Positives The book is widely praised for its ambitious and thought-provoking central thesis: that morality can and should be approached as a subject for scientific inquiry, rather than solely relying on religious dogma or arbitrary cultural relativism. Many reviewers, including some who are otherwise critical, commend the author for challenging the widespread belief that science has nothing to say about human values. Readers appreciate the book's attempt to lay a groundwork for a secular, objective morality, often defining "good" in terms of human well-being, which is seen as measurable through fields like psychology and neuroscience. The discussion is found to be stimulating for those interested in the intersection of science and ethics, offering a fresh perspective on how actions might be evaluated on a spectrum of overall happiness and flourishing. Some also highlight specific chapters, such as those on belief and free will, as particularly insightful.
Negatives Despite its compelling premise, the book draws significant criticism, particularly regarding its philosophical rigor and tone. Numerous reviewers point out the author's perceived dismissal or superficial engagement with established moral philosophy, accusing him of crudely repackaging existing theories without proper acknowledgment or depth. A recurring critique is the book's failure to adequately bridge the "is-ought" gap, struggling to logically derive moral imperatives from empirical facts. Critics also find the definition of "well-being" to be vague and inconsistently applied, leading to muddled arguments and unresolved ethical dilemmas, such as the potential for sacrificing individual well-being for the aggregate. The author's writing style is often described as condescending, arrogant, or polemical, alienating readers even when they might agree with his underlying principles. Furthermore, some reviewers feel the book oversimplifies complex issues, misrepresents opposing viewpoints, and unnecessarily includes "religion bashing" that detracts from its core arguments.
Conclusion Overall, the book receives a highly mixed reception, often lauded for its big-picture vision but criticized for its execution and philosophical shortcomings. It is generally not seen as a definitive guide to a scientific morality, but rather as an important and provocative argument for its possibility and necessity. This book would primarily appeal to readers who are already sympathetic to a secular worldview and are open to the idea that science can inform and shape human values. It is likely to resonate with fans of the author's previous work and those interested in neuroscience and psychology's potential contributions to ethical thought. However, readers expecting a deeply researched philosophical treatise, those sensitive to a polemical tone, or individuals with strong religious convictions may find it less persuasive or even frustrating. It serves as a valuable starting point for discussion, encouraging readers to consider how human well-being can be a measurable and objective basis for moral progress.
