The Behavior Analyst 2012, 35, 265–273 No. 2 (Fall) On Books The Science of Values: The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris James W. Diller and Andrew E. Nuzzolilli Eastern Connecticut State University In The Moral Landscape,Sam sality in the external environment Harris (2010) proposes that science and in the organism’s correlated can be used to identify values, which neurological states. The contempo- he defines as ‘‘facts that can be rary science of behavior analysis has scientifically understood: regarding and will continue to contribute to this positive and negative social emotions, discussion, originating with Skinner’s retributive impulses, the effects of seminal works Beyond Freedom and specific laws and social institutions Dignity (1971) and Walden Two on human relationships, the neuro- (1976). Neither book is explicitly a physiology of happiness and suffer- treatise on morality, but both are ing, etc.’’ (pp. 1–2). Harris argues that attempts to introduce behavioral sci- scientific principles are appropriately ence to a broader audience. The applied in this domain because ‘‘hu- behavior-analytic approach (which is man well-being entirely depends on largely compatible with Harris’s ef- events in the world and on states of forts in The Moral Landscape) sup- the human brain. Consequently, there ports the superiority of a scientific must be scientific truths known about approach to life, including ques- it’’ (p. 3). Although readers of this tions of morality. Skinner (1976), for journal would have few problems example, highlighted the importance with the assertion that behavior (here, of the experimenting culture to iden- reports of well-being and correlated tify practices that were effective (cf. responses) changes as a function of Baum, 2005).Tacit within behavior environmental events, the role of the analysis is the expectation that a neurophysiological correlates of these scientific worldview can and will responses has been a point of debate improve the quality of life. Consistent within the conceptual literature of with this view, Harris suggests that the behavior analysis (e.g., Elcoro, 2008; currently accepted determinants of Reese, 1996; Schaal, 2003). morality (e.g., religion, faith) are not The Moral Landscape represents an what society ought to espouse. In- important contribution to a scientific stead, he proposes that scientific discussion of morality. It explicates inquiry into morality as its own the determinants of moral behavior subject would enhance global levels for a popular audience, placing cau- of well-being. From a behavioral perspective, the study of morality is We thank Mirari Elcoro for her thought- necessarily the study of behavior, ful comments on a previous version of this including the contexts in which it manuscript. occurs and the environmental events Correspondence concerning this article should of which it is a function. Analysis in be addressed to James Diller, Department of Psychology, Eastern Connecticut State Univer- this framework may allow the suc- sity, 83 Windham Street, Willimantic, Connecti- cessful identification of the variables cut 06226 (e-mail: [email protected]). that control moral behavior, and, 265 The Behavior Analyst bhan-35-02-13.3d 10/9/12 13:27:00 265 Cust # MS 12-101 266 JAMES W. DILLER & ANDREW E. NUZZOLILLI ultimately, the development of cultur- beneficial for behavior analysts to al practices to increase its occurrence. align themselves with and support the The Moral Landscape is a recent authors of these works, garnering contribution to a collection of books attention from the controversial cov- (e.g., Dawkins, 2006; Harris, 2005; erage from popular media outlets Hitchens, 2007; Sagan, 2006) that that writers such as Dawkins and subject the claims of religion to the Harris regularly elicit. Perhaps con- same standard of empirical rigor that troversial exposure is better than no other epistemologies (e.g., science) exposure at all, especially when be- must abide by. Dawkins (2006), for havior analysis can enable the devel- example, criticizes the appeal to super- opment of the hypothetical secular natural gods as explanatory agents and society that Harris, Dawkins, Hitch- takes issue with the privileged place of ens, and Sagan call for. Indeed, religion within societal discourse. Har- behavior analysis may be the only ris echoes and expands on these discipline that can identify and estab- concerns in The Moral Landscape. lish reinforcers to motivate prosocial, Collectively, these authors take so-called moral, human behavior in issue with the notion of nonoverlap- the absence of organized religion. ping magisteria (NOMA; Gould, It is noteworthy that no psycholo- 1999), which is the assertion that gist has tackled the problem of science and religion are both valid secular values alongside these authors systems of knowledge, and that nei- in spite of the contradictory facts that ther discipline can inform the other. religion presents about human na- Behavior analysts take issue with the ture, facts that take away from the notion that scientific behavior and value of our discipline. Indeed, much religious behavior are egalitarian (see of the rich ‘‘prescientific’’ vocabulary Galuska, 2003, for suggestions about that inhibits psychology from becom- successful navigation of NOMA by ing a natural science is either religious behavior analysts). Skinner (1987) or metaphysical in nature (Schlinger, commented, ‘‘Science, not religion, 2004). It is imperative for the valida- has taught me my most useful values, tion of the field of psychology, as well among them intellectual honesty. It is as behavior analysis by association, better to go without answers than to to be a part of this modern empiricist accept those that merely resolve movement championed by Harris. puzzlement’’ (p. 12). Although reli- Harris’s argument unfolds in an gion may be effective at inducing introduction and five subsequent behavioral change among its follow- chapters. In the introduction, he ers, it continues to have unintended defines his title concept of the moral effects that, to borrow Harris’s anal- landscape as a hypothetical space ogy, reach the depths of the moral representing human well-being, en- landscape. Hitchens (2007) makes a compassing all human experiences. subtitular claim that ‘‘religion poi- This space contains the well-being of sons everything,’’ supporting his the- members of all cultures and groups of sis with discussions of demonstrably individuals on the planet. The peaks negative outcomes associated with of this landscape are the heights of religious practice, discussing exam- prosperity, and the valleys represent ples of how religion leads to poorer the depths of human suffering. The states of human health and impedes goal of plotting the cartography of social progress. As an alternative, he this landscape is to maximize ‘‘the proposes a rational, scientific view of well-being of conscious creatures’’ the world, which Harris applies to the (i.e., humans) which ‘‘must translate study of morality. at some point into facts about brains Because they are members of a and their interactions with the world relatively small discipline, it may be at large’’ (p. 11). For Harris, the brain The Behavior Analyst bhan-35-02-13.3d 10/9/12 13:27:10 266 Cust # MS 12-101 ON BOOKS 267 is the locus of interest. We believe that rect. Harris uses the term conscious it is possible to recast the argument creature extensively in formulating his into one about whole organisms— science of morality. Although he does with correlated neurological states, not provide an explicit definition of perhaps—interacting with their envi- consciousness, his use seems to be at ronment to determine behavior. This odds with the behavioral approach to scientific approach to human behav- this construct. For Harris, conscious- ior, with a goal of improving the ness seems to be a property of the welfare of living organisms, is consis- brain, discoverable by explorations in tent with the application of behavior neuroscience. In contrast, Skinner analysis to bring about societal change (1945) suggested that, when defining (e.g., Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; psychological terms, it is useful to Skinner, 1971, 1978). identify the conditions under which In the subsequent chapters of his those terms are used, and the history book, Harris makes the case for of the verbal community that produc- applying scientific thinking to deter- es that usage. Consistent with this mine human values. Chapter 1 out- analysis, Schlinger (2008) proposed lines the knowable nature of moral that consciousness is best understood truths, suggesting that they are sub- with a focus on the behaviors that are ject to scientific (rather than religious) associated with the use of the word inquiry. In Chapter 2, Harris tackles consciousness (e.g., self-talk, private the topics of good and evil, suggesting behavior), rather than the study of the that these terms may be outmoded; reified thing itself. instead, the goal of both religion and Consciousness, defined as a set of science should be to determine ways verbal behavior, is a prerequisite for a to maximize human well-being. In the discussion of morality. Verbal behav- third chapter, Harris explores the ior is required for us to evaluate our neurological correlates of belief, trac- own subjective well-being in relation ing the complex sets of behavior back to the well-being of others, allowing to brain activity. In the fourth chap- us to identify the relative ‘‘goodness’’ ter, he examines the role of religious or ‘‘badness’’ of each; such an anal- faith in contemporary society, sug- ysis is necessarily dependent on verbal gesting that a scientific approach may behavior. Indeed, in other media (cf. lead to an increase in overall well- The Richard Dawkins Foundation, being. The final chapter outlines a 2011), Harris has suggested that a plan for future work, disentangling universe of rocks could not define science and philosophy, and offering a science of morality, because con- an optimistic picture about the use of sciousness (i.e., a verbal repertoire science to improve the human condi- about one’s own behavior) is required tion.