The Moral Landscape Challenge
For those who missed it, I have agreed to judge Sam Harris’s competition, The Moral Landscape Challenge, in which you get to compete for a prize of US$2,000 for the best 1000-word essay challenging the central argument of The Moral Landscape. Or, if you can actually persuade Harris to change his mind the prize jumps to US$20,000.
Just what that “central argument” might be is presumably debatable, though Harris offers his version of what he thinks it is in an FAQ, so it might be worth reposting this bit:
Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, fully constrained by the laws of the universe (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science (in principle, if not in practice). Consequently, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life.
I have plenty of ideas myself about problems with this “central argument”, and with other core elements of The Moral Landscape, but now I am a judge for this competition I don’t plan to say more about them in public or to enter into debate about it prior to the judging. I think I should be careful not to prejudice the outcome any further than I have already done in discussion of the book mainly prior to the announcement. Feel free to discuss in a civil way (worth mentioning the “civil” part) among yourselves, whether here or elsewhere, but do bear in mind that I’ll feel constrained from responding.