I have just finished my first reading (as you know I read all worthwhile books more than once) of The Moral Landscape.
His main thesis is that just because that there are no answers in practice does not mean that there are no answers in principle.
This is really his basic point.
This confirms the findings in another recommended book, In Search of Memory by Eric Kandel.
Brain research is in such an early stage. I would say it is just like at the time of the first telegraph in 1837, when we still had a long way to go before the telegraph developed into today’s smart-phone.
But Harris’ basic point that there is, in principle, no differences between facts and values. It is very counterintuitive but it is counterintuitive only because we have been taught, since infancy, that facts and values are separate. Is it a fact or a value statement that so called Honor Killings (after a woman has been raped) in the name of their religion is wrong?!
Liberals say: “Well, that’s a part of their culture, we cannot condemn (or condone) such a ‘tradition’”
Harris’ point is that if Moral Behavior aims to enhance the lives of conscious beings, one can definitely say that Honor Killings are immoral. And of course he has many other examples in the book.
I hope you read it and that you appreciated it as much as I did and that you see the similarities with Kandel’s book.
