• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

THE MORAL LANDSCAPE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Sam Harris | 384 pages | 04 Dec 2012 | Transworld Publishers Ltd | 9780552776387 | English | London, United Kingdom The Moral Landscape PDF Book By Marilynne Robinson. Some morals may be consistent in some form across times and cultures. Since it's possible that human well-being and moral goodness are not identical, it follows necessarily that human well-being and moral goodness are not the same, as Harris has asserted. 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. I don't think, though, that the failure of this claim is fatal to the rest of Sam's claims. Immorality is knowing what is right and wrong but acting wrongly anyway. But would a life spent popping MDMA, although presumably full of "good feelings", be a peak in his moral landscape? For example, he says that there are objectively good and bad moves in chess Moral Landscape , 8. A rustic-style deck, for example, will look much better attached to a log cabin than to an ultra-modern contemporary. Morals in the US. It seems to me that morality, particularly when it is promoted for the good of the general public, ought to emphasise concern with the latter harms committed against others , if it even concerns the former "harms" committed against oneself at all. Nuzzolilli wrote a generally favorable review in a journal of the Association for Behavior Analysis International :. Now, Sam's notion that a society of equally-matched sadists and masochists would could be morally equivalent to a world of conventionally wired people is harder to defuse given his premises, but let's look at it a little critically: in fact, it doesn't take much to immediately question whether the experience of a masochist is genuinely one of equal well-being with that of a normally-adjusted individual. Clearly a bad move in chess is not a morally evil move, nor is a good move good in the sense of moral worth. If such forces result in human well-being, then we ought to cultivate them to maximize human well-being, and ignore or destroy those that abate it. Too, I believe that we are likely to possess libertarian free will; Sam does not even believe in the coherence of free will as a concept. By how much? Of course, it can — just as it can tell us what is conducive to the flourishing of corn or mosquitoes or bacteria. By my definition, "well-being" includes the freedom to define one's own purposes and goals " the principle of self-determination ". Just how much can science really contribute towards morality? I would, in any case, have liked to have seen more discussion of these sorts of issues - both the specific example I've provided as well as the questions it raises, including the relative scope of philosophy and science in the construction of ethical principles and in the resolution of conflicts of principles. Allen May 12, More From Reference. It's a pity the book is so bull-headed, because Harris's topic is an interesting one, and he himself is an interesting figure who brings together the disciplines of science, moral philosophy and contemplative religion. The very first question that you have to ask yourself is this: Do I plan on staying on this property forever, or will I be placing it in a real estate listing at some point? A scientific account of human values is one that measures the outcome of world states with the outcome of brain states. Again, sure, I don't see why not, but again, let's not make the task seem less daunting than it really is. In essence, I see morality as something of a "tree", or perhaps more of a "tree-like web", of principles, which at the extremities might be more properly termed "rules" than "principles". Sure, I don't see why not, but let's acknowledge the challenges in practice. Moral responsibility, he says, "is a social construct," not an objective reality: "in neuroscientific terms no person is more or less responsible than any other" for the actions they perform. Harris' view thus lacks any source for objective moral duty. Description Details Sam Harris's first book, "The End of Faith," ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation. Thanks to my assistant Joe Gorra for tracking down this reference. So if there is no God, what foundation remains for objective moral duties? On the next to last page of his book, Harris more or less admits this. The Moral Landscape Writer Objective Moral Values and Duties The question then is, what is the best foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties? It seems as though the author cobbled together a number of unrelated articles that were more or less written independently of one another. Rather than committing to reductive materialism , then, Harris recognizes the arguments of revisionists that psychological definitions themselves are contingent on research and discoveries. Nor is she doing anything self-defeating if she maximizes her own well-being , or that of her loved ones, whenever these conflict with maximizing global well-being. A spiffy home landscaping design increases real estate value. I pose this example to raise another question too: to what extent would the notion of a moral "science" encourage authorities to override the will of individuals in such cases as this? This fits in nicely with my notion of a "moral tree". For instance, you may not mind spending time puttering around outside, may have no desire for water features on your landscape, and may not care about winter color. Although most people agree on the general definition of moral values, even that can be hard to pin down. Some of our current policies may be rationalized, by some people , some of the time, on grounds that invoke libertarian free will. For example, during a discussion of consequentialism, he asks, " do we have a moral obligation to come to the aid of wealthy, healthy, and intelligent hostages before poor, sickly, and slow-witted ones? Harris inveighs against what he calls "the overeducated atheistic moral nihilist[s]" and relativists who refuse to condemn as objectively wrong terrible atrocities like the genital mutilation of little girls. What if we borrowed more - couldn't we run a cost-benefit analysis on the value of doing that? In that case, there would be one dead and five saved. In essence, I see morality as something of a "tree", or perhaps more of a "tree-like web", of principles, which at the extremities might be more properly termed "rules" than "principles". Whilst Sam notes that his argument is about that which science can determine about morality in principle, regardless of whether science can determine any given moral values in practice, we nevertheless need to be concerned with practicalities, otherwise the book has no real-world applicability. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, … and any deeper meaning is illusory. Indeed, moral judgments are simply claims about the well-being of conscious creatures — claims that may often depend on scientific evidence. 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. You had no choice. So keen is he to turn morality into science that Harris presses on regardless. Joyce, R. But surely this is too restrictive. If we are going to provide her with reasons to act in a particular way, or to support a particular policy, or condemn a traditional custom — or whatever it might be — sooner or later we will need to appeal to the values, desires, and so on, that she actually has. If the Dr. Emphatically yes. The Moral Landscape Reviews Morality can be particularly important in politics. 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. More by Sam Harris. There seem to me to be cases where the nature or degree of "harm" is unclear without reference to some personal value. Thus they cannot be measured against each other, however attractive that seems to the scientific mind. At the same time, other values, such as the belief that adultery is wrong, show no sign of changing. To the extent that the New Atheism is a genuine social movement, Harris deserves much of the credit for it. Morality Although most people agree on the general definition of moral values, even that can be hard to pin down. Science, it seems to me, could enter the picture only some way down the tree, potentially quite a way down. You can also create a pergola effect by connecting the posts from above with wood, wire, or chains and training vines across them. Your yard can do more than just look pretty. 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. But that, as Bernard Williams famously put it, is one thought too many. He mentions that modern science amounts to careful practice of accepted first philosophical principles like empiricism and physicalism.

Load more

  5

Copy Link