The Moral Landscape book club questions

1. 1.

   Harris says wellbeing is the foundation of ethics. If someone rejects that premise, what does Harris think they are actually committed to? Do you find his challenge persuasive?

2. 2.

   The is-ought distinction is one of the most durable ideas in philosophy. How well does Harris engage with it, and where does his rebuttal succeed or fail?

3. 3.

   He argues that moral relativism is incoherent. Can you construct a version of moral relativism that survives his objections?

4. 4.

   What are the political implications of a world where scientists are the final authorities on moral questions? Does that worry you, and why?

5. 5.

   Harris claims some religious practices cause objectively measurable harm. Choose one example from the book and evaluate whether his standard of measurement is sound.

6. 6.

   He argues that the difficulty of mapping the moral landscape doesn't mean the landscape doesn't exist. Does that analogy hold? What would a moral fact actually look like?

7. 7.

   His free will argument appears here and is developed more in his later book Free Will. Does the claim that free will is illusory change how you think about praise, blame, and punishment?

8. 8.

   Is Harris's account of wellbeing capacious enough to include things like tragedy, sacrifice, and suffering chosen for a larger good — or does it flatten these?

9. 9.

   Which of Harris's specific moral claims in the book do you find most compelling? Which do you find most vulnerable to challenge?

10. 10.

    He writes mostly about the failures of religious morality. What would an equally rigorous application of his framework to secular moral failures look like?

11. 11.

    If the science of wellbeing were much more advanced than it is now, would you be comfortable letting that science settle some moral disputes currently left to democratic deliberation?

How to run the discussion

• Pick six to eight, not all of them. An hour of real discussion covers fewer questions than anyone expects, and racing the list is what makes a book club feel like homework.
• Open with what people noticed, not what they concluded. Asking for a verdict first hardens opinions before anyone has heard each other.
• Let the disagreement run. The questions below that split a room are the ones worth the time; the ones everyone answers the same way can be skipped.
• Ask the quiet person a specific question. A direct, narrow question is far easier to answer than an open invitation to contribute.