Neuroethics

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 55–65 | Cite as

Can Science Determine Moral Values? A Reply to Sam Harris

Review Paper

Abstract

Sam Harris’ new book “The Moral Landscape” is the latest in a series of attempts to provide a new “science of morality.” This essay argues that such a project is unlikely to succeed, using Harris’ text as an example of the major philosophical problems that would be faced by any such theory. In particular, I argue that those trying to construct a scientific ethics need pay far more attention to the tradition of moral philosophy, rather than assuming the debate is simply between a scientific ethics and a “supernatural” ethics provided by religion.

Keywords

Ethics Morality Neuroscience Utilitarianism 

References

  1. 1.
    Harris, S. 2010. The moral landscape: How science can determine moral values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hauser, M. 2006. Moral minds: The nature of right and wrong. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shermer, M. 2004. The science of good and evil. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pfaff, D. 2007. The neuroscience of fair play. New York: Dana Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tancredi, L. 2005. Hardwired behavior: What neuroscience can tell us about right and wrong. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kenrick, D., et al. 2010. Renovating the pyramid of needs: contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundatins. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5: 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Appiah, A. 2008. Experiments in ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris, S. 2004. The end of faith, 199. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Appiah A. 2010. “Science knows best,” New York Times, October 3, 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA

Personalised recommendations