The Moral Landscape

By: Sam Harris

Narrated by: Sam Harris

Length: 6 hrs and 47 mins

Publisher's Summary

Sam Harris has discovered that most people, from secular scientists to religious fundamentalists, agree on one point: science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Indeed, science’s failure to address questions of meaning and morality has become the primary justification for religious faith. The underlying claim is that while science is the best authority on the workings of the physical universe, religion is the best authority on meaning, values, morality, and leading a good life. Sam Harris shows us that this is not only untrue; it cannot possibly be true.

Bringing a fresh, secular perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris shows that we know enough about the human brain and how it reacts to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, moral relativism is simply false – and comes at increasing cost to humanity.

Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of the cultural war between science and religion, Harris delivers an explosive argument about the future of science, and about the real basis of human relationships.

©2011 Sam Harris (P)2011 Random House Audiobooks

Not what I expected

The message of the book is that scientic facts can help answer moral questions. However, Sam doesn't provide concrete examples for how this can be done.

I expected something like this:

Moral question: Should pornography be legal?
The opinions of people today: Yes, because it represents free speech and people should be allowed to express themselves. No, because it's sinful.
Scientific facts: Pornography significantly reduces the well-being of those who watch it and the people who produce it. Porn users are less satisfied in their relationships, have reduced activity in some parts of the brain, are more accepting of of violence towards women, can suffer erectile dysfunction, and consider women less capable and less valuable than men. Children who grow up watching porn have tend to avoid intimacy and have a distorted view of sexuality. All women are affected by pornography because they are increasingly valued based on their looks rather than their skills. Women who discover their spouses watching porn are deeply hurt, some developing post traumatic stress disorder.
Answer to moral question: Research shows pornography reduces the well-being of society in many ways. Therefore, to maximize well-being pornography should not be legal.

This is a concrete example on how science can answer a moral question. I expected the book to be filled with them.

But Sam rather makes a philosophical case for this. Which is alright but a few examples would have been much more convincing.

The most important thinker of our time

If you could sum up The Moral Landscape in three words, what would they be?

Probably the most elucidating book ever. The very idea that science can contribute to and has something to say about morality is eye-opening. I recommended this book for my brother who just entered medical school. Harris's arguments are overwhelmingly persuasive and if, God forbid ;), he died today, his contribution to society would have equalled 50,000 lifetimes of ordinary men. Bravo, Mr. Harris. I'm still speechless.

Does not refute Humeian is/ought distinction

Waste of time, doesn't attempt define "wellbeing" while claiming it's the only worthwhile moral value.

Enlightening and informative.

Would you listen to The Moral Landscape again? Why?

I've already listened to this book twice and think it will get another couple of run throughs. There is a whole new level of clarity to this books subject matter, it has given my general assumptions I make about life a good shake up. I feel like I know myself and the world better for listening to this book.

Any additional comments?

I'm not usually too keen on the books that the author narrates themselves but Sam Harris does a good job. It possibly would have been improved upon by a professional narrator but it does not detract from the book.

Science is the closest thing to finding what moral

Where does The Moral Landscape rank among all the audiobooks you’ve listened to so far?

It's one of the top books I've listened, and will enjoy repeating the experience again.

What was the most compelling aspect of this narrative?

Realizing that we have more power, knowledge and vision now to discover and understand fundamental truths about our lives, such as morality, values and spirituality. We're underestimating ourselves and let people from 3000 years ago decide what's wrong and right for us.

has he ever been offered the peace nobel price

Would you consider the audio edition of The Moral Landscape to be better than the print version?

no

What was the most compelling aspect of this narrative?

cutting edge truth without frills

What about Sam Harris’s performance did you like?

yes

If you were to make a film of this book, what would be the tag line be?

happy clarity without emotional dribble

Any additional comments?

recommended reading for all who believe in Father Christmas and the tooth fairy and for the clergy

My book of the year.

Simply the best book of it's kind, brilliantly narrated by the author. Exceptional listen.

Interesting subject, but sometimes hard to follow the story

I find this book’s subject interesting and important. I like Sam Harris voice, but it is better when he is speaking freely. Here it changes a bit as he reading. I also find it hard to follow the story. There are several interesting parts, but I don’t immediately understand how they interconnect.

The key to understanding the author's position

This important philosophical work is getting way too little attention. It ought to be presented as a default topic in middle school education across the planet, but sadly the majority of the population will choose to ignore the message, or even find it offensive.

very interedting

the book was very interesting and provided many very good points. Although I was expecting more mind blowing stuff which might just be my bias.

Thought provoking, perhaps a little antagonistic

The central (and highly thought provoking) proposition behind this audio book is that as a race we should seek to give primacy in decisions about human morality and values to neuroscience and the scientific method. The assertion is that by doing this, as opposed to following the dogma of organised religions and other irrational beliefs, we will be creating a better society.

Whilst this is not an "easy" listen, the author does an admirable job of dealing with the science, logic, philosophy in order to make his case, whilst technically the recording and the reading are very good. I found listening to it a deeply engrossing, thought provoking and enjoyable experience and will certainly listen to it again in the near future.


So why four stars.


Well I think the authors assertion is almost certainly correct; we would be much better of removing religion from the equation. However for my money I think the book could have communicated this more effectively to a wider audience, if it had focused more on its own ideas and rather less on a sustained sniping at organised religion and its excesses. (The downside of this negativity is that there is unfortunately likely to be more people put off reading and understanding the excellent ideas in the book than will be attracted to it).


In summary, an excellent thought provoking listen, possibly flawed in a counter productive antagonistism towards religion and its adherents, otherwise very highly recommended.

SH is not quite up to the task

I was a bit disappointed. This is a great subject, but I don't feel SH has the historical and intellectual firepower to do it justice (Steven Pinker should take it on). SH thesis is that science should take on moral philosophy and not leave it as a 'separate domain' (NOMA). Well, in France we have been living for a couple of centuries under a social contract with a moral code worked out through logic (rather than revelation) and enforced by police (for antisocial behaviour) and tax collectors (for redistributive charity), so SH seems a little behind the game. He does not properly recognise the key problem of 'ought', but assumes it from his 'axioms' - that consciousness exists and conscious beings suffer. He says, 'We know we should eat less, but often we fail' and, 'We know we should be good, but often we fail.' This is not analogous. Nor does he manage to draw out any startling conclusions from his axiomatic system e.g. that imposing confiscatory taxes on (saved) wealth is wrong, or what proportion of our income we 'should' redistribute. So, I was challenged by no new ideas.
PS: poor old SH also reads in a rather monotonic voice (and says 'human beans' like the BFG) - he should have employed a professional reader to give more expression to his content. That might have helped.

The Third Horseman of the Apocalypse - Brilliant

Having been overawed by the the works of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, I have now very much enjoyed my introduction to Sam Harris, the third of the four so-called "Horsemen" whose works I have now begun to consume (the fourth being Daniel Dennett). Speaking from his expertise in neurology and philosophy, Harris makes a powerful argument in favour of the existence of an objective standard for determining good and evil. His argument is illustrated by the moral landscape, in which there are peaks of human flourishing and valleys of human suffering. It follows that as a society and individuals ascend the peaks. Crucial to Harris' argument is the idea that science is the only way to determine good and evil in this context; and religion must be left behind.

Whilst I am not yet convinced by his argument that good and evil can be objectively determined, the case he makes is persuasive. He presents his evidence in detail and he considers the contrary arguments of others and thoroughly rebuts them. Along the way his argument is furnished with fascinating scientific case studies, and a good dollop of lambasting of the suffering caused by religion.

His narration of the audio-book is clear and engaging. I'm glad to have heard him present his argument in his own voice. This is an unmissable six hour lecture in science and morality.

Excellent Book

An excellent book, very listenable, packed with the kinds of scientific details and statistical observations that make Harris so popular. I'm not (as yet) sure whether I agree with Harris' central thesis, there's some complex ideas in the book that request and require some detailed, analytical thinking that are not always the priority of a first hearing, but - gladly - it's short enough to allow for multiple readings without any major innconveniance.

The ideas were new (to me) and optimistic

Many people (including myself, prior to listening to this book) think that either your moral opinions come from some dogmatic ancient book (the Bible etc) or else they are completely arbitrary ("moral relativism").
In this book Sam Harris puts forward an alternative that I find to be a helpful way out of this seeming dichotomy.
If you liked 'The God Delusion' then I think you'll like this.

Controversial, maybe wrong, but important

There are many statements that Harris makes in this book that I ended up disagreeing with and hence I do not agree with his conclusions. But to date, I have not read a better discussion of how we should define what is moral and I feel indebted to Harris for having provided the discourse that allowed me to refine my own views.
I should point out that my disagreement has been strengthened when reading further on the science that Harris is referring to. In my view, like many Neurologists today, I think that the conclusions that are made from the existing experiments are far too broad given the limited scope of what we can really measure.
Having said that, Harris is excellent where he shows how screwed up the public discourse on morality really is and he is offering a valid "arena" in which we could have a meaningful discussion about how we should define morality within society.

Interesting

An interesting concept is raised in this book but Sam Harris fails to give me much enthusiasm for it. He also speaks very quickly and uses a lot of jargon which can make it difficult to follow unless you have studied this topic before.

Amazing, amazing, amazing!

Regardless of whether you find yourself in total agreement with Sam Harris at the end of the audiobook, I am willing to stake any reputation I may have garnered on the promise of it's having a profound impact on the way you think. There is simply no justification for not engaging with The Moral Landscape. I would also point out that generally the skills of being a truly unique philosopher and being strong with analogies are close to mutually exclusive, however Mr Harris hits the proverbial nail on the head. A glorious, seismic work.

Thank you Sam Harris

A very deep, intellectual and thought provoking book. Very dense at times but I obviously need to expand my vocabulary range to get the most out of Sam Harris's arguments. will happily recommend and read a number of times.

Interesting ideas - Diminished by areas of content

Interesting ideas for where human thinking can go, but fails to add suitable substance beyond the initial idea for a new method of thinking.

Falls into the following traps: -

1. Denigrating other's ideas to support his argument. This does not raise the proposed ideas above others - merely seeks to undermine them.
2. Using extreme examples to generalise, whilst also failing to address any positive examples. I.E. A better method would be to demonstrate a good example of the existing method and explain how yours builds upon that and is a better solution within its own framework.
3. Fails to address key supporting elements of his proposed position, continuing to use language and structures built from what the idea is intended to be separate form.
4. Making objective statements that are true because they 'have' to be - if you don't get it, then you aren't 'one of us' or 'this isn't for you', which will fail to engender support beyond those who already agree.

There are also particular elements within this book that, at least at a surface level, are predicated on ego. Particular use of 'I's and directly quoting individual discussions that add little to the proposed idea.

In particular, an interesting future was proposed where sophisticated lie-detectors would be placed in areas where truth was necessary that, at an abstract level, seems to be the purpose of believing in a higher power (God(s)) prior to technological advancement. By acknowledging this, it would not take away from the premise, but lend credence and help to assist as to why science can propose to 'supercede' or replace religion.