Duron, Jayvee V.

III-12

Reflection on the Science of Values: The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

In Moral Landscape, they use science to explain morality. That's how our world and our brains
influence the way that we act. This book by Skinner also contains references to other books he
has written which deal with both behavior and science. But first Skinner wished to apply science
in order to make life better. The book argues that, rather than trying to sort out right from wrong
through religion and faith, we should use science as a tool. It asserts that examining morality
scientifically can only improve the world. Behavioral study of morality From the behaviorist point
of view, all human activity comes in for observation and analysis. With a clearer understanding
of these factors, perhaps we can find solutions to make people more moral in society. Moral
Landscape belongs to a group of recent books, along with those by authors such as Dawkins,
Harris, Hitchens and Sagan. These books challenge the supremacy of religion by means of
science. For instance, Dawkins doesn't believe in supernatural gods and holds that religion
shouldn't have too much influence on society.

Thus I have come to feel that science and religion are equal in status, so each cannot lead the
other. What they do not accept, however, is the idea that behavior analysts 'scientific conduct
and religious attitudes are a matter of equality. Skinner (1987), commenting that he has learned
his greatest values from science not religion, stated unequivocally that intellectual honesty is the
highest virtue I can feel to live in a world which provides no answers but almost everything
seems true. Of course even if positive changes are brought about by religious belief on human
behavior, it will have negative side effects as well. At a level as deep as moral perfection, hippy
Harris' image is just raw. His proof, therefore, is that religion drives people into harm's way and
indeed constitutes their greatest obstacle to health, social harmony or even wisdom. Yet, he
argues on the other hand that everything should be viewed through an objective scientific
lens-Harris applies this principle to morality. According to Harris, people with objectives other
than scientific don't interfere. However, as if for some unknown reason we cannot have people
with different moral objectives from our own to talk about moral truth.

With that, he only then implie­s that faith systems might not be scientific. Ye­t, some may disagree
with this. Pe­ople like Harris and Dawkins aren't fans of this dual approach. The­intersection of
broader scie­nce with faith and values carves a path that positive­ly influences life. If the­re's no
scientific fix to these­issues, they'll remain the­same. Maybe they don't gain as much approval
be­cause the public doesn't grasp what be­havior analysts do. What they do can be tough to
comprehe­nd. Still, it's essential to back the authors and the­ir invaluable books. This made me­
see that we ne­ed to consider our views about things. It can some­times be upsetting whe­n
anything seems supportable or provable­. We should understand how things function.