The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values in Atheists and Skeptics

Oct 09, 2010 Bakari rated it really liked it

Shelves: 2010-books-read, cultural-studies, kindle, ebook, atheism-religion, science

Actually, I’m on chapter 4, but I’m eager to write some of my thoughts on this book before I finish it.

I was eager to read this book because I like Harris’s writing and analysis. So far I think The Moral Landscape is a good follow-up to Harris’s previous books, because he‘s saying that science can no longer afford to be neutral or silent about moral values and issues, which have largely been framed and addressed by religion. He argues that values and ethical issues "are really questions about th Actually, I’m on chapter 4, but I’m eager to write some of my thoughts on this book before I finish it.

I was eager to read this book because I like Harris’s writing and analysis. So far I think The Moral Landscape is a good follow-up to Harris’s previous books, because he‘s saying that science can no longer afford to be neutral or silent about moral values and issues, which have largely been framed and addressed by religion. He argues that values and ethical issues "are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be scientifically understood: regarding positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of specific laws and social institutions on the human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, etc.”

As you might guess if you haven’t read the book, he’s having to develop some heady arguments--from a point of view that we don’t often hear these day. However, something keeps gnawing at me as I read the book. I think Harris proposes too many extreme dichotomies to make his arguments. For example he asks an obvious question: which would we prefer, the bad life of Jeffery Dahmer or the good life of say an Oprah Winfrey? (he doesn’t use her name, but I give it as an example.) He’s arguing that most sane people know that factually what is ethically good and what is ethically bad; we don't have to use religion and other superstition to draw these conclusions. Okay that’s correct, but almost every other page he’s proposing these extremes to make points, but these dichotomies don’t represent grey areas--the grey landscape if you will--that we confront on a daily basis. Perhaps this is the way you argue issues philosophically, but they’re often a distraction when reading and navigating his main thesis.

I do think he’s correct in saying science can contribute to understanding of what is morally right or wrong; but the question is, how do scientific facts and conclusions play out in the political landscape? If science for example proves that there’s nothing immoral about homosexuality and that it’s ethically sound and even biologically-based, okay what is to be done with that from a scientific point of view? These issues largely get played out in political struggles and the courts.

In chapter 3 he talks about the future possibility that we can live in a society in which scientific methods can truly determine when people are lying. If that becomes possible, it definitely would have a dramatic effect on the world. It could alleviate lots of suffering and misdeeds. On other hand, though, real lie detections could lead to a sort of perfection in society that many people may not be comfortable with, and it could lead to a lot of hurt and pain. For there may be many reasons why people need to lie in order to protect themselves and others. So just because science can do certain things, it doesn’t mean it ought to.

Anyway, I think The Moral Landscape is worth reading, but he tries to cover way too much in a limited space. Harris is of course is not the first thinker or intellectual to address issues of morality and the well being of humanity. Karl Marx, Frederick Engles, Paul Tillich, Martin Luther King, etc, etc, spent their lives writing and speaking about issues of fairness and justice. They didn’t spend a lot of time raising hypothetical arguments about how we should treat one another as human beings. They were pretty clear on it, and acted accordingly.

If we want to get serious about the well being society, i.e. the world, then yes scientists, as well as atheists, need to speak out about values-- particularly in regards to the factual basis of some values, but also to mutability and complexity of values and behaviors (take for example real issues such as pornography, abortion, poverty and homeliness. There are factual claims that can be deduced about these issues, but that doesn’t mean most people will agree with conclusions about certain facts. Nor will particular facts change our behavior for “good” or “bad” just because it’s been proven by science. We’re complex beings, just as nature itself is complex. Sure, most of us want a fair and just world; most of us live by a set of values that we were either raised with and/or acquired through reasoning and sense of compassion. However, our individual and group experiences and our physical, financial, and moral capacity to live and do certain things are limited. These limitations influence our moral constructs for both “good” and “bad.” We can say for example, overall marriage is a good thing, but it’s also “bad,” because it’s based constructs that have changed over time, and in many ways as an institution, marriage can be very limiting and oppressive to both men, women, and children. I’m using this as one of many examples.)

Finally, I would say that though The Moral Landscape is a must-read book, I would also suggest perhaps reading a less well know writer David Eller, the author of Atheism Advanced and Natural Atheism who addresses these arguments, but not quite with the flair that Harris does. Eller definitely offers advance analysis about atheism and religion.

Oh, and one more thing that gnaws at me as I read the book. Harris’s critique of moral relativism and multiculturalism is seriously misleading. I really hope qualified writers address the arguments he makes against these schools of thought and analysis. He portends that some people would argue that all cultural practices must be respected in their historical and cultural context. Well, that may have been argued in many cases, but that is not all of what moral relativism and multiculturalism have to say. And in fact, these domains came about partly because of Western European cultural arrogance that I think Harris uses at times in making his arguments. So there are many issues that need to be addressed in this book. I can see several other books being written in response to it.

...more

2 likes · Like · see review