The Moral Landscape is an intelligent and well-researched work that engages the reader to question if notions of fact and value are really that different, but this landscape is not without its pitfalls.
On November 1st there is a book group meeting to discuss The Moral Landscape so I shall review the book in a way that makes it easier to examine different ideas and themes by presenting a list of the main positives (peaks) and negatives (valleys) I saw in the book.
Peaks
1) Conscious well-being – Harris argues that this is the only thing one should and could care about. All notions of happiness and suffering are contained within the phrase “well-being” and we want more of the positive than the negative. It is “conscious” because that is all we experience. It is true that subconscious events affect us, but that really means that they have an effect on our conscious well-being. Although I’m not 100% convinced, there does seem to be a lot of truth to this and this is likely what we care about most often.
2) The Moral Landscape has peaks and valleys – Harris tackles head on the fact that some ways of living are better than others and we can investigate these discrepancies further to better understand ourselves and better ways to live. This message may seem obvious to some and challenging to others, hopefully more people will admit to the former.
3) Fact & Value – Many think these must be different because not everyone agrees on moral issues. Harris rightly points out that we rarely use mass consensus to determine other issues (look to polls about scientific or any other type of knowledge), but we can all admit that some ways are better than others (…so he argues). Restated, it is important to draw parallels to other areas of knowledge and ignorance and how such discrepancies don’t force people to abandon notions of objective X.
4) Clarity – Harris is quite clear about what he is arguing, what he means and what he doesn’t mean, and provides responses to anticipated criticism. While this is how all books should be, not all authors seem to agree or can write that way.
5) Interesting – For those who like philosophy and science, there are many interesting things in The Moral Landscape. Aside from the main content, one reads about different selves, (the illusion of) the illusion of free will, psychopathy, recent findings in neuroscience and various tidbits (mainly from psychology) along the way.
6) Thought-provoking – Harris forces the reader to clarify their own positions in relation to his argument. If you disagree, you should be prepared to say why.
Valleys
1) Disagree? Dismissed – Harris wants you to agree with him about his notion of well-being, and if you don’t, then he says your opinion doesn’t count. Additionally, if you disagree it is about conscious well-being, then your opinion doesn’t count. Further, if you disagree that extreme horror isn’t worse than tranquil delight, then your opinion doesn’t count. I am sympathetic to many of these points, but not to the degree that I can fully support his stance. (See below)
2) Arguing Extremes (Straw man; Slippery slope fallacies)
Throughout the book I was continually disappointed by Harris’ reliance upon an extreme example to try to prove a point. It was if he had a strategy of “One, Two, Extreme” and wasn’t afraid to use it. He begins by describing an issue, then providing some analysis which almost makes you agree with him, and then instead of further analysis he provides you with some extreme situation or example that you can’t disagree with.
The example I made up below isn’t quite the same, but it gives the right idea (Three is real content):
One: Different cultures have different practices.
Two: Some people think all these different practices are equally valid.
Three: If you agree with point two you are crazy because then you validate things like this: “Generose Namburho [is] a 40-year-old former nurse [who lives in the Congo]. Namburho is a stocky, self-assured woman who led us down a mud path, using a crutch to replace her missing right leg. An extremist Hutu militia invaded Namburho’s home a few years ago, killed her husband, raped her and then hacked off her leg with a knife. Then the soldiers cooked the flesh from her leg and forced her children at gunpoint to eat it. When her beloved oldest son refused, they shot him in front of her.”
Surely you don’t think children should be forced to eat their mother’s leg, do you?!
I think such argumentative structures are counterproductive because they do not address the all important middle case (and typically raise emotions which do not help with reasoning).
3) Science can’t really determine human values(?) The subtitle of the book is “How Science Can Determine Human Values” so one is given to thinking that most of our moral questions will be answered. The problem is that so far there are only general answers. Harris wisely admits that there can be equivalent peaks on the moral landscape, where there are alternate ways of achieving a similar good, but, problematically, there is little way to figure out which path to take. Additionally, Harris states that quite often there might only be answers in principle, not in practice. Harris believes this is an important point, and it is, but not to the degree he ascribes. To say that whatever is the most reasonable way to calculate collective well-being will be the most reasonable way to do it, is both true and unhelpful. True, it does follow from other premises about the nature of what we value and our notions of well-being, but because of the complexity of moral systems (i.e., us), how are we going to do this? Harris readily admits that it may be impossible for science to figure these things out. So then what is so new here? Near the end of the book (p. 183) Harris says we don’t need science to tell us many of the things we already know about having better lives. Cruelty and being tortured are bad; nearly all agree. What we all (probably) wanted is more detail on the gray areas, but there isn’t much to be found in this book on such important issues. Knowing what is wrong and knowing what is right are different things (i.e., it is easier to point out how not to live than to say how to do so). Additionally, near the end (p. 189) he uses the phrasing “the claim that science could have something important to say about human values…” and that is far more modest than science determining them. This is exactly why the Is/Ought distinction is so important.
Harris seems to be saying that science cannot determine specific moral actions in practice. If that is true, then there isn’t much to disagree with. This particular topic probably warrants the most discussion (and has also received it thus far – see responses to his TED talk).
Perhaps the subtitle should have been “Science could, perhaps theoretically, determine human values, but not what we should value, unless you agree with my other arguments.”
Granted the length makes it a poor subtitle, but something less misleading could have been picked.
4) Disagreement is met with condescension – This is separate from number one as it is slightly different. While it is understandable that moral issues are of grave concern, I do not think that people should be denigrated (at least in public) for holding different (modest) views. Someone might disagree with you because they are informed and disagree, not because they are confused or stupid. All too often Harris sees his opposition as intellectual bankrupt or baffled (when they might be neither). Harris says Mooney is confused because he wants there to be accommodation and ‘spiritual atheism’ but Harris doesn’t criticize Dan Dennett for wanting to reclaim the word spiritual (Dennett was a key reviewer of the book). Perhaps it is an issue of who his intended audience is.
5) Interesting, but lacking coherence. The content of the Moral Landscape was indeed interesting, but most of the bits after the first few chapters didn’t seem to flow as well, nor was a strong case made to tie the content back to the overall thesis. I think Harris could have filled things in a bit more. For example, how does our lack of free will impinge upon our ability to even recognize a moral landscape?
After all that, I guess you’ll know if you should read it or not. I think it was worthwhile but I can’t say I’ll recommend this to many who are not already in the science/skepticism/atheist world.
2010/10/27 at 12:02 am
Your “valley 3″ was what concerned me the most when I watched his talk on TED. He appeared to make a lot of reasonable (if vague) arguments concerning our innate ability to determine moral choices in extreme circumstances but never really outlined how science can “determine human values”… I’m curious as to what the group is going to make of it (unfortunately I won’t have a chance to read the book before then).
2010/10/27 at 10:11 am
Just from his TED presentation, it is not clear what distinguishes him from a run-of-the-mill utilitarian. Philosophers have argued for centuries about objective moral standards – and “conscious well being” is the argument that has been made by utilitarians. I would be interested to know if his book confronts many of the underlying issues and critiques of this outlook, or merely tries to ground it in biology/psychology.
2010/10/29 at 12:00 pm
Alex,
Harris’s moral landscape concept is innately utilitarian. He is not the first to bring these ideas to the table, and he concedes that.
What makes his argument distinct is that he is arguing that utilitarianism informed by science constitutes an objective morality, rather than a subjective one.
The book is by and far an argument against moral relativism even more than it is an argument against religious/revealed morality.
2010/10/29 at 5:01 pm
I agree with your description of Harris’ argument Tony, my issues are that he didn’t bill the book as an argument against relativism, or primarily against a religious morality (which he could have explored more), but as science providing all or most of the answers. I look forward to the discussion on Monday and I’ll probably soon comment below too.
2010/10/28 at 6:34 pm
I personally do not see how science can determine Human values.
There is many things that science is good at explaining and there are many things that science cannot and probably may never be able to explain.
Human values depend on what Humanity’s goal or goals are and what it is Humans want to be and achieved or accomplished – these are human values – the goals or what it is that Humans want to be accomplished…..
There seems to be an assumption that is being made that the goal is the greatest collective happiness for everyone. So it appears that the basic assumption is a human value that should be questioned and determined by science.
Perhaps fulfillment or having meaning and purpose in life is more important than happiness (ie. fanatical Communists, Nazi’s, Moslem extremists, suicide bombers, fanatical members of any organization). Than people will argue that fulfillment or having meaning and purpose in life give people happiness. Than the human values would involve what the best methods are for achieving the most happiness for the most people.
However, it could be that the advancement or survival of the human race are more important than the happiness of the individual members of the human race..
This could be a human value…survival..
Or Humanity’s progress as a whole could be more important than the individual happiness of its individual members – ———– progress
In part it must involve what is more important – the good of the individual or the good of the group.. this is a human value… it cannot be determined by science – it is a human construct…
Different cultures put different values on the importance of the individual and the importance of the group.
eg.’s
the U.S.A. is the culture that probably puts the most emphasis on the importance of the indiviual over the importance of the group…
primitive cultures and less developed cultures (possibly Moslem or Arab cultures) put more emphasis on the well being of the group than the individual..
For example;
Good for one, bad for all..
Good for all, bad for one…
A possible theoretical and hypothetical mind games could be…
- “if killing one person would bring great joy and happiness to many people (one million people or pick your own number)would it be justified?????
And I am sure this has happened in the past
- burning witches, executing mass/serial murderers, killing people with differnt religious or political views than the ones that you have…
If killing one person could and would result in saving the lives of a great many people would it be justified?????
(this is probably what Harris’s torture example is all about)
There are court cases that have exonerated groups from murder for killing one of their own for their own survival.
eg.’s
sailors stranded on an island killing and eating one of their own to survive
mountain climbers cutting loose one of their group that has fallen and is danglinng from a rope that is tied to all of the rest of them and will drag them all to their death – cutting him loose to fall to his death to save the rest of them..
Is the survival of the group more important than the survival or happiness of the lives of its individual members?????
Is the survival of the Human Race more important than the survival or happiness of the lives of its individual members?????
These are human values that will never be able to be answered by science – because they are questions that involve what
mankind wants to achieve, what its goals are,, which can only be determined by mankind and what methods will best serve mankind in attempting to achieve these goals.
eg. happiness or survival or progress
There are no right or wrong answers,
only different answers,
that give different results.
Thoughts of
Humanist Dave
2010/10/29 at 11:52 am
Dave,
I am worried that there may be some “straw-manning” going on here On Sam Harris. Much of what I have read here is an assumption of what Harris is saying rather than an examination of what his book actually says. Harris takes on 3 views on morality and heavily opposes them all. They are: Moral Relativism (which you are advancing), Religious Morality, and morality driven by evolution.
Harris in no way advocates the “what’s good for the many, overrides what’s good for the individual.” In fact, he states that getting stuck on that dilemma (and others you have posed) and allowing ourselves to descend into moral relativism as a result is exactly the problem getting in the way of a solid scientific understanding of morality. Just because there are some questions that are really hard or almost impossible to answer because we lack the ability to gather enough information to answer them, it doesn’t mean that we should reject the idea of an objective morality wholesale.
He likens a science of morality to the science of physical health:
Yes, there are many foods you can eat that would constitute healthy eating, and we can study these different foods and the impact they have on the body. We would never proscribe that people should eat just one type of food as the only way to eat healthy. We certainly would not say that all food is healthy just because we can’t agree on only one food that everyone should eat as being the only healthy food.
There is a clear scientific distinction between what constitutes food, and what constitutes poison. We can say with scientific certainty that are some things you should just not eat, because they will make you sick, or even kill you.
When it comes to morality, we seem to have trouble accepting the idea that there may be a science of it, because we feel unable to agree upon one definitive definition of being moral. Because we can’t agree on that definition, some feel that it follows that any definition is equally valid as the next (Moral Relativism). While “living the good life” is just as nebulous as the idea of being “in good physical health”, there is still enough clarity to be able to identify instances that are clearly negative.
In order to make sense of the “clearly negative” part, he grounds his argument in this proposition:
“All moral questions reduce to a concern for the conscious state of well-being of one or more conscious creatures.”
Conscious state of well-being can be considered a gradient between bliss and suffering. While this seems nebulous, again, compare it to the concept of being in “good physical health”. In the future, we may live to be 200 years old, and in the past we may have only have hoped to live 30 years. The fact that “good health” is a moving target does not stop us from being able to scientifically determine when we are in a state of “bad health” today.
A lot of time is spent in the book examining how people actually weigh their analysis of conscious state of well-being of various parties involved in a moral decision. He discusses studies that show that as you add more people to one “party”, that the perception of the suffering does not cumulate. For example, A murder in your city gets a much larger reaction than a genocide in the Sudan. This presents big challenges when we enter into discussions of “what’s good for the many, overrides what’s good for the individual”.
One of the things that I found compelling is how he includes the supernatural entities of religious believers in his model as “conscious creatures” in which one could be concerned of their state of well-being. He discards the discussion of whether or not they exist, hoping that it will shine a better light on moral behavior. This was an obvious but very important thing to do, because it gives his moral landscape model a deeper sense of comprehensiveness in it’s inclusion of believers. He explains how a believer would weigh the state of bliss/suffering of these entities, and in cases where that state is of great concern to them, we can clearly start to see why some do such radical things. Once we understand how the “moral equation” in the believers mind has been weighed, we can then see even more clearly why an ongoing discussion as to the existence of these entities is absolutely paramount.
I look at this book as laying a foundation in which we can understand morality in an objective manner, and suggest what type of information must be gathered scientifically to ground that understanding. The book is a roadmap, not a destination. I think Harris has reopened a very important can of worms in a very intelligent way, and whether or not you agree with some of his premises, it will make you think much deeper about what you think about morality.
Anyone that would consider themselves on the side of moral relativism should most definitely read this book, because it is the first heavy assault on it that is not coming from a religious figure. It may not change your views, but it will sure give you a few good challenges to think about.
2010/10/29 at 5:09 pm
I think the main problem is how the utilitarian calculus works out. I think Harris should have chosen a softer subtitle/presentation or provide greater detail on just which selves, in which time and place, should have their conscious well-being counted, and how this would be calculated.
I agree that relativism is silly (except when it is phrased as ‘equivalent peaks’) and that religion shouldn’t be the core, but saying ‘objective’ is misleading.
I too liked the health analogy and we know some things are poor health and our understanding of our physical health will change. But I see this more as a greater scientific understanding of health, not “Science determining health practices.”
I’ll re-work your example a bit about food and poison and say that at the extremes it is obvious, but for the most part, poison is in the dose. At high enough levels, water is poisonous. So, since we already know the extremes are good or bad, we want to know the middle stuff. This is where he comes up a bit short.
Again, good to make you think, but I often wonder who his intended audience is. If it is the moral relativists, I’m not sure they would like his presentation. If it is for people who already agree with him, then… ?
2010/11/01 at 1:28 pm
In response to Tony’s comment that I favour the rights of the group over the individual.
This is not correct – I did not take a position on that issue – I used the issue of the well being of the group versus the rights of the individual in the group as being an example of an issue that cannot be determined by science.
The well beng of the group versus the rights of the individual is a human construct that dependents on what the goals and objectives of the group and its individual members are determined to be and what it is that the group and the individuals in the group determine what it is. Different societies come up with different balances between the well being of the group and the rights of its individual members.
Also, it is not an all or nothing, or a black and white issue – it is a spectrum
or different shades of gray type of issue involving a balance.
In war time, the balance always shift to the well being of the group (the survival of the group) over the rights of its individual members..
If humanity becomes involved in a crisis of survival, it would be interesting to see the effect that would have on morality and ethics.
And sometime in the next 100 years, humanist may become involved in a crisis of survival..
I did use some examples that some may have interpreted as being my favouring the rights of the individual over the well being of the group – but they were just used as examples to illustrate the point.
I do believe that morals and ethics are a human construct and are based on the goals and objectives of that society and the individual members of that society.
I do not believe that one set of morals and ethics can apply to everyone, everywhere, all of the time and under all circumstances.
For example, the morals and ethics of a tribal, desert people that lived 3,0000 years ago may not be valid today…
Science has replaced religion in many areas in the modern era in explaining things and determining how things should be done…
So some people want to take what they see as the next step and have science replace religion in the determination of morals.
Especially since some of the positions taken by some of the religions is so very objectionable by modern standards and irrational (ie. the Roman Chatholic Church, extremist Moslems, some fundamentalist sects, etc.) and in some cases even rejects science (creationism/evolution).
In the past it was religion that determined morals, now some people want it to be science that determines morals. It is a dilema, who has the authority now in our modern era to determine what is moral and ethical.
Certainly science has a role to play in challenging the more irrational and nonscientific aspects of religious morality.
Both science and religion will have a part and role in human society’s determing what it values, what its objectives are and what it wants to achieve which will determine the form and nature of its morals.
Logical rational thinking will be very important in determing morals – or at least it should be
I did see a comment on the secular7 email list that killing some one is never justified – I would be interested in knowing
what the scientific basis is for supporting that position..
I also feel that some people’s position on this topic is more like a religious belief..
Not that they believe in religion, but that their position or belief is the right position or belief and that any other position or belief is wrong, even any small or slight deviation from that position or belief.
I did conclude my last comments with the words that
“there is no right or wrong answers,
only different answers,
that give different results.
and with the observation that;
“what can be good for the individual
can be bad for the group, and
what can be bad for the individual
can be good for the group.
Thoughts of
Humanist Dave “B”
2010/11/01 at 2:43 pm
Dave,
I was referring to the quote from your first post:
“There seems to be an assumption that is being made that the goal is the greatest collective happiness for everyone.”
I was pointing out that there is no assumption of this being made. When I said that you were advocating this, I meant that you were advocating that someone was advancing this position. No one is, and Sam Harris is not.
The part where Harris would think you are getting stuck is in this statement:
“The well being of the group versus the rights of the individual is a human construct that dependents on what the goals and objectives of the group and its individual members are determined to be and what it is that the group and the individuals in the group determine what it is.”
Harris’s main point is that: these “goals and objectives” that you are talking about that the parties are “determining” are not based on some nebulous unknowable thing. They are based on people’s understanding or ignorance of facts about the world around them.
His main claim in the book is that values are reducible to facts. This in Harris’s mind means that there can be a science of morality.
2010/11/03 at 1:26 pm
The book club met on Monday, November 01 at the Fox and Feather Pub to discuss Sam Harris’s book – “The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values” a book that advocates that science should be the determinate of our morals.
There was at least 20 people at the meeting which is probably nearing the limit of the number of people that can be handled at these meetings…
There was a very good and controlled discussion by the group on the book itself and on the issue of whether science can or should determine human values, which was very well moderated by Novak Jankovic – good job Novak,
thanks very much Novak…
Darren was the book presenter (replacing Tony who was unable to make it to the meeting) and he did an excellent job of summarizing the book and critiquing it – pointing out what he perceived and considered to be some of the weaknesses in the book.. thanks very much for a great job well done Darren…
My comment:
I did think that the discussion focused more on the use of science to determine human morals than it did on the use of science to determine human values – although I am sure some people will say that they are in fact the same thing. To me it is human values that determine what human morals will be – it is a fine distinction that I am sure not all people will agree with.
Not everyone at the book club meeting had read the book – maybe even most of the people there had not read the book – this is perfectly okay as this is not a conventional book club where only the book is discussed, it is a book club where the issue is also discussed by people that have not read the book.. Those that have read the book than may point out, if they wish, the book’s take on that particular point..
That is the reason why the books are usually nonfiction and focus on issues that are dear to the hearts of nonbelievers…
And it is why this book club is different from other book clubs, and is so popular with Humanists…
The next book club meeting is on the evening of Monday, November 06 at the Fox and Feather at 7:00pm.
The book is “50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists” by Russell Blackford and Udo Schüklenk to be presented by Seanna…
Humanist Dave “B”
An Ordinary
HAO Member
2010/11/04 at 12:37 am
In response to both Tony and Alex and maybe Darren:
We, meaning Humanist Dave, Tony, Alex and maybe Darren, seem to be talking about three different things – Human values, human morals and human rights…
I agree that these three concepts are inter-related and entangled with each other but I see them as three different things, which some other people may not.. Sam Harris’s book seems to focus on human morals, not human values.
He starts off with the assumption that the human value is the conscious well being of the individuals – which I characterized as being the happiness of the individuals involved – perhaps incorrectly as he does not really specify what the conscious well being of individuals is….
It seems to me that it is human values that determine what human morals will be which determine what human rights should be…
Tony;
I am now not sure if I was responding to Darren’s comments posted by Tony or to Tony’s comments.
But my comments were misinterpreted – I was not taking the position that the collective welfare of a group/society is more important than the welfare of the individuals in that group/society or indicating that Sam Harris is taking that position. I was using it as an example that some people value the welfare of the group/society (the collective welfare) over the welfare of the individuals in the group and some people value the welfare of the individuals in the group/society over the welfare of the group/society (the collective welfare) – this is an example of a human value that will determine the morals of a society and that there are other very basic human value that will also impact on the determination of morals.
Harris refers to the human values as the conscious well being of individuals.
However, I can see that my statement that:
“There seems to be an assumption that is being made that the goal is the greatest collective happiness for everyone.”
could and apparently was interpreted as meaning that I was attributing that the collective well being is more important than the well being of the individuals in that group as being Sam Harris’s position.
It would have been more accurate and precise for me to have said that the assumption Sam Harris is making in his book is that the conscious well being of the greatest number of individuals in the group is the human value
on which Sam Harris was basing the determination of morality.
Sam Harris did not specify what that conscious well being is specifically and that is the human value that cannot be determined by science, that can only be determined by humans..
He also did not specify how the conscious well being of the individuals relates to the well being of the group/society (the common collective welfare) whether or not that is conscious…
I also assumed that we are talking about the morals that society has for the individuals in that society and not the individual morals of the individuals in that society…
The morals that society has for the individuals in its society will be a human construct by the individuals in that society. The are different types of people, (we are not all the same) and different people have different needs and wants; therefore these people will need or want different things for their conscious well being.. they will value different things differently and therefore have different human values. The human values and therefore the morals of a society will be determined by the dominate group.. not by science…
Rational thinking, logic and reason assisted by science can be used to determine the morality that will best achieve and accommodate the values of the dominate group of individuals (which hopefully is the majority) which will only be determined by what the individuals in the group/society value, not by science.
Science can determine what people need but not what people want and not what people value.
ie. suicide bombers value the common welfare of their group more than their lives – same as Japanese kamazee pilots – and in every war there are soldiers that sacrifice their lives for the common welfare..
However,
I think that Tony and others feel that science is the end all and be all that can provide the answers to everything, and
I do not believe that science can provide all of the answers to everything all of the time,
although it can be used to improve things and make a better world,
it does not have all of the answer and it cannot make a perfect world for everyone.
I doubt that either Tony and others or myself will change the way we think about this issue (The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values) so we should agree to disagree and accept that.
But it is fun and interesting discussing this matter and getting the views and opinions of others on morals…
And we all agree that religion should no longer be determining our morals
- especially since some aspects of it are so objectionable, irrational and abhorrent.
And Sam Harris’s book does challenge the concept of religion determining our morals….
Thoughts of
Humanist Dave “B”
An Ordinary
HAO Member
2010/11/13 at 1:18 am
The is-ought fallacy is a real fallacy, and is why knowledge is justified, true belief. In order to be knowledge, a belief must both be justified by the evidence, and true by correspondence. If we consider justified a belief that only corresponds, we commit the is-ought fallacy. If we consider a belief true merely due to evidence in favor of it, we commit the ought-is fallacy. Related to moral truth–if a justified (answering the question of Ethics–”How and why should we be or behave with the Other and self?”) moral standard doesn’t describe anything in reality, to consider it “true” commits the ought-is fallacy. If we take something from reality and call it moral truth, neglecting to consider whether it is justified (answering the question of Ethics), we commit the is-ought fallacy. In order for there to be moral truth, it must both correspond to (a) real being, and it must be justified (answering the question of Ethics). Its correspondence is not its justification (is=/=ought), and its justification is not its correspondence (ought=/=is).