[MD] The Moral Landscape

[Steven Peterson]

Hi All,

I suppose anyone interested in the national conversation about morals
such as all MOQers will want to read Harris's book which has just been
released.

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286454755&sr=8-1

I look forward to discussing it with you.

Best,
Steve


Harris:
"The people of Albania have a venerable tradition of vendetta called
“Kanun”: If a man commits a murder, his victim’s family can kill any
one of his male relatives in reprisal. If a boy has the misfortune of
being the son or brother of a murderer, he must spend his days and
nights in hiding, forgoing a proper education, adequate health care,
and the pleasures of a normal life. Untold numbers of Albanian men and
boys live as prisoners of their homes even now. Can we say that the
Albanians are morally wrong to have structured their society in this
way? Is their tradition of blood feud a form of evil? Are their values
inferior to our own?

Most people imagine that science cannot pose, much less answer,
questions of this sort. How could we ever say, as a matter of
scientific fact, that one way of life is better, or more moral, than
another? Whose definition of “better” or “moral” would we use?
Scientists generally believe that answers to questions of human value
will fall perpetually beyond our reach—not because human subjectivity
is too difficult to study, or the brain too complex, but because there
is no intellectual justification for speaking about right and wrong,
or good and evil, in universal terms. While many scientists now study
the evolution of morality, as well as its underlying neurobiology, the
purpose of their research is merely to describe how human beings think
and behave. No one expects science to tell us how we should think and
behave. Controversies about human values are controversies about which
science officially has no opinion.

This has made science appear divorced, in principle, from the most
important questions of human life. While most educated people will
concede that the scientific method has delivered centuries of fresh
embarrassment to religion on matters of fact, it is now an article of
almost unquestioned certainty, both inside and outside scientific
circles, that science has nothing to say about what constitutes a good
life. Religious thinkers in all faiths, and on both ends of the
political spectrum, are united on precisely this point: The defense
one most often hears for belief in God is not that there is compelling
evidence for His existence, but that faith in Him is the only reliable
source of meaning and moral guidance. Mutually incompatible religious
traditions now take refuge behind the same non sequitur.

As I argue in my new book, The Moral Landscape, questions about
values—about meaning, morality, and life’s larger purpose—are really
questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Throughout the
book I make reference to a hypothetical space that I call “the moral
landscape”—a space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks
correspond to the heights of potential well-being and whose valleys
represent the deepest possible suffering. Different ways of thinking
and behaving—different cultural practices, ethical codes, modes of
government, etc.—will translate into movements across this landscape
and, therefore, into different degrees of human flourishing. I’m not
suggesting that we will necessarily discover one right answer to every
moral question, or a single best way for human beings to live. Some
questions may admit of many answers, each more or less equivalent.
However, the existence of multiple peaks on the moral landscape does
not make them any less real or worthy of discovery. Nor would it make
the difference between being on a peak and being stuck deep in a
valley any less clear or consequential..."
...
read on at http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-02/sam-harris-on-the-moral-landscape/?cid=hp:mainpromo7