The well placed prose and excellent research keep the reader engaged and entertained. But the thesis of the book, that a notion of 'well being' both overcomes Hume's is/ought distinction and G E Moore's open question, proves in the end to be completely unpersuasive. Of anything that promotes the so called well being, there will still be the open question as to whether it promotes well being - or, is it good? Despite the passion of the writing it ultimately turns out to be yet another infinite regress; an attempt at a smoke and mirrors trick attempting to camouflage circularity. Whatever the ill-defined concept of well-being may be, it depends upon facts that will have different moral valences when a true dilemma is confronted. For example, how can one choose between the facts of pain and life by careful research when deciding whether to suicide, euthanase, or abort. All of the information in the world will not dictate a single moral choice without some moral source beyond the mere facts. Harris does not argue convincingly to the contrary by repeating his assertions and saying that just because it is hard does not mean it is impossible. It seems his commitment to the destruction of Gould's non overlapping magisteria is so critical to Harris' raison d'ētre, that he has blinded himself to the flaws in his argument in the same way that he hopes his repeated assertions will convince others. He just cannot rest with another source of morality other than facts. After pages of beautiful prose, he is still left at the starting blocks, jumping passionately on the spot of obvious but pointless erudition. Beguilingly charming, the book advances no new science of morality, as claimed, at all.