The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris

Hogan, Michael

doi:10.1080/17439760.2011.561030

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The principle that child abuse is wrong rarely causes disagreement in modern societies (Harris, 2010). Because of that, it can be controversial if the moral principle needs to be defended, justified, or formulated in academic discourse, at least in short texts.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2017

J SW Values and Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2017

J SW Values and Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under this view, religiosity serves little (if any) moral benefit and may actually be harmful to morality, particularly when the target of a potential moral or immoral behavior belongs to a different religious group. Elements of this view are characteristic of the "New Atheist" movement and have been echoed in the works of fellow atheists Hitchens (2007), Harris (2010), andDennett (2006). Understanding the extent to which religiosity does, or does not, promote prosociality is a first step in resolving these conflicting views of the role of religion in psychology and sociology.…”

Section: Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Religiosity predicts prosociality, especially when measured by self-report: A meta-analysis of almost 60 years of research.

Kelly,

Kramer,

Shariff

2024

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis explores the long-standing and heavily debated question of whether religiosity is associated with prosocial and antisocial behavior at the individual level. In an analysis of 701 effects across 237 samples, encompassing 811,663 participants, a significant relationship of r = .13 was found between religiosity and prosociality (and antisociality, which was treated as its inverse). Nevertheless, there was substantial heterogeneity of effect sizes, and several potential moderators were explored. The effect was most heavily moderated by the type of measurement used to assess prosocial or antisocial behavior. Religiosity correlated more strongly with self-reported prosociality (r = .15) than with directly measured prosocial behavior (r = .06). Three possible interpretations of this moderation are discussed, namely, that (a) lab-based methods do not accurately or fully capture actual religious prosociality; (b) the self-report effect is explained by religious self-enhancement and overreports actual prosociality; or (c) both religiosity and self-reported prosociality are explained by self-enhancement. The question of whether religiosity more strongly positively predicts prosociality or negatively predicts antisociality is also explored. This moderation is, at most, weak. We test additional potential moderators, including the aspect of religiosity and type of behavior measured, the ingroup or outgroup nature of the recipient, and study characteristics. Finally, we recommend a shift in how researchers investigate questions of religiosity and prosociality in the future. Public Significance StatementThis work summarizes the large body of evidence bearing on the long-standing question of whether more religious people act more prosocially. We find that religiosity is indeed correlated with prosociality. However, this association is stronger when prosociality is measured by self-report than when prosocial behavior is directly measured. These findings set the stage for what future research in this area should focus on and help us better understand the nature of religiosity in a world where its societal role is shifting.

show abstract

“…In contrast, a description based on empirical evidence and objective observation can provide a more accurate and reliable understanding. However, even in empirical observation, there can be biases and limitations that need to be considered (Harris, 2011). In general, it is important to use a variety of methods to approach understanding complex phenomena to gain a more complete and accurate picture (Kuhn, 2012).…”

Section: John Watson and Max Meyermentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Watson's Behaviorism and Meyer's Objectivism: Reassessing Traditional Assumptions in Psychology

Santana¹

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay compares Watson's book "Behavior: An Introduction to Comparative Psychology" and Meyer's book "Foundations of Psychology" with a focus on three themes: the critiques of introspective methods, the use of terms such as instincts and reflexes, and the relation between mental life, physiology, and causal explanations in psychological science. Both Meyer and Watson recognized the need to overcome the limitations of introspective methods to develop a naturalistic framework for psychological science based on observation and testing. However, Meyer emphasized a physiological definition of instincts and habits as a means to achieve an objective psychology. Watson, on the other hand, advocated for a contextual or ecological definition of instincts and habits to understand how different species develop convergent functions, traits, drives, and behaviors. Meyer viewed the nervous system as the final frontier in psychological science, considering that mental life could be reduced to a function of the nervous system, which in turn triggers behavior through nervous connections. In contrast, Watson rejected neuro-reductionism and viewed behavior as a biological function that allows animals to adapt to new environmental contingencies throughout their lifetimes. Overall, this essay analyzes the differences between Meyer and Watson's perspectives on fundamental themes in psychology, including the role of observation and testing, the definition of instincts and habits, and the relationship between mental life, physiology, and causal explanations in psychological science.

show abstract

The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris

Cited by 13 publications

References 27 publications

Untitled

Untitled

Religiosity predicts prosociality, especially when measured by self-report: A meta-analysis of almost 60 years of research.

Comparing Watson's Behaviorism and Meyer's Objectivism: Reassessing Traditional Assumptions in Psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About