The Moral Landscape
Encyclopedia
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is a book by Sam Harris
. In it, he 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 relativists), and religionists who say that morality is given 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.
Challenging the age-old philosophical notion that we can never get an 'ought' from an 'is'
, Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using, not just philosophy, but the methods of science
. Thus, "science 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".
Harris attests to the importance of admitting that such facts exist, because he says this logic applies to groups of individuals as well. He suggests that there are better and worse ways for whole societies to pursue better lives. Just like at the scale of the individual, there may be multiple different paths and "peaks" to flourishing for societies - and many more ways to fail.
Harris then makes a pragmatic case that science could usefully define "morality" according to such facts (about people's wellbeing). Often his arguments point out the way 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.
Although Harris's book discusses the challenges that a science of morality
must face, he also mentions that his scientific argument is unavoidably philosophical
—but says that this is the case for almost all science. He mentions that modern science amounts to careful practice of accepted first philosophical principles
like empiricism
and physicalism
, reminding the reader that science was once even called "natural philosophy". He further suggests that science has already very much settled on values in answering the question "what should I believe, and why should I believe it?". Harris says it should not be surprising that a scientific pursuit of morality is equally founded on bedrock assumptions (Basic norm
s).
The way he thinks science might engage moral issues draws on various philosophical positions like 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 Reductive materialism, then, Harris recognizes the arguments of 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.
To Harris, moral propositions, and explicit values in general, are concerned with the flourishing of conscious creatures in a society. He argues that "Social morality exists to sustain cooperative social relationships, and morality can be objectively evaluated by that standard." Harris sees some philosophers' talk of strictly private morality as akin to unproductive discussion of some private, personal physics.
Harris also discusses how 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).
), (2) determining which patterns of thought and behaviour humans actually should follow (i.e. the science of morality
), and (3) generally persuading humans to change their ways. Harris says that the first project is focused only on describing what is, whereas projects (2) and (3) are focused on what should and could be, respectively. Harris's point is that this second, prescriptive project should be the focus of a science of morality
. He mentions, however, that we should not fear an "Orwellian future" with scientists at every door - vital progress in the science of morality could be shared in much the same way as advances in medicine.
Harris says it is important to delineate project (1) from project (2), or else we risk committing a moralistic fallacy
. He also highlights the importance of distinguishing between project (2) (asking what is right) from project (3) (trying to change behaviour). He says we must realize that the nuances of human motivation is a challenge in itself; humans often fail to do what they "ought" to do to even be successfully selfish - there is every reason to believe that discovering what is best for society would not change every member's habits overnight.
Harris does not imagine that people, even scientists, have always made the right moral decisions—indeed it is precisely his argument that many of them are wrong about moral facts. 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 the research of Paul Slovic and others to describe just a few of these established mental heuristics that might keep us from reasoning properly. 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).
Harris explains that debates and disagreement is a part of the scientific method
, and that one side can certainly be wrong. He also explains that all the debates still available to science illustrates how much work could still be done, and how much conversation must continue.
has taken, and will take us.
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?)". He adds "The illusion of free will is itself an illusion". The implications of free will's non-existence may be a working determinism, and Harris warns us not to confuse this with fatalism
.
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. This, especially because behaviour modification is a sort of cure for the evil behaviours; Harris provides a thought experiment:
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).
Harris supports the development of lie-detection technology and believes it would be, on the whole, beneficial for humanity. He also supports the formation of an explicit global civilization because of the potential for stability under a world government
.
).
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, who argue that science is not fundamentally (and certainly not superficially) in conflict with religion. Harris sees this as a very serious disagreement, that patronizingly attempts to pacify more devout theists. Harris claims that societies can move away from deep dependence on religion just as it has witchcraft, which he says was once just as deeply ingrained.
, and called his treatment of a science of morality
naive. Others found the whole project was distracted by Harris's ongoing rhetoric against religion. On the other hand, one critic opined that "when [Harris] stays closest to neuroscience, he says much that is interesting and important...".
In his review for Barnes & Noble
, Cal State Associate Professor of Philosophy Troy Jollimore allowed 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.
The philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah
, writing in The New York Times
, criticized Harris for failing to articulate "his central claim" and identifying how science has "revealed" that human well-being has an objective component. Appiah concluded 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."
Cognitive scientist and 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
Dismissing the book, he writes:
Harris' dismissal of the philosophical literature on ethics
earned him criticism from Kenan Malik
:
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 "Unitarians
, busily cooperating on schemes to enhance the world's well being, as they have been doing for generations."
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. ‘’
John Horgan
, journalist for the Scientific American
blog and author of The End of Science, expressed deep skepticism regarding Harris's claims, pointing out "the harm — historical and recent — wreaked by scientists supposedly concerned with humanity's well-being." Horgan continued:
Writing in Canada's
National Post
, Peter Foster wrote that "Harris’s assault on religion is vicious to the point of being deranged[,]" while he simultaneously "fails to register that the greatest horrors of the past century have all been perpetrated in the name of 'scientific' socialism...." Foster concluded,
Bill Whitehouse wrote Epistle to a Sam Harris Nation: Debunking the Moral Landscape, and wrote "Sam Harris has harsh words for religious extremists -- as well he should. However, he apparently fails to understand how his own position incorporates a brand of irreligious fundamentalism which is inclined to be just as blind and unyielding as the religious people whom he wishes to criticize."
Atheist science fiction writer and philosopher 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".
The atheist 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 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.". 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.'
In a review for The San Francisco Chronicle, Deepak Chopra
, alternative medicine
advocate and one-time debating opponent of Harris, wondered whether Harris "is writing a satire on morality". Chopra wrote that Harris's "naiveté ... raises suspicion about his connection to psychological reality."
in response to what he says are "cloudbursts of vitriol and confusion". In this response, Harris expresses regret that few directly engage his theses. Harris says that he does not want to lend credibility to many of his critics, but explains that he is committed to spreading ideas, and says about negative reviews that "not only do they discourage smart people from reading a book, they can lead them to disparage it as though they had discovered its flaws for themselves." A case in point, he cites Colin McGinn (whom Harris does admire), who criticized his ideas based solely on the reviews of others.
Harris is skeptical of reviewers Marilynne Robinson and John Horgan, saying they are paranoid and generally missing the point by focusing on non sequiturs
(the claim that a science of morality
necessarily leads to Nazism
, seemingly added "for good measure"). He also says that Kwame Anthony Appiah
fails to raise any issues not addressed in the book. Harris is most critical, however, of Deepak Chopra
, claims that Chopra's review in The San Francisco Chronicle was made without reading the book and based upon a promotional Q&A published by Harris.
In the end, Harris's Follow-Up Response applies to three reviews: Thomas Nagel's, Troy Jollimore's, and Russel Blackford's (Harris focused his response on Blackford's criticisms—whom he says encompassed the most legitimate criticisms of the others).
Harris again uses a metaphor from his book to recast the main criticisms against his position (replacing "morality" and "well-being", with "medicine" and "health"). The main criticisms become: (The Value Problem) There is no scientific basis to say we should value health; (The Persuasion Problem) If a person does not care about health, there is no way for science to argue that they are wrong when it comes to medicine; (The Measurement Problem) Even if the purpose of medicine is health, "health" cannot be completely defined, and therefore cannot be studied scientifically. Harris argues that this metaphor, although imperfect, makes it more clear how to disarm these three types of critique.
Harris addresses the Value problem by maintaining that some presupposition of values is necessary for any science, and that his science of morality is simply no different. He thus yields Blackford's point that "that initial presupposition does not come from science," but Harris does not see this as a problem. For example, science presupposes logical coherence and respect for evidence - without which science could not proceed. Harris maintains that a critic who rejects such basic norms of a discussion, whether it is that "science should be coherent" or that "morality depends on maximizing flourishing", cannot be taken seriously. Harris is not saying that everyone must value health, morality, science or even reasonable discussion (indeed, one could always refuse to engage in these pursuits). Harris rather argues that reasonable discussion of these topics requires certain assumptions - and we should not expect reasonable discussion of morality to be any different. He yields that fuzzy terms like health and flourishing admit of reasonable disagreement, but says that these terms are not so fuzzy as to allow extreme deviations. That is, science may not be certain whether it is healthier to be more flexible or to be able to jump higher, but science does seem to be able to call "unhealthy" a raging case of smallpox.
In response to the measurement problem, Harris criticizes the idea that a science of morality falls apart without an iron-clad metric or "unit of well-being". He says this is an unrealistic constraint, and one that is not placed on other sciences (e.g. there is no "unit of depression", and yet depression is certainly a scientific topic).
Sam Harris finishes his response by disagreeing with Blackford's last point: that conceptions of morality that are relative and even nihilistic do not prevent people from criticizing moral systems that causes suffering or violence. Harris says "Unless you understand that human health is a domain of genuine truth claims -- however difficult "health" may be to define—it is impossible to think clearly about disease. I believe the same can be said about morality. And that is why I wrote a book about it."
, novelist Ian McEwan
, psycholinguist Steven Pinker
, and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, offered their praise for the book. They each serve on the Advisory Board of Harris's Project Reason, 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
).
Dawkins said,
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." Pinker said that Harris offers "a tremendously appealing vision, and one that no thinking person can afford to ignore." Krauss opined 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!" 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."
Sam Harris (author)
Sam Harris is an American author, and neuroscientist, as well as the co-founder and current CEO of Project Reason. He received a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy from Stanford University, before receiving a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA...
. In it, he promotes a science of morality
Science of morality
Science of morality can refer to a number of ethically naturalistic views. Historically, the term was introduced by Jeremy Bentham . In meta-ethics, ethical naturalism bases morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world...
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 relativists), and religionists who say that morality is given 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.
Challenging the age-old philosophical notion that we can never get an 'ought' from an 'is'
Is-ought problem
The is–ought problem in meta-ethics as articulated by Scottish philosopher and historian, David Hume , is that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is...
, Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using, not just philosophy, but the methods of science
Scientific method
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of...
. Thus, "science 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".
Synopsis
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". 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 to the importance of admitting that such facts exist, because he says this logic applies to groups of individuals as well. He suggests that there are better and worse ways for whole societies to pursue better lives. Just like at the scale of the individual, there may be multiple different paths and "peaks" to flourishing for societies - and many more ways to fail.
Harris then makes a pragmatic case that science could usefully define "morality" according to such facts (about people's wellbeing). Often his arguments point out the way 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
Science of morality
Science of morality can refer to a number of ethically naturalistic views. Historically, the term was introduced by Jeremy Bentham . In meta-ethics, ethical naturalism bases morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world...
must face, he also mentions that his scientific argument is unavoidably philosophical
Philosophy of science
The philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods and implications of science. It is also concerned with the use and merit of science and sometimes overlaps metaphysics and epistemology by exploring whether scientific results are actually a study of truth...
—but says that this is the case for almost all science. He mentions that modern science amounts to careful practice of accepted first philosophical principles
First principles
In philosophy, a first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. In mathematics, first principles are referred to as axioms or postulates...
like empiricism
Empiricism
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience. One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism, idealism and historicism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence,...
and physicalism
Physicalism
Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things...
, reminding the reader that science was once even called "natural philosophy". He further suggests that science has already very much settled on values in answering the question "what should I believe, and why should I believe it?". Harris says it should not be surprising that a scientific pursuit of morality is equally founded on bedrock assumptions (Basic norm
Basic norm
Basic norm is a concept in the Pure Theory of Law created by Hans Kelsen, a jurist and legal philosopher. Kelsen used this word to denote the basic norm, order, or rule that forms an underlying basis for a legal system...
s).
The way he thinks science might engage moral issues draws on various philosophical positions like ethical realism (there are facts worth calling 'moral facts'), and ethical naturalism
Ethical naturalism
Ethical naturalism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:# Ethical sentences express propositions.# Some such propositions are true....
(these facts relate to the physical world). Harris says a science of morality
Science of morality
Science of morality can refer to a number of ethically naturalistic views. Historically, the term was introduced by Jeremy Bentham . In meta-ethics, ethical naturalism bases morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world...
may resemble Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can...
, but that the science is, importantly, more open-ended because it involves an evolving definition of well-being. Rather than committing to Reductive materialism, then, Harris recognizes the arguments of revisionists
Revisionary materialism
Revisionary materialism is the view that falls between Eliminative materialism and Reductive materialism when it comes to a particular psychological phenomenon....
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.
To Harris, moral propositions, and explicit values in general, are concerned with the flourishing of conscious creatures in a society. He argues that "Social morality exists to sustain cooperative social relationships, and morality can be objectively evaluated by that standard." Harris sees some philosophers' talk of strictly private morality as akin to unproductive discussion of some private, personal physics.
Harris also discusses how interchangeability of perspective
Veil of ignorance
The veil of ignorance and the original position are concepts introduced by John Harsanyi and later appropriated by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice. It is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue The veil of ignorance and the original position are concepts introduced by John...
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).
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 psychologyEvolutionary psychology
Evolutionary psychology is an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological traits such as memory, perception, and language from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations, that is, the functional...
), (2) determining which patterns of thought and behaviour humans actually should follow (i.e. the science of morality
Science of morality
Science of morality can refer to a number of ethically naturalistic views. Historically, the term was introduced by Jeremy Bentham . In meta-ethics, ethical naturalism bases morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world...
), and (3) generally persuading humans to change their ways. Harris says that the first project is focused only on describing what is, whereas projects (2) and (3) are focused on what should and could be, respectively. Harris's point is that this second, prescriptive project should be the focus of a science of morality
Science of morality
Science of morality can refer to a number of ethically naturalistic views. Historically, the term was introduced by Jeremy Bentham . In meta-ethics, ethical naturalism bases morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world...
. He mentions, however, that we should not fear an "Orwellian future" with scientists at every door - vital progress in the science of morality could be shared in much the same way as advances in medicine.
Harris says it is important to delineate project (1) from project (2), or else we risk committing a moralistic fallacy
Moralistic fallacy
The moralistic fallacy is in essence the reverse of the naturalistic fallacy.Naturalistic fallacy presumes that what is—or what occurs—forms what ought to be. Thus the observed natural is reasoned a priori as moral....
. He also highlights the importance of distinguishing between project (2) (asking what is right) from project (3) (trying to change behaviour). He says we must realize that the nuances of human motivation is a challenge in itself; humans often fail to do what they "ought" to do to even be successfully selfish - there is every reason to believe that discovering what is best for society would not change every member's habits overnight.
Harris does not imagine that people, even scientists, have always made the right moral decisions—indeed it is precisely his argument that many of them are wrong about moral facts. This is due to the many real challenges of good science in general, including human cognitive limitations and biases (e.g. loss aversion
Loss aversion
In economics and decision theory, loss aversion refers to people's tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. Some studies suggest that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically, as gains....
can sway human decisions on important issues like medicine). He mentions the research of Paul Slovic and others to describe just a few of these established mental heuristics that might keep us from reasoning properly. 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).
Harris explains that debates and disagreement is a part of the scientific method
Scientific method
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of...
, and that one side can certainly be wrong. He also explains that all the debates still available to science illustrates how much work could still be done, and how much conversation must continue.
Harris's positive beliefs
The book is full of issues that Harris thinks are far from being empirically, morally grey 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, and he says that these individuals are "morally confused". He also suggests it is obvious that loneliness, helplessness, and poverty are "bad", but that these are by no means as far as positive psychologyPositive psychology
Positive psychology is a recent branch of psychology whose purpose was summed up in 1998 by Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: "We believe that a psychology of positive human functioning will arise, which achieves a scientific understanding and effective interventions to build thriving in...
has taken, and will take us.
In one section, called The illusion of free will, Harris argues that there is a wealth of evidence in psychology
Psychology
Psychology is the study of the mind and behavior. Its immediate goal is to understand individuals and groups by both establishing general principles and researching specific cases. For many, the ultimate goal of psychology is to benefit society...
(e.g. the illusion of introspection) or specifically related to the neuroscience of free will
Neuroscience of free will
Neuroscience of free will refers to recent neuroscientific investigations shedding light on the question of free will, which is a philosophical and scientific question as to whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions or decisions. As it has become possible to...
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?)". He adds "The illusion of free will is itself an illusion". The implications of free will's non-existence may be a working determinism, and Harris warns us not to confuse this with fatalism
Fatalism
Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine emphasizing the subjugation of all events or actions to fate.Fatalism generally refers to several of the following ideas:...
.
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. This, especially because behaviour modification is a sort of cure for the evil behaviours; Harris provides a thought experiment:
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).
Harris supports the development of lie-detection technology and believes it would be, on the whole, beneficial for humanity. He also supports the formation of an explicit global civilization because of the potential for stability under a world government
World government
World government is the notion of a single common political authority for all of humanity. Its modern conception is rooted in European history, particularly in the philosophy of ancient Greece, in the political formation of the Roman Empire, and in the subsequent struggle between secular authority,...
.
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). He argues that religions may largely be practiced because they fit well with human cognitive tendencies (e.g. animismAnimism
Animism refers to the belief that non-human entities are spiritual beings, or at least embody some kind of life-principle....
).
In Harris's view, religion and religious dogma is an impediment to reason, and he discusses the views of Francis Collins
Francis Collins
Francis Collins may refer to:*Francis Collins , geneticist*Francis Dolan Collins , 19th century American politician-See also:*Frank Collins *Francis Collings, BBC journalist*Francis Collin, English footballer...
as one example.
Harris criticizes the tactics of secularists like Chris Mooney, who argue that science is not fundamentally (and certainly not superficially) in conflict with religion. Harris sees this as a very serious disagreement, that patronizingly attempts to pacify more devout theists. Harris claims that societies can move away from deep dependence on religion just as it has witchcraft, which he says was once just as deeply ingrained.
Reception
The Moral Landscape reached 9th in the New York Times Best Seller list for Hardcover Non-Fiction in October 2010.Reviews
Professional reviews of The Moral Landscape have been largely negative. Critics have found that Harris offers insufficient new information beyond offering the reader a science of utilitarianismUtilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can...
, and called his treatment of a science of morality
Science of morality
Science of morality can refer to a number of ethically naturalistic views. Historically, the term was introduced by Jeremy Bentham . In meta-ethics, ethical naturalism bases morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world...
naive. Others found the whole project was distracted by Harris's ongoing rhetoric against religion. On the other hand, one critic opined that "when [Harris] stays closest to neuroscience, he says much that is interesting and important...".
In his review for Barnes & Noble
Barnes & Noble
Barnes & Noble, Inc. is the largest book retailer in the United States, operating mainly through its Barnes & Noble Booksellers chain of bookstores headquartered at 122 Fifth Avenue in the Flatiron District in Manhattan in New York City. Barnes & Noble also operated the chain of small B. Dalton...
, Cal State Associate Professor of Philosophy Troy Jollimore allowed that the book "has some good, reasonable, and at times persuasive things to say" to people who are unfamiliar with moral skepticism
Moral skepticism
"Moral skepticism" denotes a class of metaethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal, claim that moral knowledge is impossible...
, 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.
The philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah
Kwame Anthony Appiah
Kwame Anthony Appiah is a Ghanaian-British-American philosopher, cultural theorist, and novelist whose interests include political and moral theory, the philosophy of language and mind, and African intellectual history. Kwame Anthony Appiah grew up in Ghana and earned a Ph.D. at Cambridge...
, writing in The New York Times
The New York Times
The New York Times is an American daily newspaper founded and continuously published in New York City since 1851. The New York Times has won 106 Pulitzer Prizes, the most of any news organization...
, criticized Harris for failing to articulate "his central claim" and identifying how science has "revealed" that human well-being has an objective component. Appiah concluded that Harris "ends up endorsing ... something very like utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can...
, a philosophical position that is now more than two centuries old, ... that faces a battery of familiar problems," which Harris merely "push[es] ... aside."
Cognitive scientist and anthropologist Scott Atran
Scott Atran
Scott Atran is an American and French anthropologist.-Education and early career:Atran was born in New York City in 1952 and he received his PhD in anthropology from Columbia University. While a student at Columbia, he became assistant to anthropologist Margaret Mead at the American Museum of...
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
Dismissing the book, he writes:
Harris' dismissal of the philosophical literature on ethics
Ethics
Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime, etc.Major branches of ethics include:...
earned him criticism from Kenan Malik
Kenan Malik
Kenan Malik is an Indian-born English writer, lecturer and broadcaster, trained in neurobiology and the history of science. As a scientific author, his focus is on the philosophy of biology, and contemporary theories of multiculturalism, pluralism and race...
:
American novelist Marilynne Robinson
Marilynne Robinson
-Biography:Robinson was born and grew up in Sandpoint, Idaho, and did her undergraduate work at Pembroke College, the former women's college at Brown University, receiving her B.A., magna cum laude in 1966, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She received her Ph.D...
, writing in The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal is an American English-language international daily newspaper. It is published in New York City by Dow Jones & Company, a division of News Corporation, along with the Asian and European editions of the 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 "Unitarians
Unitarianism
Unitarianism is a Christian theological movement, named for its understanding of God as one person, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism which defines God as three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being....
, busily cooperating on schemes to enhance the world's well being, as they have been doing for generations."
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. ‘’
John Horgan
John Horgan (American journalist)
John Horgan is an American science journalist best known for his 1996 book The End of Science. He has written for many publications, including Scientific American, The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and IEEE Spectrum...
, journalist for the Scientific American
Scientific American
Scientific American is a popular science magazine. It is notable for its long history of presenting science monthly to an educated but not necessarily scientific public, through its careful attention to the clarity of its text as well as the quality of its specially commissioned color graphics...
blog and author of The End of Science, expressed deep skepticism regarding Harris's claims, pointing out "the harm — historical and recent — wreaked by scientists supposedly concerned with humanity's well-being." Horgan continued:
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?
Writing in Canada's
Canada
Canada is a North American country consisting of ten provinces and three territories. Located in the northern part of the continent, it extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west, and northward into the Arctic Ocean...
National Post
National Post
The National Post is a Canadian English-language national newspaper based in Don Mills, a district of Toronto. The paper is owned by Postmedia Network Inc. and is published Mondays through Saturdays...
, Peter Foster wrote that "Harris’s assault on religion is vicious to the point of being deranged[,]" while he simultaneously "fails to register that the greatest horrors of the past century have all been perpetrated in the name of 'scientific' socialism...." Foster concluded,
Science may help us better examine moral values, but only if attached to historical knowledge and philosophical wisdom. Mr. Harris might consider removing the beam from his own liberal eye before he pretends to deal with the conservative mote that he finds so annoying in the eyes of others.
Bill Whitehouse wrote Epistle to a Sam Harris Nation: Debunking the Moral Landscape, and wrote "Sam Harris has harsh words for religious extremists -- as well he should. However, he apparently fails to understand how his own position incorporates a brand of irreligious fundamentalism which is inclined to be just as blind and unyielding as the religious people whom he wishes to criticize."
Atheist science fiction writer and philosopher Russell Blackford
Russell Blackford
Russell Blackford is an Australian writer, philosopher, and critic, based for many years in Melbourne, Victoria. He was born in Sydney, and grew up in Lake Macquarie district, near Newcastle, NSW. He moved to Melbourne in 1979, but returned to Newcastle to live and work in 2009.-Writing career:As a...
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".
The atheist philosopher Simon Blackburn
Simon Blackburn
Simon Blackburn is a British academic philosopher known for his work in quasi-realism and his efforts to popularise philosophy. He recently retired as professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge, but remains a distinguished research professor of philosophy at the University of North...
, 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 Bentham
Jeremy Bentham
Jeremy Bentham was an English jurist, philosopher, and legal and social reformer. He became a leading theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law, and a political radical whose ideas influenced the development of welfarism...
’s hedonist is in one brain state and Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and polymath, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology...
’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.". And H. Allen Orr
H. Allen Orr
H. Allen Orr is University Professor and Shirley Cox Kearns Professor of Biology at the University of Rochester.- Education and career :He earned his Bachelor’s degree in Biology and Philosophy from the College of William and Mary and his Ph.D. in Biology from the University of Chicago. At...
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.'
In a review for The San Francisco Chronicle, Deepak Chopra
Deepak Chopra
Deepak Chopra is an Indian medical doctor, public speaker, and writer on subjects such as spirituality, Ayurveda and mind-body medicine. Chopra began his career as an endocrinologist and later shifted his focus to alternative medicine. Chopra now runs his own medical center, with a focus on...
, alternative medicine
Alternative medicine
Alternative medicine is any healing practice, "that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine." It is based on historical or cultural traditions, rather than on scientific evidence....
advocate and one-time debating opponent of Harris, wondered whether Harris "is writing a satire on morality". Chopra wrote that Harris's "naiveté ... raises suspicion about his connection to psychological reality."
Response to reviews
A few months after the book's release, Sam Harris wrote a follow-up at The Huffington PostThe Huffington Post
The Huffington Post is an American news website and content-aggregating blog founded by Arianna Huffington, Kenneth Lerer, and Jonah Peretti, featuring liberal minded columnists and various news sources. The site offers coverage of politics, theology, media, business, entertainment, living, style,...
in response to what he says are "cloudbursts of vitriol and confusion". In this response, Harris expresses regret that few directly engage his theses. Harris says that he does not want to lend credibility to many of his critics, but explains that he is committed to spreading ideas, and says about negative reviews that "not only do they discourage smart people from reading a book, they can lead them to disparage it as though they had discovered its flaws for themselves." A case in point, he cites Colin McGinn (whom Harris does admire), who criticized his ideas based solely on the reviews of others.
Harris is skeptical of reviewers Marilynne Robinson and John Horgan, saying they are paranoid and generally missing the point by focusing on non sequiturs
Non sequitur (logic)
Non sequitur , in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies...
(the claim that a science of morality
Science of morality
Science of morality can refer to a number of ethically naturalistic views. Historically, the term was introduced by Jeremy Bentham . In meta-ethics, ethical naturalism bases morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world...
necessarily leads to Nazism
Nazism
Nazism, the common short form name of National Socialism was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany...
, seemingly added "for good measure"). He also says that Kwame Anthony Appiah
Kwame Anthony Appiah
Kwame Anthony Appiah is a Ghanaian-British-American philosopher, cultural theorist, and novelist whose interests include political and moral theory, the philosophy of language and mind, and African intellectual history. Kwame Anthony Appiah grew up in Ghana and earned a Ph.D. at Cambridge...
fails to raise any issues not addressed in the book. Harris is most critical, however, of Deepak Chopra
Deepak Chopra
Deepak Chopra is an Indian medical doctor, public speaker, and writer on subjects such as spirituality, Ayurveda and mind-body medicine. Chopra began his career as an endocrinologist and later shifted his focus to alternative medicine. Chopra now runs his own medical center, with a focus on...
, claims that Chopra's review in The San Francisco Chronicle was made without reading the book and based upon a promotional Q&A published by Harris.
In the end, Harris's Follow-Up Response applies to three reviews: Thomas Nagel's, Troy Jollimore's, and Russel Blackford's (Harris focused his response on Blackford's criticisms—whom he says encompassed the most legitimate criticisms of the others).
Response to Blackford
After summarizing his book's arguments, Harris adds a point he says was not sufficiently discussed in the book. He proposes that the boundary between aesthetic (e.g. I love chocolate) and moral imperatives (it's wrong to kill) may not be as categorical as we think, and it may be that moral issues are simply aesthetic issues with higher stakes. To Harris, this possibility fits well with his belief that morality can only be reasonably understood by referring to facts about minds, and thus people's brains.Harris again uses a metaphor from his book to recast the main criticisms against his position (replacing "morality" and "well-being", with "medicine" and "health"). The main criticisms become: (The Value Problem) There is no scientific basis to say we should value health; (The Persuasion Problem) If a person does not care about health, there is no way for science to argue that they are wrong when it comes to medicine; (The Measurement Problem) Even if the purpose of medicine is health, "health" cannot be completely defined, and therefore cannot be studied scientifically. Harris argues that this metaphor, although imperfect, makes it more clear how to disarm these three types of critique.
Harris addresses the Value problem by maintaining that some presupposition of values is necessary for any science, and that his science of morality is simply no different. He thus yields Blackford's point that "that initial presupposition does not come from science," but Harris does not see this as a problem. For example, science presupposes logical coherence and respect for evidence - without which science could not proceed. Harris maintains that a critic who rejects such basic norms of a discussion, whether it is that "science should be coherent" or that "morality depends on maximizing flourishing", cannot be taken seriously. Harris is not saying that everyone must value health, morality, science or even reasonable discussion (indeed, one could always refuse to engage in these pursuits). Harris rather argues that reasonable discussion of these topics requires certain assumptions - and we should not expect reasonable discussion of morality to be any different. He yields that fuzzy terms like health and flourishing admit of reasonable disagreement, but says that these terms are not so fuzzy as to allow extreme deviations. That is, science may not be certain whether it is healthier to be more flexible or to be able to jump higher, but science does seem to be able to call "unhealthy" a raging case of smallpox.
In response to the measurement problem, Harris criticizes the idea that a science of morality falls apart without an iron-clad metric or "unit of well-being". He says this is an unrealistic constraint, and one that is not placed on other sciences (e.g. there is no "unit of depression", and yet depression is certainly a scientific topic).
Sam Harris finishes his response by disagreeing with Blackford's last point: that conceptions of morality that are relative and even nihilistic do not prevent people from criticizing moral systems that causes suffering or violence. Harris says "Unless you understand that human health is a domain of genuine truth claims -- however difficult "health" may be to define—it is impossible to think clearly about disease. I believe the same can be said about morality. And that is why I wrote a book about it."
Praise from colleagues
In advance of publication, four personal and professional acquaintances of the author, biologist and science popularizer Richard DawkinsRichard Dawkins
Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL , known as Richard Dawkins, is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author...
, novelist Ian McEwan
Ian McEwan
Ian Russell McEwan CBE, FRSA, FRSL is a British novelist and screenwriter, and one of Britain's most highly regarded writers. In 2008, The Times named him among their list of "The 50 greatest British writers since 1945"....
, psycholinguist Steven Pinker
Steven Pinker
Steven Arthur Pinker is a Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author...
, and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, offered their praise for the book. They each serve on the Advisory Board of Harris's Project Reason, and their praise appears as blurb
Blurb
A blurb is a short summary or some words of praise accompanying a creative work, usually used on books without giving away any details, that is usually referring to the words on the back of the book jacket but also commonly seen on DVD and video cases, web portals, and news websites.- History :The...
s (released by the book's publisher on Harris's website and reproduced on the book's dust jacket
Dust jacket
The dust jacket of a book is the detachable outer cover, usually made of paper and printed with text and illustrations. This outer cover has folded flaps that hold it to the front and back book covers...
).
Dawkins said,
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." Pinker said that Harris offers "a tremendously appealing vision, and one that no thinking person can afford to ignore." Krauss opined 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!" 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."