Sam Harris' new book: The Moral Landscape
Locked
|
This post was updated on .
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
Sam Harris Hardcover: 304 pages Publisher: Free Press (October 5, 2010) ISBN-10: 1439171211 ISBN-13: 978-1439171219 http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-02/sam-harris-on-the-moral-landscape/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439171211/thedaibea-20/ Product Description Bringing a fresh perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong and good and evil, Harris demonstrates that we already know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, moral relativism is simply false—and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Amazon Exclusive: Q & A – Sam Harris Q: Are there right and wrong answers to moral questions? Harris: Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world—and there clearly are—then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality. Q: Are you saying that science can answer such questions? Harris: Yes, in principle. Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors—ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world. Wherever we can act so as to have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of morality apply. Q: What do you mean when you talk about a moral landscape? Harris: This is the phrase I use to describe the space of all possible experience—where the peaks correspond to the heights of well-being and valleys represent the worst possible suffering. We are all someplace on this landscape, faced with the prospect of moving up or down. Given that our experience is fully constrained by the laws of the universe, there must be scientific answers to the question of how best to move upwards, toward greater happiness. This is not to say that there is only one right way for human beings to live. There might be many peaks on this landscape—but there are clearly many ways not to be on a peak. Q: How could science guide us on the moral landscape? Harris: Insofar as we can understand human wellbeing, we will understand the conditions that best secure it. Some are obvious, of course. Positive social emotions like compassion and empathy are generally good for us, and we want to encourage them. But do we know how to most reliably raise children to care about the suffering of other people? I'm not sure we do. Are there genes that make certain people more compassionate than others? What social systems and institutions could maximize our sense of connectedness to the rest of humanity? These questions have answers, and only a science of morality could deliver them. Q: How will admitting that there are right and wrong answers to issues of human and animal flourishing transform the way we think and talk about morality? Harris: What I've tried to do in my book is give a framework in which we can think about human values in universal terms. Currently, the most important questions in human life—questions about what constitutes a good life, which wars we should fight or not fight, which diseases should be cured first, etc.—are thought to lie outside the purview of science, in principle. Therefore, we have divorced the most important questions in human life from the context in which our most rigorous and intellectually honest thinking gets done. Moral truth entirely depends on actual and potential changes in the well-being of conscious creatures. As such, there are things to be discovered about it through careful observation and honest reasoning. It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values—allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals—is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do. |
|
|
This post was updated on .
Sam Harris says morality can be scientific
October 10, 2010 Brian Hines Church of the Churchless http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2010/10/sam-harris-says-morality-can-be-scientific.html ...In his newest book what he's attacking is the oft-heard notion that science deals with facts and religion with meanings. Given this assumption, much of the moral battlefield is ceded to armies of warring combatants brandishing competing holy scriptures and sacred sayings. Those of us who value reason, reality, logic, and the scientific method are relegated to the sidelines. However, the central point of The Moral Landscape is that human knowledge and human values can no longer be kept apart. As we learn more about what contributes to the well-being of us Homo sapiens, and what doesn't, it would be crazy to set aside our sapience and blindly follow the moral advice of religious pre-scientific magical-thinkers who were (and sadly, still are) mired in supernatural superstitions and fantasies. ... ...religiosity prevents us from seeing moral truths clearly. Good becomes bad, and bad becomes good, when people overlay what is actually happening in the world with imagined desires, wishes, laws, or commandments of an unseen "higher power." ... ...Harris is absolutely correct when he says: "There are surely physical, chemical, and biological facts about which we may be ignorant or mistaken. In speaking of "moral truth," I am saying that there must be facts regarding human and animal well-being about which we can also be ignorant or mistaken. In both cases, science -- and rational thought generally -- is the tool we can use to uncover these facts. "...Meaning, values, morality, and the good life must relate to facts about the well-being of conscious creatures -- and, in our case, must lawfully depend upon events in the world and upon states of the human brain. Rational, open-ended inquiry has always been the true souce of insight into such processes. Faith, if it is ever right about anything, is right by accident." |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
Review on Sam Harris's book The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
http://kazez.blogspot.com/2010/10/moral-landscape-complete.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
Having just finished Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape, I
found what I think is a pretty fair review of it on this site at http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/features/morality-without-transcendence It concludes: "The point is that values are not logical deductions from the measurements of processes taking place inside peoples’ heads but are instead arrived at through a complex and continually evolving interplay of experience, reflection, and debate. As such they are, and should be, decided by society as a whole and not, as Harris would want, by groups of experts. Whether or not there exists a supernatural being, Harris’s view of morality falls short because it is narrowly materialistic. Ethics, while a branch of reason, is not science." Although I agree that Harris doesn't at all establish his thesis that ethics is a branch of science, he does in my opinion do us an important service by debunking contra-causal free will and drawing out the progressive implications for compassion and social practices, especially criminal justice, see pp. 102-112. This is an implication of naturalism I've been promoting for a long time, so it's nice to see it taken up by Harris. Hope others will follow suit. best, Tom Clark to IRASNET Nov 9, 2010 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
Starting reading it now. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
The Moral Landscape Challenge
Sam Harris August 31, 2013 http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge1 It has been nearly three years since The Moral Landscape was first published in English, and in that time it has been attacked by readers and nonreaders alike. Many seem to have judged from the resulting cacophony that the book’s central thesis was easily refuted. However, I have yet to encounter a substantial criticism that I feel was not adequately answered in the book itself (and in subsequent talks). So I would like to issue a public challenge. Anyone who believes that my case for a scientific understanding of morality is mistaken is invited to prove it in 1,000 words or less. (You must refute the central argument of the book—not peripheral issues.) The best response will be published on this website, and its author will receive $1,000. If any essay actually persuades me, however, its author will receive $10,000, and I will publicly recant my view. Submissions will be accepted here the week of February 2-9, 2014. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
The Mirror of Mindfulness
Two Guided Meditations September 26, 2013 http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/mindfulness-meditation I wrote an article on meditation two years ago, and since then many readers have asked for further guidance on how to practice. As I said in my original post, I generally recommend a method called vipassana in which one cultivates a form of attention widely known as “mindfulness.” There is nothing spooky or irrational about mindfulness, and the literature on its psychological benefits is now substantial. Mindfulness is simply a state of clear, nonjudgmental, and nondiscursive attention to the contents of consciousness, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Developing this quality of mind has been shown to reduce pain, anxiety, and depression; improve cognitive function; and even produce changes in gray matter density in regions of the brain related to learning and memory, emotional regulation, and self-awareness. I will cover the relevant philosophy and science in my next book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion, but in the meantime, I have produced two guided meditations (9 minutes and 26 minutes) for those of you who would like to get started with the practice. |
«
Return to Atheism, Humanism, Naturalism 無神論、人文主義、自然主義
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |