Can Science Determine Moral Values? A Reply to Sam Harris
Review Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
- 813 Downloads
- 1 Citations
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 UtilitarianismReferences
- 1.Harris, S. 2010. The moral landscape: How science can determine moral values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- 2.Hauser, M. 2006. Moral minds: The nature of right and wrong. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
- 3.Shermer, M. 2004. The science of good and evil. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
- 4.Pfaff, D. 2007. The neuroscience of fair play. New York: Dana Press.Google Scholar
- 5.Tancredi, L. 2005. Hardwired behavior: What neuroscience can tell us about right and wrong. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Appiah, A. 2008. Experiments in ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 8.Harris, S. 2004. The end of faith, 199. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
- 9.Appiah A. 2010. “Science knows best,” New York Times, October 3, 2010.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010