Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[Belacqua]

I knew I'd disagree with the premise of this book based on Harris speaking about it in lectures, but I assumed it would be a generally decent book. Then I listened to the following critique, and if it is at all accurate, this book is complete garbage and it makes me think Harris is some kind of hack in this area.

I was wondering if anyone has a copy, and if so whether they'd be willing to check or comment on some of the numerous glaring problems brought up in the video.

Many thanks!

You can get the epub version from The Pirate Bay.

[robvalue]

From what I gather, he makes a poor argument for a common idea..and fails to avail himself of sources in moral philosophy that would make the same case better.

That sounds about right. It appears he just announces morality to be exactly what he says it is, and then hand-waves away all other possibilities (including Hume's guillotine), with next to no explanation. It appears to serve no practical purpose whatsoever, as he covers nothing more nuanced than, "Be nice or kill people". It's a really long-winded way to arrive at a conclusion most people agree with anyway. Moral dilemmas don't seem to be addressed at all.

---

PS: as far as Peterson goes, I'm sorry if anyone wasted money on it in order to debate; I did vigorously recommend against buying it. I tried my best to debate about it but I felt it ultimately wasn't going anywhere. Fans of his see some kind of brilliance where I see... other things.

[Fireball]

I've a couple Harris' books. He does take the long way to the conclusion. I think that it is mainly that he conforms to the old "dichotomy" of "random" Vs "serial" thinkers. You know, where some people will give you all the reasons for their conclusion before they give that conclusion, and the serial thinkers, who will give you their answer, and then explain how they reached it. I know that I'm a hardcore serial thinker, in that description. I designed many things, and also wrote work instructions on their making and use. That stuff requires steps in exactly the correct order, and I was good at it.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I don't know how to drive stick shift.

I don't know how to drive an automatic.

[Foxaèr]

I don't know how to drive stick shift.

I don't know how to drive an automatic.

It's easy, there's no stick getting in the way.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I don't know how to drive an automatic.

It's easy, there's no stick getting in the way.

Well how do you go into reverse?

[Foxaèr]

It's easy, there's no stick getting in the way.

Well how do you go into reverse?

By using the same gear shift that allows one to "drive".

[I_am_not_mafia]

Well how do you go into reverse?

By using the same gear shift that allows one to "drive".

So they do have a stick getting in the way?

[Foxaèr]

So they do have a stick getting in the way?

Not at all. There's a difference between having one stick to either drive or reverse, and then having an extra stick just to shift gears of speed while driving.

[I_am_not_mafia]

So they do have a stick getting in the way?

Not at all.  There's a difference between having one stick to either drive or reverse, and then having an extra stick just to shift gears of speed while driving.

How do you drop to a lower gear when you want to accelerate faster? Or to save on your brakes when going down a long mountain slope? Or a higher gear when driving on snow and ice? Sounds a bit rubbish to me.