I will indeed be reading it sometime soon. Thanks Steve. Also, Dave (Thomas) mentioned Karen Armstrong's TED Talk a few months ago. I'm just reading her latest "The Case For God" .... looks promising for a more balanced view of religion's place in the moral landscape.
Ian On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
