The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values

Let me start off by writing that this book is 10 years old. The direction the author takes is subjective yet the methodology, the matrix that brings it about is universal. What I mean is "The Moral Landcape" is a universally potent concept as he introduces it to the reader. "How science can determine human values" would be Harris' contention.He does a pretty good job at it too. As someone living in the west, I wholeheartedly agree with his choosing suffering as a scale on which to base the quality of human existence. And yes, science can and, once agreed upon, should weigh in and quantify acceptable and unacceptable degrees of existence brought about by certain types of behaviours.The single limit, not flaw, of his argument is his failiure to recognize that western civilization is the civilization of the person according to Henri de la Bastide. As such, individual pain and the drive to limit it to the point of warranting the pursuit of personal happiness is only broadly desirable in the west. Other civilizations verily deem religion to be the proper organisational metric of the moral landscape. I do not mean to say I respect their culture or wish to bring it about. I am simply saying that science can't really determine the optimal human existence. It can only determine human values in accordance to arbitrary wholly irrational customs.

The notion that morals cannot be determined by facts, proposed centuries ago by philosophical luminaries such as David Hume and E. G. Moore, is greatly challenged in Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape. Harris believes that what constitutes something being ethically "good" or "bad" can be shown through a harmonious combination of scientific evidence and simple rationality. His book thus follows a rhetoric of defining common psychological phenomena such as "belief" and "well-being" coupled with many examples of how subjective perception of these phenomena leads to objectively immoral decisions. Being a neuroscientist and well-known critic of religion, Harris speaks of morality as a frontier of science not up for religious or philosophical debate. He provides such great insight into the field of ethics that makes it a mandatory read for any current or aspiring scientist. However, the average reader is warned: Harris frequently slams religion and if you already have an unfavorable opinion on science, you will probably find this book difficult to agree with.With growing knowledge of the genetic and molecular basis of human behavior, Harris believes that by studying the states of the brain in relation to events in the world, a universal moral compass can be created to follow by all. Differences in gene expression among human beings highly accounts for the differences in our moral intuition and social perception - or at least our natural inclinations of these. However, just as the expression of certain genes can create biological predispositions unwanted by many individuals (tendency for psychopathy, fatal disease, etc.), Harris posits that it is likewise possible to have an undesirable, harmful moral intuition. Thus, morality cannot be treated as a purely subjective topic - there must be undeniable truths in morality.Harris effectively expresses "truths" and not "truth," specifically, because of what he calls the moral landscape, or the area in which there are multiple high and low points of viewing morality so that a great life can be fulfilled. What every individual wants to achieve in life and what kind of impact they want to leave is undeniably subjective; however, there will always be a right and wrong way to achieve their goal. He demonstrates rational differences between opinions of morality through many examples of torture, rape and suffering, often all in the name of religion. The zealots responsible believe these actions are for the well-being of mankind and produce the greatest happiness possible as promised by their religion; however, Harris cautions blind following of moral reasoning. Poor men and women who are castrated, exiled, who view their children being raped and murdered against their own will surely do not live with the same prosperity and happiness as lives that ensure longevity, wealth and intrinsic personal satisfaction. A sense of morality that leads to the former scenario cannot be the right choice or happier life - it just goes against everyway we think rationally.Perhaps Harris' largest flaw is his advocation of such rationality. Myself an aspiring neuroscientist in college, I've learned that science just should not be based off of the major differences in intrinsic reasoning found among everyone - science is meant to be a focused, honest approach to the mysteries of life. Human rationality itself is a much debated topic. Throwing that uncertainty into the supposed truth of science is very contradictory. However, Harris points out that it is nigh impossible to neglect all reason and rationality in science. His reasoning for that comes through the "moral landscape": since subjective rationality can reflect individuals' personalities, we should acknowledge it to understand the unique ways individuals can achieve a moral life. If an individual cannot listen to their own feelings at least to some degree, then how can they have an honest, happy life?Despite it being the biggest flaw in The Moral Landscape to me, I find he handles it quite well because he makes his arguments very agreeable. When he discusses "being right or wrong," he asks if we should be morally able to synthesize and publish a recipe for smallpox to the public. Due to the fact there will always be extremists who want human society to fall, I agree and feel most would agree that that would be immoral to do because many innocent individuals would die from a few individuals' management of a lethal disease. It's just irony that Harris uses rationality to suggest the usefulness of rationality. Future scientific research could show the use of rationality to be absolutely inappropriate in our search for truth, so Harris' opinion can only be tested with time.However, despite the potential flaw, Harris's really convinces you with his greatest point: what constitutes an individual's well-being and happiness can be proven through neuroscience, as we can see the molecular differences in brain states between unhappy people and happy people. For example, with use of fMRI, we can correlate happiness and quality of life with blood-flow in the brain (in his studies, mainly the prefrontal cortex and parietal lobe are relevant). If certain reactions to stimuli depicting an event deemed to reduce an individual's quality of life cause higher brain activity associated with lower happiness, then we become closer to finding the truths of morality. It is easier to detect unhappiness, Harris suggests, than happiness, as the moral landscape has peaks in which every individual has his/her own pinnacle of maximizing moral decisions with subjective well-being. This is because every individual is still slightly unique in what makes them happy. Thus, he argues that morality should be a followed set of answers rather than a personal open-ended question, as we can find how the correct moral sense leads to what human beings intrinsically deem as "the best possible lives."Along with gene expression and activity in certain brain regions, The Moral Landscape enlightens you on how even evolution plays in determining moral values. Harris posits that we are not evolutionarily adapted for our society - we are not selected to become better government officials or shopkeepers. Thus, as we describe and define moral values with science, he suggests that we must recognize that morality will be impartial to personal thought. For example, Harris describes how individuals who see the life of one disadvantaged individual relevant to charitable organizations are much more likely to donate than if they saw how their donation is necessary for the world at whole. This, he suggests, may represent our selected behavior to care for only a few individuals; while we were not selected to care for the entire world, there is no argument against the entire world needing some form of care. Thus, according to Harris, we must disregard our predisposed beliefs and come to moral conclusions with science.In all, it is a truly inspirational read - a read that has changed my life and has helped me ground the way I think. The text is engaging and very enjoyable - Harris' memorable analogies are not only mind-stimulating but merit his book a delightful re-read. I will always keep this book in mind as I come across moral warfare in the realm of scientific research.

Sam Harris gives us a basis by which we can determine right from wrong without resorting to the default position of religion. However, rather than overtly taking on religion, in his book, he provides a framework for a pan-human model of behavioral choices and social-interaction. In the end, our moral choices are inate, inherent, bound to the group.

I like others had difficulties getting my head around all the concepts he introduced at the beginning of the book. I found myself going back and forth between the chapters of the book and the Notes section. (It was not a nuisance I was practically hooked). A good introduction to the book is his TED talk about "how science can answer moral questions"What he basically argues is that from the point of view of the brain there is little or no neurological difference between facts and values. And that if we agree that morality is about maximising human well-being on a global as well as on an individual level that questions of morality are tacit questions that are subject to scientific enquiry. Of course that is not the only thing he argues, however I suggest you look at TED and if you're still curious you will probably not regret reading this book.I did enjoyed reading it...

There is no more important debate. How do we decide what is right and wrong?Most of the answers we hear are worthless (ranging from "just do it because my holy book says so" to the moral relativists who wont even condemn female genital mutilation).Sam Harris makes the case for a sane alternative...Morality is an evolved human attribute. It is universal - everyone with a normal brain has it. We all know instinctively what is good (love, kindness, compassion...) and what is evil (hatred, cruelty, violence...).Understanding this basis for morality has a priceless reward - we can expect to arrive at a consensus. There is an objective morality because we are all human. And we can discover the details by studying the human mind. Evolutionary psychology - not a religious text - is the route to enlightenment.If our civilisation survives this century it will be because we have learnt how to judge moral issues. This book is an excellent primer. Please read it.