounder) in both psychology and sociology, there is no reason to stop the analysis. There have been many good pieces of evidence and tools developed to both deal with and help understand these very difficult topics which is quite surprising. Who knows whether more analysis will help or not? I'm fairly certain it will, but it is unlikely that more analysis will hurt. I think that there is room for science to play in the morality pool and I look forward to what can be discovered.
It is worth noting, however, that Mr. Harris takes a huge swipe at religion while talking about morality. Personally, I think his position would be stronger if he simply pointed out the areas where science can and does help, but perhaps we aren't that far along just yet. If Mr. Harris honestly believes that people who accept religion are simply glassy-eyed fanatics, then his arguments will literally fall on deaf ears. By suggesting that science cannot play in a pool with religion (whether it truly can or not is irrelevant), Mr. Harris unnecessarily alienates much of his audience. He would say that to do otherwise is to pander to a sham.
I think that part of the study of morality is to understand how to share the discoveries of what will lead to a truly moral life with others. Hurling insults (whether justified or not) doesn't help. My personal opinion is that if he simply stays silent on religion (except when asked about his personal religion) his research will have much greater impact. It may well lead many away from religion (as seems to be his desire) simply by offering a moral option that has more "going for it." To the extent that happens, Mr. Harris would have met his own personal goal of proselytizing for atheism. I'm not saying, however, that he should defer to religion or even find a way to include religion (if he feels it has no role, then he should simply ignore it as, it has no role).
Having said all of that, his arguments against religion in general are persuasive and compelling. I just would prefer he write an anti-religious text and put those there. Then he can explain his thinking on morals with a cleaner slate. Copernicus didn't prove the motion of the heavenly bodies while taking a huge swipe at religion (doing so would surely have been fatal), but his position is now broadly adopted the world over. Truth and simplicity have a way of winning the battle even over religion (assuming such a battle needs to be fought, let religion fight it).
The idea that science has nothing to say about morality seems counter intuitive, particularly in the time of scientific studies of happiness. Mr. Harris spends the vast amount of the book talking about why science should talk about Morality and saying far less about how science can talk about Morality. At this point in the process, it would seem that "why" is far more important than "how" given that scientists have their credibility questioned the instant they start talking about morality. To my mind, it makes perfect sense that science should wade into these waters. If in no other way than by explaining how one could "treat others as one would like to be treated." Even if you disagree whether that is a particularly moral goal, few would argue that science should have nothing to say about how to implement it.
I think some sort of study that helps people evaluate how they would like to be treated, for example, would be time well spent. I say that because there seems to be a chasm between how people claim they would like to be treated and how they react when actually treated that way. Of course, that leaves open the debate about whether treating people that way is even a morally good thing (and that is at the hear of Mr. Harris' efforts).
In a broad sense, Mr. Harris accepts that morality likely does not have a knife edge along which one must daintily and carefully walk. He suggests that the landscape of morality may well have multiple local optimizations and numerous optimizations in general (although, I think, if really pushed...Mr. Harris would, himself, argue that there is probably only one true optimization, but that it might be hard to define). It is interesting to me, as well, that Mr. Harris completely skirts the question of whether anyone would be inclined to follow a truly moral path even if it was presented all nicely packaged. All of that is well and good--one man cannot cover everything--and I see no reason why this should tend to take away from the quality of his work. It just seems like a big enough issue that it would be worth a tiny fraction of the space that was used to justify scientific interest in this field at all.
It is my feeling that there are many issues that we have felt have been "decided" (the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it come to mind) which have found themselves subject to analysis from science that few anticipated when that analysis started. Having seen science attempt to move into and (in my opinion flounder) in both psychology and sociology, there is no reason to stop the analysis. There have been many good pieces of evidence and tools developed to both deal with and help understand these very difficult topics which is quite surprising. Who knows whether more analysis will help or not? I'm fairly certain it will, but it is unlikely that more analysis will hurt. I think that there is room for science to play in the morality pool and I look forward to what can be discovered.
It is worth noting, however, that Mr. Harris takes a huge swipe at religion while talking about morality. Personally, I think his position would be stronger if he simply pointed out the areas where science can and does help, but perhaps we aren't that far along just yet. If Mr. Harris honestly believes that people who accept religion are simply glassy-eyed fanatics, then his arguments will literally fall on deaf ears. By suggesting that science cannot play in a pool with religion (whether it truly can or not is irrelevant), Mr. Harris unnecessarily alienates much of his audience. He would say that to do otherwise is to pander to a sham.
I think that part of the study of morality is to understand how to share the discoveries of what will lead to a truly moral life with others. Hurling insults (whether justified or not) doesn't help. My personal opinion is that if he simply stays silent on religion (except when asked about his personal religion) his research will have much greater impact. It may well lead many away from religion (as seems to be his desire) simply by offering a moral option that has more "going for it." To the extent that happens, Mr. Harris would have met his own personal goal of proselytizing for atheism. I'm not saying, however, that he should defer to religion or even find a way to include religion (if he feels it has no role, then he should simply ignore it as, it has no role).
Having said all of that, his arguments against religion in general are persuasive and compelling. I just would prefer he write an anti-religious text and put those there. Then he can explain his thinking on morals with a cleaner slate. Copernicus didn't prove the motion of the heavenly bodies while taking a huge swipe at religion (doing so would surely have been fatal), but his position is now broadly adopted the world over. Truth and simplicity have a way of winning the battle even over religion (assuming such a battle needs to be fought, let religion fight it).
