Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape"
Nov. 11th, 2010 08:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
spoonlessvia ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
crasch,
In this highly anticipated new book, the bestselling author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation calls for an end to religion’s monopoly on morality and human values.
"In this explosive new book, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken about the relationship between morality and the rest of human knowledge. Harris urges us to think about morality in terms of human and animal well-being, viewing the experiences of conscious creatures as peaks and valleys on a “moral landscape.” Because there are definite facts to be known about where we fall on this landscape, Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of “morality”; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible." - The Free Press
"I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me." - Richard Dawkins
Very interesting! This caught my eye because of my recent debate witheaswaran over whether science might ever be able to bridge the "is-ought" gap and give moral prescriptions:
http://spoonless.livejournal.com/180836.html?thread=1532772#t1532772
As I argue in the thread witheaswaran, I do not think science will ever be able to say anything about fundamental values, and I do not believe there are objectively right or wrong answers to questions like "how many kittens lives is one human life worth?" I've never believed that moral "truths" are the same kinds of truths that we talk about when we talk about facts about the world--rather, I think they are facts about our personal desires and whims, which are inherently subjective. But I have great respect for Richard Dawkins, and if he says this book (which just came out a month ago) has completely changed his mind on such an important issue, then I will surely give it a chance--perhaps it can change my mind too. Somehow I doubt it, but nevertheless I look forward to reading it! While I've never agreed with the idea of objective morality, I have always found the possibility positively tantalizing and have often thought "I'd like nothing more than for that to be true--I wish it was, but I know it couldn't possibly be."
crasch,In this highly anticipated new book, the bestselling author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation calls for an end to religion’s monopoly on morality and human values.
"In this explosive new book, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken about the relationship between morality and the rest of human knowledge. Harris urges us to think about morality in terms of human and animal well-being, viewing the experiences of conscious creatures as peaks and valleys on a “moral landscape.” Because there are definite facts to be known about where we fall on this landscape, Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of “morality”; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible." - The Free Press
"I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me." - Richard Dawkins
Very interesting! This caught my eye because of my recent debate with
easwaran over whether science might ever be able to bridge the "is-ought" gap and give moral prescriptions:http://spoonless.livejournal.com/180836.html?thread=1532772#t1532772
As I argue in the thread with
easwaran, I do not think science will ever be able to say anything about fundamental values, and I do not believe there are objectively right or wrong answers to questions like "how many kittens lives is one human life worth?" I've never believed that moral "truths" are the same kinds of truths that we talk about when we talk about facts about the world--rather, I think they are facts about our personal desires and whims, which are inherently subjective. But I have great respect for Richard Dawkins, and if he says this book (which just came out a month ago) has completely changed his mind on such an important issue, then I will surely give it a chance--perhaps it can change my mind too. Somehow I doubt it, but nevertheless I look forward to reading it! While I've never agreed with the idea of objective morality, I have always found the possibility positively tantalizing and have often thought "I'd like nothing more than for that to be true--I wish it was, but I know it couldn't possibly be."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-12-03 09:01 pm (UTC)Most of the work on interpretation of quantum mechanics these days is done by philosophers, but there are a few physicists who also contribute from time to time (like Tom Banks).
I went to two different philosophy lectures on the interpretation of quantum mechanics while I was at UCSC, and they were both very interesting. Although sadly, I think philosophers could benefit from understanding the physics a bit better, some of them have a somewhat loose grasp on it. Tom also published a paper on his view of how to interpret quantum mechanics while I was there--actually, I guess it wasn't published, he just put it on arxiv.org for people to read.
And of course, Bruce and Fred wrote their book on the subject, unfortunately they are both so ignorant of philosophy they end up saying a lot of silly things about consciousness and free will. I think the best work gets done when physicists and philosophers work together, or when people cross over from one field to the other.
There's a picture I have of Tom standing next to David Albert, one of the foremost philosophers of physics who specializes on interpretations of quantum mechanics. They were at a conference dedicated to understanding the Arrow of Time, something else Tom also wrote a paper on, and that lots of philosophers like to think about too.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-04 05:55 pm (UTC)I should thus mention that when I referred to philosophy as "a human approximation to the truth", I was directing this at the parts of philosophy that deal with figuring out "rules to live by" or "morals" and etc. The type of philosophy above would be separate and necessary, as it is more of a translation interface between the sciences and humans.