The Moral Landscape

I recently started reading Sam Harris's new book, The Moral Landscape. The basic argument that Sam Harris makes is that science can have something to say about morality. We can try and perhaps succeed at figuring out moral truths. He spends much of the first part of the book arguing against moral relativism. I actually didn't know that it remains so accepted in academic circles, since it seems pretty easy to refute in my opinion.

This reminded me of Epictetus's argument against the truth-denying arguments of the Academics:

Do you comprehend that you are awake? I do not, the man replies, for I do not even comprehend when in my sleep I imagine that I am awake. Does this appearance then not differ from the other? Not at all, he replies. Shall I still argue with this man? And what fire or what iron shall I apply to him to make him feel that is deadened? He does perceive, but he pretends that he does not. He is even worse than a dead man.

I'll write more on Harris's book later. I don't agree with some of his points, but his arguments against moral relativism are true. Like Epictetus's argument, that sort of blindness makes you want to just shake the relativist and make them see reason. They have taken a reasonable precaution and turned it into a rule that negates common sense or any logic.