---
product_id: 1692882
title: "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values"
price: "292 kr"
currency: NOK
in_stock: true
reviews_count: 13
url: https://www.desertcart.no/products/1692882-the-moral-landscape-how-science-can-determine-human-values
store_origin: NO
region: Norway
---

# The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values

**Price:** 292 kr
**Availability:** ✅ In Stock

## Quick Answers

- **What is this?** The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
- **How much does it cost?** 292 kr with free shipping
- **Is it available?** Yes, in stock and ready to ship
- **Where can I buy it?** [www.desertcart.no](https://www.desertcart.no/products/1692882-the-moral-landscape-how-science-can-determine-human-values)

## Best For

- Customers looking for quality international products

## Why This Product

- Free international shipping included
- Worldwide delivery with tracking
- 15-day hassle-free returns

## Description

New York Times bestselling author Sam Harris’s first book, The End of Faith , ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In the aftermath, Harris discovered that most people—from religious fundamentalists to non-believing scientists—agree on one point: science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Indeed, our failure to address questions of meaning and morality through science has now become the primary justification for religious faith. In this highly controversial book, Sam Harris seeks to link morality to the rest of human knowledge. Defining morality in terms of human and animal well-being, Harris argues that science can do more than tell how we are; it can, in principle, tell us how we ought to be. In his view, moral relativism is simply false—and comes at an increasing cost to humanity. And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our “culture wars,” Harris delivers a game-changing book about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation.

Review: A Model Book for the Scientific Frontier of Morality - The notion that morals cannot be determined by facts, proposed centuries ago by philosophical luminaries such as David Hume and E. G. Moore, is greatly challenged in Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape. Harris believes that what constitutes something being ethically "good" or "bad" can be shown through a harmonious combination of scientific evidence and simple rationality. His book thus follows a rhetoric of defining common psychological phenomena such as "belief" and "well-being" coupled with many examples of how subjective perception of these phenomena leads to objectively immoral decisions. Being a neuroscientist and well-known critic of religion, Harris speaks of morality as a frontier of science not up for religious or philosophical debate. He provides such great insight into the field of ethics that makes it a mandatory read for any current or aspiring scientist. However, the average reader is warned: Harris frequently slams religion and if you already have an unfavorable opinion on science, you will probably find this book difficult to agree with. With growing knowledge of the genetic and molecular basis of human behavior, Harris believes that by studying the states of the brain in relation to events in the world, a universal moral compass can be created to follow by all. Differences in gene expression among human beings highly accounts for the differences in our moral intuition and social perception - or at least our natural inclinations of these. However, just as the expression of certain genes can create biological predispositions unwanted by many individuals (tendency for psychopathy, fatal disease, etc.), Harris posits that it is likewise possible to have an undesirable, harmful moral intuition. Thus, morality cannot be treated as a purely subjective topic - there must be undeniable truths in morality. Harris effectively expresses "truths" and not "truth," specifically, because of what he calls the moral landscape, or the area in which there are multiple high and low points of viewing morality so that a great life can be fulfilled. What every individual wants to achieve in life and what kind of impact they want to leave is undeniably subjective; however, there will always be a right and wrong way to achieve their goal. He demonstrates rational differences between opinions of morality through many examples of torture, rape and suffering, often all in the name of religion. The zealots responsible believe these actions are for the well-being of mankind and produce the greatest happiness possible as promised by their religion; however, Harris cautions blind following of moral reasoning. Poor men and women who are castrated, exiled, who view their children being raped and murdered against their own will surely do not live with the same prosperity and happiness as lives that ensure longevity, wealth and intrinsic personal satisfaction. A sense of morality that leads to the former scenario cannot be the right choice or happier life - it just goes against everyway we think rationally. Perhaps Harris' largest flaw is his advocation of such rationality. Myself an aspiring neuroscientist in college, I've learned that science just should not be based off of the major differences in intrinsic reasoning found among everyone - science is meant to be a focused, honest approach to the mysteries of life. Human rationality itself is a much debated topic. Throwing that uncertainty into the supposed truth of science is very contradictory. However, Harris points out that it is nigh impossible to neglect all reason and rationality in science. His reasoning for that comes through the "moral landscape": since subjective rationality can reflect individuals' personalities, we should acknowledge it to understand the unique ways individuals can achieve a moral life. If an individual cannot listen to their own feelings at least to some degree, then how can they have an honest, happy life? Despite it being the biggest flaw in The Moral Landscape to me, I find he handles it quite well because he makes his arguments very agreeable. When he discusses "being right or wrong," he asks if we should be morally able to synthesize and publish a recipe for smallpox to the public. Due to the fact there will always be extremists who want human society to fall, I agree and feel most would agree that that would be immoral to do because many innocent individuals would die from a few individuals' management of a lethal disease. It's just irony that Harris uses rationality to suggest the usefulness of rationality. Future scientific research could show the use of rationality to be absolutely inappropriate in our search for truth, so Harris' opinion can only be tested with time. However, despite the potential flaw, Harris's really convinces you with his greatest point: what constitutes an individual's well-being and happiness can be proven through neuroscience, as we can see the molecular differences in brain states between unhappy people and happy people. For example, with use of fMRI, we can correlate happiness and quality of life with blood-flow in the brain (in his studies, mainly the prefrontal cortex and parietal lobe are relevant). If certain reactions to stimuli depicting an event deemed to reduce an individual's quality of life cause higher brain activity associated with lower happiness, then we become closer to finding the truths of morality. It is easier to detect unhappiness, Harris suggests, than happiness, as the moral landscape has peaks in which every individual has his/her own pinnacle of maximizing moral decisions with subjective well-being. This is because every individual is still slightly unique in what makes them happy. Thus, he argues that morality should be a followed set of answers rather than a personal open-ended question, as we can find how the correct moral sense leads to what human beings intrinsically deem as "the best possible lives." Along with gene expression and activity in certain brain regions, The Moral Landscape enlightens you on how even evolution plays in determining moral values. Harris posits that we are not evolutionarily adapted for our society - we are not selected to become better government officials or shopkeepers. Thus, as we describe and define moral values with science, he suggests that we must recognize that morality will be impartial to personal thought. For example, Harris describes how individuals who see the life of one disadvantaged individual relevant to charitable organizations are much more likely to donate than if they saw how their donation is necessary for the world at whole. This, he suggests, may represent our selected behavior to care for only a few individuals; while we were not selected to care for the entire world, there is no argument against the entire world needing some form of care. Thus, according to Harris, we must disregard our predisposed beliefs and come to moral conclusions with science. In all, it is a truly inspirational read - a read that has changed my life and has helped me ground the way I think. The text is engaging and very enjoyable - Harris' memorable analogies are not only mind-stimulating but merit his book a delightful re-read. I will always keep this book in mind as I come across moral warfare in the realm of scientific research.
Review: Essential Reading - This book marks a watershed moment in the development of moral philosophy. As a longtime student and teacher of the subject, I can no more teach my classes the same after The Moral Landscape than a physicist could teach gravitation the same after Einstein. With startling clarity, Harris systematically clears the centuries of weeds that have confused our collective thinking. I will not attempt to restate Harris's arguments here. If you have not, I strongly suggest that you read the book (or at least watch this excellent talk that he gave at Berkeley). We are provided with a clear framework that should promote sensible public discussions regarding civilization’s most important questions. Reason never had a better advocate. Some have called Harris’s book a mere repackaging of consequentialism. While this might be technically true, it's repackaged in a way that eliminates every reasonable concern that one might have with it. It is no small feat to systematically tear down every argument against a long-standing moral system (that always seemed appealing but, before Harris, at least partially problematic). There is a big difference between an answer that nearly works and one that works. Harris's conception of a Moral Landscape works in a way that traditional consequentialism never quite did. As payment for this great contribution to our collective discourse, Harris has received heaps of scorn from the intellectual community. Of course, he shouldn't be surprised. When Andrew Wiles solved the world's "most difficult math problem" (by proving Fermat's last theorem), mathematicians everywhere leapt at the opportunity to prove him wrong and to protect their own egos (begrudgingly, they could not). The same seems to be happening to Harris. Unfortunately, egos may be even larger in the field of moral philosophy and the stakes far higher. This is a shame; the longer other leaders in the field insist on holding onto their debunked alternative theories, the more time we lose in building a global civilization. Read carefully every criticism that you encounter regarding Harris's approach. Each either fails to (a) make sense or (b) grasp what Harris actually is saying. The responses have been eye opening and frankly embarrassing for many of his critics. I have lost a great deal of respect for the intellectual community while reading reviews of Harris's book. While Harris is plenty capable of defending himself, I want to make three points in defense of his theory: I. Harris is Not a Fascist Mad Scientist Many commentators seem to believe that Harris is suggesting that science currently has all of the answers. He is not. In fact, he's admitting to quite the opposite. In practice, science currently has few clear answers on how best to promote the subjective well being of humanity. Harris believes that this is a very long-term project unlikely to ever be “completed.” However, we know enough already to answer some easy questions (e.g., don't add cholera to the water supply, don't encourage honor killings, don't throw acid in the face of girls who want to learn to read). Most questions are open to further inquiry and rigorous debate (e.g., what is the optimal balance of individual privacy and collective security?). Harris undoubtedly believes that we should be careful before condemning practices without knowing a sufficient amount regarding the effects on the well being of the people affected. As with all scientific endeavors, we should move forward slowly and humbly. The process is open to a rigorous, measured, and incremental public debate. There are tough questions to be answered. However, that there are tough questions to answer does not mean we must be paralyzed from acting upon the relatively easy ones. II. Harris is Not a Cultural Vandal (mostly) Harris is very willing to condemn cultures that insist on certain harmful practices. For example, Harris, in the book and elsewhere, suggests that everyone should feel free (and perhaps obligated) to condemn female genital mutilation, the suppression of women's rights, "rape culture" on American college campuses, calls to genocide, and honor killings as seen in places like Albania. The specific elements of any culture that have a clear negative impact on the well being of conscious creatures should be condemned. Unless you are still lost in the stupefying woods of postmodern and relativist nonsense, this should be unobjectionable. However, where is Harris suggesting that every society should look, in every way, like London, Boston, or Palo Alto? Nowhere. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that a diversity of cultures across the world will benefit humanity. But that does not mean that each part of every culture is to be valued equally. It is quite a different thing to suggest that humanity benefits from wonderful culinary, artistic, musical, and architectural cultural diversity, than to suggest humanity benefits from certain cultures being completely mistaken regarding particular practices and their effects on well-being (e.g., genital mutilation in northern Africa or corporal punishment in the deep south). Put simply: we can celebrate the diverse cuisine and condemn the unreasonable abuse. Note: is it possible that we might actually find that certain cultures have a more "optimal" blend of aesthetic and culinary preferences? Sure, but when science has nothing better to do than to split hairs regarding whether burritos and salsa dancing are “better” than burgers and country music festivals, then we'll know that humanity is in a great place. Further, the answer may well be that they are equal spots on the moral landscape and that the diversity of options throughout the world is "better" than the benefit of promoting one over the other. III. Stop Focusing on the Terminology It seems that people cannot get past Harris’s appropriation of traditional “moral terms” for his proposed project of a scientific study of human flourishing. What if Harris instead suggested that we start a new interdisciplinary science on how best to promote “public health,” but he defined public health to include not just physical well being but mental well being as well? Then, Harris enlisted the help of leading economists, political scientists, doctors, public health experts, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, biologists, and artists. He asked them to study scientifically the question of what increases public health from various levels of abstraction, from medicine to nutrition to economic systems. Would anyone suggest that this undertaking would be a useless endeavor? Of course not. Harris is simply stating that this project would promote the only thing worth considering when discussing what is “better” and what is “worse” (in the only sensible way to use these words). To Harris, what is “better” with respect to human flourishing is “good” and what is “worse” is “bad” (with the proviso that there may be multiple answers to these questions). Morality cannot reasonably mean anything except encouraging better and discouraging worse. Lose your hang-ups regarding the terminology (that you probably got from religion, bad philosophy, or society generally) and you can see why this approach makes perfect sense. Nothing else does.

## Technical Specifications

| Specification | Value |
|---------------|-------|
| Best Sellers Rank | #181,470 in Books ( See Top 100 in Books ) #60 in Religious Ethics (Books) #76 in Sociology & Religion #89 in Sociology of Religion |
| Customer Reviews | 4.5 out of 5 stars 2,001 Reviews |

## Images

![The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values - Image 1](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61gDtePpfRL.jpg)

## Customer Reviews

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ A Model Book for the Scientific Frontier of Morality
*by P***M on April 27, 2013*

The notion that morals cannot be determined by facts, proposed centuries ago by philosophical luminaries such as David Hume and E. G. Moore, is greatly challenged in Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape. Harris believes that what constitutes something being ethically "good" or "bad" can be shown through a harmonious combination of scientific evidence and simple rationality. His book thus follows a rhetoric of defining common psychological phenomena such as "belief" and "well-being" coupled with many examples of how subjective perception of these phenomena leads to objectively immoral decisions. Being a neuroscientist and well-known critic of religion, Harris speaks of morality as a frontier of science not up for religious or philosophical debate. He provides such great insight into the field of ethics that makes it a mandatory read for any current or aspiring scientist. However, the average reader is warned: Harris frequently slams religion and if you already have an unfavorable opinion on science, you will probably find this book difficult to agree with. With growing knowledge of the genetic and molecular basis of human behavior, Harris believes that by studying the states of the brain in relation to events in the world, a universal moral compass can be created to follow by all. Differences in gene expression among human beings highly accounts for the differences in our moral intuition and social perception - or at least our natural inclinations of these. However, just as the expression of certain genes can create biological predispositions unwanted by many individuals (tendency for psychopathy, fatal disease, etc.), Harris posits that it is likewise possible to have an undesirable, harmful moral intuition. Thus, morality cannot be treated as a purely subjective topic - there must be undeniable truths in morality. Harris effectively expresses "truths" and not "truth," specifically, because of what he calls the moral landscape, or the area in which there are multiple high and low points of viewing morality so that a great life can be fulfilled. What every individual wants to achieve in life and what kind of impact they want to leave is undeniably subjective; however, there will always be a right and wrong way to achieve their goal. He demonstrates rational differences between opinions of morality through many examples of torture, rape and suffering, often all in the name of religion. The zealots responsible believe these actions are for the well-being of mankind and produce the greatest happiness possible as promised by their religion; however, Harris cautions blind following of moral reasoning. Poor men and women who are castrated, exiled, who view their children being raped and murdered against their own will surely do not live with the same prosperity and happiness as lives that ensure longevity, wealth and intrinsic personal satisfaction. A sense of morality that leads to the former scenario cannot be the right choice or happier life - it just goes against everyway we think rationally. Perhaps Harris' largest flaw is his advocation of such rationality. Myself an aspiring neuroscientist in college, I've learned that science just should not be based off of the major differences in intrinsic reasoning found among everyone - science is meant to be a focused, honest approach to the mysteries of life. Human rationality itself is a much debated topic. Throwing that uncertainty into the supposed truth of science is very contradictory. However, Harris points out that it is nigh impossible to neglect all reason and rationality in science. His reasoning for that comes through the "moral landscape": since subjective rationality can reflect individuals' personalities, we should acknowledge it to understand the unique ways individuals can achieve a moral life. If an individual cannot listen to their own feelings at least to some degree, then how can they have an honest, happy life? Despite it being the biggest flaw in The Moral Landscape to me, I find he handles it quite well because he makes his arguments very agreeable. When he discusses "being right or wrong," he asks if we should be morally able to synthesize and publish a recipe for smallpox to the public. Due to the fact there will always be extremists who want human society to fall, I agree and feel most would agree that that would be immoral to do because many innocent individuals would die from a few individuals' management of a lethal disease. It's just irony that Harris uses rationality to suggest the usefulness of rationality. Future scientific research could show the use of rationality to be absolutely inappropriate in our search for truth, so Harris' opinion can only be tested with time. However, despite the potential flaw, Harris's really convinces you with his greatest point: what constitutes an individual's well-being and happiness can be proven through neuroscience, as we can see the molecular differences in brain states between unhappy people and happy people. For example, with use of fMRI, we can correlate happiness and quality of life with blood-flow in the brain (in his studies, mainly the prefrontal cortex and parietal lobe are relevant). If certain reactions to stimuli depicting an event deemed to reduce an individual's quality of life cause higher brain activity associated with lower happiness, then we become closer to finding the truths of morality. It is easier to detect unhappiness, Harris suggests, than happiness, as the moral landscape has peaks in which every individual has his/her own pinnacle of maximizing moral decisions with subjective well-being. This is because every individual is still slightly unique in what makes them happy. Thus, he argues that morality should be a followed set of answers rather than a personal open-ended question, as we can find how the correct moral sense leads to what human beings intrinsically deem as "the best possible lives." Along with gene expression and activity in certain brain regions, The Moral Landscape enlightens you on how even evolution plays in determining moral values. Harris posits that we are not evolutionarily adapted for our society - we are not selected to become better government officials or shopkeepers. Thus, as we describe and define moral values with science, he suggests that we must recognize that morality will be impartial to personal thought. For example, Harris describes how individuals who see the life of one disadvantaged individual relevant to charitable organizations are much more likely to donate than if they saw how their donation is necessary for the world at whole. This, he suggests, may represent our selected behavior to care for only a few individuals; while we were not selected to care for the entire world, there is no argument against the entire world needing some form of care. Thus, according to Harris, we must disregard our predisposed beliefs and come to moral conclusions with science. In all, it is a truly inspirational read - a read that has changed my life and has helped me ground the way I think. The text is engaging and very enjoyable - Harris' memorable analogies are not only mind-stimulating but merit his book a delightful re-read. I will always keep this book in mind as I come across moral warfare in the realm of scientific research.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Essential Reading
*by G***. on April 26, 2015*

This book marks a watershed moment in the development of moral philosophy. As a longtime student and teacher of the subject, I can no more teach my classes the same after The Moral Landscape than a physicist could teach gravitation the same after Einstein. With startling clarity, Harris systematically clears the centuries of weeds that have confused our collective thinking. I will not attempt to restate Harris's arguments here. If you have not, I strongly suggest that you read the book (or at least watch this excellent talk that he gave at Berkeley). We are provided with a clear framework that should promote sensible public discussions regarding civilization’s most important questions. Reason never had a better advocate. Some have called Harris’s book a mere repackaging of consequentialism. While this might be technically true, it's repackaged in a way that eliminates every reasonable concern that one might have with it. It is no small feat to systematically tear down every argument against a long-standing moral system (that always seemed appealing but, before Harris, at least partially problematic). There is a big difference between an answer that nearly works and one that works. Harris's conception of a Moral Landscape works in a way that traditional consequentialism never quite did. As payment for this great contribution to our collective discourse, Harris has received heaps of scorn from the intellectual community. Of course, he shouldn't be surprised. When Andrew Wiles solved the world's "most difficult math problem" (by proving Fermat's last theorem), mathematicians everywhere leapt at the opportunity to prove him wrong and to protect their own egos (begrudgingly, they could not). The same seems to be happening to Harris. Unfortunately, egos may be even larger in the field of moral philosophy and the stakes far higher. This is a shame; the longer other leaders in the field insist on holding onto their debunked alternative theories, the more time we lose in building a global civilization. Read carefully every criticism that you encounter regarding Harris's approach. Each either fails to (a) make sense or (b) grasp what Harris actually is saying. The responses have been eye opening and frankly embarrassing for many of his critics. I have lost a great deal of respect for the intellectual community while reading reviews of Harris's book. While Harris is plenty capable of defending himself, I want to make three points in defense of his theory: I. Harris is Not a Fascist Mad Scientist Many commentators seem to believe that Harris is suggesting that science currently has all of the answers. He is not. In fact, he's admitting to quite the opposite. In practice, science currently has few clear answers on how best to promote the subjective well being of humanity. Harris believes that this is a very long-term project unlikely to ever be “completed.” However, we know enough already to answer some easy questions (e.g., don't add cholera to the water supply, don't encourage honor killings, don't throw acid in the face of girls who want to learn to read). Most questions are open to further inquiry and rigorous debate (e.g., what is the optimal balance of individual privacy and collective security?). Harris undoubtedly believes that we should be careful before condemning practices without knowing a sufficient amount regarding the effects on the well being of the people affected. As with all scientific endeavors, we should move forward slowly and humbly. The process is open to a rigorous, measured, and incremental public debate. There are tough questions to be answered. However, that there are tough questions to answer does not mean we must be paralyzed from acting upon the relatively easy ones. II. Harris is Not a Cultural Vandal (mostly) Harris is very willing to condemn cultures that insist on certain harmful practices. For example, Harris, in the book and elsewhere, suggests that everyone should feel free (and perhaps obligated) to condemn female genital mutilation, the suppression of women's rights, "rape culture" on American college campuses, calls to genocide, and honor killings as seen in places like Albania. The specific elements of any culture that have a clear negative impact on the well being of conscious creatures should be condemned. Unless you are still lost in the stupefying woods of postmodern and relativist nonsense, this should be unobjectionable. However, where is Harris suggesting that every society should look, in every way, like London, Boston, or Palo Alto? Nowhere. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that a diversity of cultures across the world will benefit humanity. But that does not mean that each part of every culture is to be valued equally. It is quite a different thing to suggest that humanity benefits from wonderful culinary, artistic, musical, and architectural cultural diversity, than to suggest humanity benefits from certain cultures being completely mistaken regarding particular practices and their effects on well-being (e.g., genital mutilation in northern Africa or corporal punishment in the deep south). Put simply: we can celebrate the diverse cuisine and condemn the unreasonable abuse. Note: is it possible that we might actually find that certain cultures have a more "optimal" blend of aesthetic and culinary preferences? Sure, but when science has nothing better to do than to split hairs regarding whether burritos and salsa dancing are “better” than burgers and country music festivals, then we'll know that humanity is in a great place. Further, the answer may well be that they are equal spots on the moral landscape and that the diversity of options throughout the world is "better" than the benefit of promoting one over the other. III. Stop Focusing on the Terminology It seems that people cannot get past Harris’s appropriation of traditional “moral terms” for his proposed project of a scientific study of human flourishing. What if Harris instead suggested that we start a new interdisciplinary science on how best to promote “public health,” but he defined public health to include not just physical well being but mental well being as well? Then, Harris enlisted the help of leading economists, political scientists, doctors, public health experts, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, biologists, and artists. He asked them to study scientifically the question of what increases public health from various levels of abstraction, from medicine to nutrition to economic systems. Would anyone suggest that this undertaking would be a useless endeavor? Of course not. Harris is simply stating that this project would promote the only thing worth considering when discussing what is “better” and what is “worse” (in the only sensible way to use these words). To Harris, what is “better” with respect to human flourishing is “good” and what is “worse” is “bad” (with the proviso that there may be multiple answers to these questions). Morality cannot reasonably mean anything except encouraging better and discouraging worse. Lose your hang-ups regarding the terminology (that you probably got from religion, bad philosophy, or society generally) and you can see why this approach makes perfect sense. Nothing else does.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐ A provocative and intriguing "maybe..."
*by E***K on January 16, 2011*

Morality has never provided simple straightforward answers to questions of how humans should conduct themselves. Though a litany of theories has nonetheless appeared in past millennium to face this challenge, no undisputed champion has emerged triumphant. And worse, an examination of this overwhelming history doesn't even reveal significant progress on such issues. Even today, questions about the nature of "good and evil" persist along with nebulous answers to the ancient "what's the right thing to do?" question. Mapping human actions, not to mention complex collective human actions, to the rather abstract categories of "morally right" or "morally wrong" seems elusive as ever. Enter Sam Harris, a neuroscientist who often gets subsumed with "the New Atheists" for writing pointed criticisms of the effects of religion on humanity. Though his third book, "The Moral Landscape," largely glosses over the history of morality, he proffers a potential solution to such quandaries, though admitting its preliminary and controversial nature. The book contains many compelling, intriguing and poignant arguments, but ultimately doesn't contain enough hard data to elicit more than a "maybe." The book's main argument rests on a simple claim: "human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Consequently, there must be scientific truths to be known about it." Boldly stated in this way, the argument approaches tautology. Of course our "well-being" relies on the world and on our brains. What else would it depend on? Stickiness starts to seep upon dissection of the argument's terms. How do we define "human well-being?" And how do we formulate and utilize "states of the human brain?" And how do these "states" map to "well-being?" These questions need answers and demonstration before claiming that a rigorous "science of morality" can truly and realistically exist. Harris does provides some cursory examples that suggest connections between "well-being" and "brain states," such as the rates of oxytocin and vasopressin in children raised in "traditional" homes versus those raised in orphanages. Only further study will show whether such correlations stand up. And yes, a science of morality may emerge from such scenarios, the possibility surely exists, but the data needs to go far beyond what Harris presents. Not only that, morality already presents befuddling complexities and introducing brain states in the mix may further complicate, rather than simplify, moral issues. It's too early to tell. Not to mention possible nightmare, and probably - hopefully - implausible, scenarios such as neuroscience revealing that illusion and irrationality actually contribute to "human well-being." That would definitely provide important data to a "science of morality," but not the kind Harris (or many others) would probably desire. Again, this isn't meant to imply that Harris' overall claims fall flat, only that they seem too embryonic at this time to make sweeping claims about "moral truth" and the brain. Some harder data would have made his argument more penetrating, though, as always, his writing remains engaging and highly readable throughout. The book becomes really interesting when neuroscience becomes the focus, things get really interesting. Harris' delineation of free will may shock some at first reading, namely that "the illusion of free will is itself an illusion." But neuroscience is still a relatively new science, so taking its current results as definitive seems premature. Nonetheless, the evidence that exists already stands to change the very way we think of ourselves as humans and Harris outlines some of these possibilities. Later in the book, Harris again takes on the "non-overlapping magisteria" argument. And he eloquently argues against the notion that science and religion don't conflict. They do seem to conflict more and more as time goes on. The Creationist Museum in Kentucky presents itself as science, whether implicitly or explicitly. It openly and defiantly seeks to challenge scientific claims about geology, paleontology and other sciences. The claims it makes, based largely on religious scripture, starkly conflict with the majority of the scientific community's findings. Harris' arguments have maximum potency in this realm. But many of the points made here were also made in his other books, so the "religion" section seems a little tacked on. Plus, it doesn't really add any weight to his arguments about morality and neuroscience. In the end, Harris seems to soften on some of his claims, citing the complexities behind a psychology of "well-being." And ultimately he states, in the final pages, that "whether morality becomes a proper branch of science is not really the point." Along the way he cites studies on child rearing, in that having children appears to cause a lower level of happiness, but that most people feel they will prove the exception to this claim, stand as both fascinating claims and as problems for a "neural morality." But Harris feels, cautiously it seem, that these counter examples won't stand up. Maybe not. More studies will help. "The Moral Landscape" contains many brilliant and insightful passages about morality, belief and religion. But in the end it feels more like a collection of tenuously related sections than one cohesive argument, though each section does contain much of interest. And though the main claim of the book remains provocative, intriguing and very possible, the data presented just doesn't seem like enough at this point to make a claim for a "science of morality." Though, again, Harris claims that that's not "really the point." Undoubtedly neuroscience will illuminate human morality. That seems uncontroversial. Rigorously mapping human behavior to positive or negatively associated areas of the brain would present a breakthrough of astounding proportions. But whether this will actually happen at present remains a "maybe." We can only hope it will. And if the point of Harris' book was to introduce the possibility, then it definitely succeeds in that modest endeavor.

---

## Why Shop on Desertcart?

- 🛒 **Trusted by 1.3+ Million Shoppers** — Serving international shoppers since 2016
- 🌍 **Shop Globally** — Access 737+ million products across 21 categories
- 💰 **No Hidden Fees** — All customs, duties, and taxes included in the price
- 🔄 **15-Day Free Returns** — Hassle-free returns (30 days for PRO members)
- 🔒 **Secure Payments** — Trusted payment options with buyer protection
- ⭐ **TrustPilot Rated 4.5/5** — Based on 8,000+ happy customer reviews

**Shop now:** [https://www.desertcart.no/products/1692882-the-moral-landscape-how-science-can-determine-human-values](https://www.desertcart.no/products/1692882-the-moral-landscape-how-science-can-determine-human-values)

---

*Product available on Desertcart Norway*
*Store origin: NO*
*Last updated: 2026-10-12*