
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Welcome to Montana!

Monday, January 24, 2011
Pathfinder by Orson Scott Card
Trip to Montana
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris
I really enjoyed this book. Harris’ thesis is that the common conception of morality as belonging to a realm separate from science is false. Instead, he argues that it should become a new field of science. He insists that morality is all about the wellbeing of conscience creatures. While I have always seen something similar as the basis upon which to define my own sense of morality, I have been more hesitant to claim it as anything other than my own preference for enjoyable life. If a theoretical person felt that counting the grains of sand on the beach was of the highest moral order, who was I to argue? Harris argues that this type of subjective morality is the cause of a great many evils and that if we do not define morality with his axiom, what else could it possibly be? If it does not relate to the wellbeing of conscious creatures, it is by definition of no interest to us. I find this reasoning to be extremely sound. He goes on to argue that while there is tremendous grey area, we have methods of measuring wellbeing and that clearly there are “good” lives and “bad” lives. This being the case, he argues that we should study in objective a way as possible what we can do to maximize wellbeing.
I have read several of Harris’ articles before and always found them off-putting. He is an ardent atheist who has an extremely negative view of religion. I tend to see more negative than positive come out of attacking religion at every opportunity. As he states in his book, people most often believe whatever it is that they believe for emotional reasons first and the rational reasons come second. With this being the case, I think that only those of us who already think like him- and perhaps those that are teetering close to the viewpoint- are likely to be convinced. I see great benefit in explaining my views on disbelief to believers, as to most believers, atheism is tantamount to an admission of having no morality. However I find that if they feel attacked (and some people seem to feel attacked no matter what) that they are not going to be willing to try and understand your perspective and will probably have an even more negative opinion of it. So I prefer discussions on faith versus skepticism to attempt to remain respectful and I feel that people like Harris make it more difficult for that to happen.
So, it was with hesitation that I bought this book- and even then I bought the audiobook. But I thought the premise of an objective morality sounded worth exploring even if it had a great deal of religion-bashing mixed in. It did not lack in the bashing, but it was also an extremely good read. I have long thought that we as humans are not a blank slate and that all of us tend to find fulfillment and happiness in our lives from the same categories of experiences. Certainly there are variances based on personality and upbringing, but the commonalities far outweigh the differences. In the past few years, I’ve read several books on the science of happiness, and all have indicated this same truth. Harris cites much of this research when exploring his thesis. Combining this science with the science of morality never directly occurred to me, but now that I’ve read this book, it seems self evident. Morality is not a distant, intellectual concept. It is a here and now factual reality. Our lives are spent trying to maximize our own wellbeing which typically also involves trying to maximize the wellbeing of at least those other humans who are closest to us. What better tool is there than the scientific method to ascertain moral truths? And in my opinion, it’s a hard to think of a more important field of discipline.