After listening to the final chapter of Harris's book i am a little confused. He basically sums up his thesis by saying that while a science of morality may not be possible in practice it still holds in principle. That's the major objection that I have had throughout my re-listening experience.
Over all, I think that he makes a strong argument for the further study of states of the brain and human experience. My favorite part of the final chapter is his analogy of moral relativism and a world financial crisis. It is perplexing to think that we don't think that every economic plan that could be developed to deal with a world wide financial meltdown, but we do that exact thing when it comes to cultural practices. It hurts my brain to think about how someone could use neuroscience to map the moral landscape, but I hope in the future that science can at least give us another point of reference to right our collective moral cumpas.
Sent from my iPhone