Abstract

In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Sam Harris presents a case for basing moral principles on scientific investigation. He highlights some of the limits of traditional religious dogmas. Likewise, he critiques the excessive moral indecisiveness and ineptitude of some who hold a more liberal doctrine, calling this “moral relativism.” Harris also puts forward a thought-provoking argument as to how science can be used to create a superior moral framework. However, there are shortcomings with Harris’ argument, which fails to address the distinction between Hume’s “is” and “ought.” Importantly, Harris fails to offer a fully operational alternative to traditional religious dogma. Established moral theories are rejected without a superior alternative offered. In this in-depth book review, the positive and negative aspects of Harris’ Moral Landscape are presented. Finally, some suggestions are presented as to how moral theory can harness the power of science