The Moral Landscape

It's not often that I read a book (at least a non fiction one) which makes a lasting impression on me. At least not to the degree where it challenges the way I think to any meaningful extent. I can read books which reinforce what I already think or which are of general interest. But to have one's world view challenged by a book feels like a very different thing altogether. I've always thought it sounds a little over zealous when people refer to a book as 'life changing' and so I won't use those words. Even so, Sam Harris' 'The Moral Landscape' has certainly impacted on me to the point of making a lasting impression.

 It also feels a bit like I'm about to just write a book review - and if the good people at Transworld are reading this, don't worry, there's no charge ;-) - but people are moved by different things at different points in their lives. The way I see it, all you can really do is process it and then put it in some kind of context within your own life.

I'm not going to waste too much time going into detail on the finer points of Dr Harris' argument - if only because it's complicated and however long it took me to struggle through this book (it's not the easiest of reads) it would take me even longer to try and summarise them in any real detail. The crux of it is that whilst moral relativism has become a popular stance among some people when discussing moral issues, it could be the case that there are in fact objectively 'right' and 'wrong' answers to these issues. These answers can be determined by establishing how certain courses of action can impact the well-being of an individual and the morality of an action and the way we live our lives should be based on this level of well being. In essence, there are some social/religious/cultural practices that are just wrong (or so the argument goes) and the fact that they're time honoured or revered is irrelevant.

Now, when you get right down to it, I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I might make the odd joke in poor taste and yes, I am one of those people who thinks that political correctness is getting a little bit excessive but when all said and done, I'm usually one of the people who argues that morality is too complicated a thing to define to any degree of satisfaction.

From what I understand, Sam Harris is also firmly a part of 'the liberal agenda' and so I'm not accusing him of bigotry or conservatism. However, Dr Harris is also firmly a part of the new wave of atheism which seems to be increasing in popularity along with Richard Dawkins et al and here is where my own delicate sensibilities were in danger of being wounded.

Don't get me wrong, I'm basically an atheist and I agree with most of the arguments put forward for atheism as a concept. However (and yes, I am  finally coming to my point) when I read 'The God Delusion' and some of the other arguments against organised religion I experienced a definite feeling of discomfort.

Sure, I don't believe in God, at least not in the Abrahamic sense of the term and so I don't appreciate the idea that morality has to come from a divine source. I also don't appreciate being dictated to about what I should and shouldn't be allowed to do solely because it doesn't correspond with someone else's faith (abortion, sexual conduct etc). But if I'm going to be truly liberal, can I really judge someone else's sense of what is right and wrong? I can disagree, but can I or anyone else, honestly make such a judgement without being a hypocrite? And the answer I would have given up until reading 'The Moral Landscape' would have probably been 'no'.

Does this mean that I'm now going to start strutting around with a holier than thou attitude? I hope not. I start my counselling diploma in September and I can't wait. Having said that, any halfway decent counsellor will stress the importance of maintaining a non-judgemental attitude when working with clients. Indeed, the brief time that I have spent working with young offenders is a constant reminder that whilst morality is arguably very simply on paper, life is too complicated to hold onto a polarised view of good and evil.

However, even bearing all that in mind, if you asked me if there was such thing as a moral absolute, I think I'd be a lot less certain about my answer than I once was. And therein lies the point of this post. I still believe that people can only change when offered a non judgemental environment (in as far as that is possible) to safely explore their feelings. But if morality is more universal than I had previously considered, I worry that being non-judgemental may become that little bit more difficult.