The Moral Landscape is an ok discussion of ethics, but the real question is one of meta-ethics. Sure, science can give some pointers to help human wellbeing. Bu

The Moral Landscape is an ok discussion of ethics, but the real question is one of meta-ethics. Sure, science can give some pointers to help human wellbeing. But it can't make the assertion that thriving is a good thing, or that individuals ought (in the sense of a moral imperative) to care about anything beyond their individual wishes. Harris starts with a naturalist/atheist/humanist/utilitiarian meta-ethic, and goes from there. But he doesn't (and cannot, due to the nature of science) show that such a meta-ethic is correct to begin with.