Okay, I'm convinced. The basis of morality should probably be based on the spectrum of effect that our actions have on the well-being of other conscious beings. We don't rely on centuries-old folklore to define our medical treatments; why rely on the same for our moral values? Some actions create greater happiness and well-being than others, and the extent to which actions lead to happiness is something that psychology and neuroscience can help measure and evaluate. The basis of a well-considered and defensible system of moral behaviour may therefore be validly based upon science, as opposed to faith in some imaginary creator. I may need to read this again, but I feel like I've got an ample amount of philosophy to chew on for the moment. Recommended. ( )

I agree in principle - but that's it: a principle.
The book is a long long long sequence of "it can be done: you'll see". Not much else in there... ( )

On the plus side this book was very thought provoking. On the negative side it read more like a work of philosophy than science. Not what I was expecting or hoping for. ( )

Reading Sam Harris is an intellectual treat, a feast for the brain cells, an oasis amidst today's current 'sea of twaddle'. His arguments sizzle and his support for them is full, complete and unemotional. He is the absolute best author to return to after reading a bunch of escapist things, even good escapism so that the intellect can be re-calibrated, often with the bar raised from its previous place.
This book argues for a science-based approach to determining morality. It is an interesting argument, clearly well thought out, strong and enticing, but I still have reservations.
While, as Harris argues, a science of morality may be possible, human beings do things that are totally irrational, often very impulsive and frequently even in violation of their own best interests. Harris realizes this, but I believe that there are practical models for morality that can be more fully and regularly applied by people in their normal decision making.
Using Harris' technique, consider this: Captain Kirk (Star Trek) makes a decision. Mr. Spock gives him one of the "Spook is puzzled looks" and says, "Is that logical, Captain?" A science of morality is Dr. Spock, Captain Kirk is the rest of us.
Still, I like the thinking and arguments. It was a pleasure to get back to reading Harris after such a long time since my last visit to his work.
Still, however, for a clear presentation on human morality, I recommend the incomparable six stages of morality developed by Lawrence Kohlberg as well as the clear reasoning and concrete examples of Jacob Bronowski. Kohlberg's book is difficult to obtain and expensive, but a search of him and a glance at the Wikipedia article will give people the idea of the power of his work. Bronowski's book, The Ascent of Man" became a PBS series a few years ago.
( )

Fantastic read. Sam Harris performed an exorcism of my previously held beliefs of ought vs is. Clear, succinct and precise. ( )