I write for myself, for my own pleasure. And I want to be left alone to do it. - Salinger ^(;,;)^
“The fact that millions of people use the term "morality" as a synonym for religious dogmatism, racism, sexism, or other failures of insight and compassion should not oblige us to merely accept their terminology until the end of time.”
― Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape
I've avoided Sam Harris probably from a bit of prejudice. Although I've always enjoyed Christopher Hitchens, I've thought others of the New Atheists a bit shrill. I just assumed Sam Harris was going to be more hammer and less scalpel. I was wrong. I really enjoyed this book. While there is little doubt what Sam Harris feels about religion, his method here is more an attempt to 'cut a third path' through the wilderness between those educated liberals who think there is no universal foundation for human values AND the claim that a universal morality requires the support of faith-based religion. Obviously, being able to criticize religion plays a part of this effort, but Sam Harris (in this book at least) seems more interested in pushing people to think that a scientific approach to morality is at least an important step. I agree. The idea that science has an important thing to say about values and morals is fundamental.
Let me start with what is good about this book. It is well written and easy to follow; at no point did I find the discussion confusing or have to rewind and relisten. Sam Harris does a decent job narrating the book as well, though I do think it would be better if a professional reader had read the text instead.
The bad, unfortunately, is the actual content of the book. First, let me answer the big question; what kind of moral philosophy is Sam Harris putting forth? It's nothing fundamentally new; it's just utilitarianism. His arguments contain all of the strengths and flaws of utilitarianism. He fails to adequately address any of the flaws. Harris also often resorts to the "Can anyone doubt...?" tactic to avoid defending or discussing key premises or assumptions in ethical thought.
I think anyone that is moderately well read in ethical philosophy will gain little from this book. If you're looking to learn about ethics, and you're not well read on the subject, I'd recommend A History of Ethical Thought (also on Audible) over this any day.
A fellow listener inclined to share my opinion on these productions. Maybe even inspire someone toward a powerful, or educational audiobook!
As the title was ending anxiety arose for I again didn't want it to. So many different thinking points covered and still no Idea where to go from here. I decided to just listen to it again.
I especially enjoyed the controversial section about the non-existence of 'freewill'. I have come across this previously in physics books but never with a clear concise argument against it as found here in this masterpiece.
P.S. If you actually read this far and make it here, the title of this review is a meaningless non-sequitur. lol
Buy this book you will like it regardless of your religious biases...I hope.
Private intellectual, writer, and retired academic. Currently R&D director for Gravitational Systems Engineering, Inc.
I was really disappointed with this book from the start, but after reading a couple of similar texts I decided to go back and give it a fair hearing. I left with the conclusion that this guy is as inflexible in his thinking as a Nazi. He assumes that his knowledge is complete and infallible, he makes fun of people who don't support his conclusions as apodictic. He makes the same mistakes that the 14th century priests made in believing that the bible contained all knowledge of value. He quotes many studies and hangs on their results as fact, as opposed to pathways.
My daughter asked me if I believed in the supernatural, like spells, witches, etc.. I responded that I did believe that there was tremendous knowledge that I don't have, but that I think that the concept of supernatural is a contradiction in that if it occurred then it is, by definition, not supernatural. In other words if someone figures out how to fly around on a broom stick, then broom stick flight is just something that someone else has figured out how to do...not magic, not supernatural.
I digress because Dr. Harris has truly missed this lesson. Knowledge is a direction not a destination. And as a non-religious scientist, who respects all knowledge, I find that his certainty on so many issues makes me doubt either his credibility or his sanity.
However, if you are looking for someone to confirm that science is the new God, then this is the book for you.
The thesis was not thought through very well at all. The author uses the term "SCIENCE", as though he were speaking about a religion and not a structured method of determining cause and effect. For example he writes, [Athough SCIENCE has sometimes exhibited racist or sexist ideas...."]. Science does not exhibit any ideas; people do. But, if you replace the word SCIENCE, with any of the world's religions, the sentence may have some validity.The author uses words like SCIENCE, MORALITY, ETHICS, WELL-BEING, all as uppercase nouns [Science ordered a BLT sandwich at the Deli, even as Islam still maintains it is wrong to eat pork; and by-the-way, some people are still circumcising there little girls]. This kind of thing goes on thoughout the book. I bought this book because I really enjoyed his other book "The End of Faith". But I really wish someone close (such as a friend or editor), would have given him a few constructive boots in the pants.
I absolutely loved it. Good argumentation to convey that there are moral truths we can discover. He expressed the need for a science of morality which I am on board with, yet also presented that at the very least we could have a moral system that maybe is less science like and more economics like (not a science yet not guesses).
A masterpiece of reason and clear thinking. I regret not reading this earlier and hope Sam Harris continues to produce works like this for a long, long time to come. I'd like to think if college students could read and discuss this book the world would make great progress, in many fields.
One really annoying thing was the 's' or 'sh' sound whenever he spoke. It sounded like a really loud whistle and was very annoying. Other than that a great read.