Scientist/philosopher Massimo Pigliucci has a fun little book called "Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life", which goes over the topic of ethics (and many other things) in an approachable and understandable way, which is often a hazard with philosophers (at least in their academic works). :p And if I remember correctly, he favors a virtue ethics approach to morality, for those interested in it.
My problem with Harris' "Moral Landscape" is that it doesn't come close to it's claim of providing a scientific approach to ethics. I found it kind of silly when Harris suggested using a fMRI scanner to show that a girl being genitally mutilated and use that as a way of objectively saying "Look, she's being harmed!" The screaming will do that for me, thanks. Harris' approach does at least give an outline of consequentialism that makes sense I guess.
However, there is a guy on YouTube calling himself "TheoreticalBullshit" who has a similar approach to Harris, but I think goes about it in a bit more cogent, and sensible manner.
My problem with Harris' "Moral Landscape" is that it doesn't come close to it's claim of providing a scientific approach to ethics. I found it kind of silly when Harris suggested using a fMRI scanner to show that a girl being genitally mutilated and use that as a way of objectively saying "Look, she's being harmed!" The screaming will do that for me, thanks. Harris' approach does at least give an outline of consequentialism that makes sense I guess.
However, there is a guy on YouTube calling himself "TheoreticalBullshit" who has a similar approach to Harris, but I think goes about it in a bit more cogent, and sensible manner.
