Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[The Grand Nudger]

In terms of brain scans I am not sure what their worth would be in determining morality. All they can tell is what parts of the brain are receiving more blood flow and therefore are more active. While each part of the brain performs a different function, this can still only tell us what is normal for our species.

You need a principle such as to minimise suffering before you can use science to determine how to most effectively go about that. And then if you did that I am sure you'd end up with some unintended consequences such as destroying all life on Earth.

Science is a tool that we can use to gather information and tell us how to achieve things. I am not sure it should be making our decisions for us. Once you get into doing that, you're running into the same problems that we fear can come from Artificial Intelligence.

Right, and that's nestled in Harris position, that's the principle he's using, that's his evaluative premise.  It's how he goes from an is to an ought, and what he intends to measure.

If a person agrees to that (they may think there are other considerations, but as long as they agree that this is among those considerations) then we can use science to determine which behaviors have the best outcomes, and that this can form the basis of a more rational and lucid approach to normative ethics.  

Destroying all life on earth is to inflict the greatest possible suffering on the maximum amount of beings.  Harris, and he makes this argument alot, lol...considers this the very definition of bad.  If this is not bad, then nothing is bad. I think the best criticism of his position, one that sticks far beyond poor wording....comes in the form of a compliment,lol. He's great at the good and the bad, not so much at the right and the wrong.

---

He provides some interesting insights on how to leverage an 'ought' to an 'is' with the aid of another 'is'.

is-ought bad.

is-if-if-ought good.