"What Sam Harris wishes to do in his new book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, is to mount a science-based challenge to [the is/ought problem]. For Harris, values are facts, and as such they are amenable to scientific inquiry. I think he is spectacularly wrong.
But he is a self-professed consequentialist — a philosophical stance close to utilitarianism — who simply ducks any discussion of the implicatons of that a priori choice, which informs his entire view of what counts for morality, happiness, well-being and so forth."
As I suspected, Harris fails before he even starts.