Taking a Wrong Turn in the Moral Landscape

 

I really, really wanted to like Sam Harris’s The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. A large proportion of my philosophical disagreements with my boyfriend and with Christians generally center on the question of whether a belief in absolute morality is compatible with atheism, so I had my fingers crossed that this book would be useful to me as a rebuttal.

Alas.

The problems start with Harris’s definition of science:

Some people [define] “science” in exceedingly narrow terms, as though it were synonymous with mathematical modeling or immediate access to experimental data. However, this is to mistake science for a few of its tools. Science simply represents our best effort to understand what is going on in this universe, and the boundaries between it and rational thought cannot always be drawn” [emphasis added]

So, in other words, the subtitle “How Science Can Determine Human Values” could be rephrased as “How Philosophy Can Determine Human Values” or even “How Having a Good Think Can Determine Human Values.” I don’t disagree with these rephrasings, but they’re no longer controversial or challenging.

And that’s really the problem with the whole book. Harris is using his ‘scientific’ method to derive really boring and obvious moral truths. Any halfway decent moral system should be able to argue that female genital mutilation is bad and that the existence of psychopaths do not disprove the existence of moral systems. You have to use better examples than that to explain your system of moral reasoning.

Harris appears to be a utilitarian, but he never talks much about how he defines utils. He talks a lot about happiness, but he clearly doesn’t accept all subjective experiences of happiness as legitimate since he argues that his happiness is only legitimate insofar as it promotes the happiness and well-being of others. If he explored realistic moral dilemmas, I’d have a better sense what he thought constituted ‘well-being.’ As is, he spends most of his time discussing bizarre future hypotheticals like how to run a justice system or a society if people can be chemically compelled not to lie.

Ultimately, Harris puts his hope for moral progress in scientific advances. He assumes that the primary limitation on making moral decisions is a lack of data. According to Harris, to progress, we need to be able to more finely differentiate between different outcomes. This seems to limit moral behavior to people who understand social science and Bayesian statistics. As much as I love both those things, I think it’s possible to cultivate a moral attitude without certain knowledge of the outcomes. But that’s not surprising, given that I’m into virtue ethics.

About Leah Libresco

Leah Anthony Libresco graduated from Yale in 2011. She works as an Editorial Assistant at The American Conservative by day, and by night writes for Patheos about theology, philosophy, and math at www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked. She was received into the Catholic Church in November 2012."

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04746612189094458441 Lukas

    "Any halfway decent moral system should be able to argue that female genital mutilation is bad and that the existence of psychopaths do not disprove the existence of moral systems."I don't think an atheistic moral system can offer a compelling account of even these basic things. It seems to me that the question of morality takes us back to the question of purpose. Human beings have their own goals, and evolution produces certain appartent purposes (survival and reproduction), but atheistic systems lack a more general purpose for human life. For Catholics, man exists to know God, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world and to be happy with him forever in Heaven. For atheists, the universe does not endow man with any purpose, except perhaps what is given by evolution.So, I think, there is no well-grounded answer to, "Why not FGM?" or "Is being a psychopath just a lifestyle choice?" The difficult question is whether our particular moral beliefs point to general moral principles. Or, to put it another way, when we disagree about what is right and wrong, what precisely are we disagreeing about? Are we arguing about what best promotes human flourishing? Different humans may flourish in very different ways.

    • Daniel

      First, psychopathy is a physiological impairment, not a choice.

      Next, there are plenty of moral systems that are wholly functional within atheism. It is unclear why bringing in creator gods helps anything.

      Why is murder bad?
      1) It takes away meaningful relationships, cuts off the possibility of experience, removes one’s memories, hopes and dreams from the world
      or
      2) It takes away meaningful relationships, cuts off the possibility of experience, removes one’s memories, hopes and dreams from the world, and a god says so (or has made it so).

      There are utilitarian, deontological, subjectivist, quasi-objectivist, reason and emotion based moral systems that are wholly functional without gods. We don’t need to have a built in purpose to figure out that murder is wrong. The rest of morality is a social contract – a social contract built on our innate sense of empathy and justice. With reasoned inquiry and science, we can determine the most fair and beneficial outcomes for all those things that can care, all the things that moral concern should include (all sentient creatures).

    • Brian

      How can you possibly say “I don’t think an atheistic moral system can offer a compelling account of even these basic things?” What do you think an “atheistic” moral system consists of? Do you think we just overlook consequences of our actions just because god didn’t tell us so? If I steal from someone then, at VERY least, I know I am a thief. I don’t like viewing myself in that sort of light. Why? Because I don’t want to involve myself with anyone who would steal from me, therefore why would I want to be that type of person to other people? “For atheists, the universe does not endow man with any purpose, except perhaps what is given by evolution.” Are you kidding? Do you think that anyone who doesn’t believe the completely ridiculous claims of the bible simply just defaults to what we understand about evolution? Evolution is not a moral system, it is an explanation (much better than ANYTHING in the bible) of our origins. It’s fascinating but THATS IT. We don’t need to learn any sort of moral ethics from it other than what impulses we may be programed to have and how to harness or repress them, given the circumstances and consequences. What do you mean “Different humans may flourish in very different ways.” Of course we do, we also can cause immense suffering in different ways. That’s the entire point of The Moral Landscape. To attempt to take every factor of human and animal wellbeing or suffering and devise laws and governmental systems that use the information to promote the greatest wellbeing for everyone. Obviously slavery IS NOT one such way to accomplish this if only for the fact that you may not know if you are going to be a slave or not. But your bible patently condones and even recommends slavery. I know what you’re going to say “it was just written for that time period!!!!” right? Yeah, I agree, the entire book was written for a long forgotten and entirely irrelevant time period that we can now shelve among all the other terrible ideas human beings have had. You do not get your morals from the bible. If you disagree then you should be able to find a moral precept or some form of guidance that is better than “I will not do anything to anyone else that I would not like done to me, in fact I will treat people the way I WANT to be treated in each circumstance.” Find me a single verse that is any better than that. You won’t, but you will find a thicket of extremely immoral laws and precepts that have NOTHING to do with human flourishing and are extremely hostile to happiness of any kind. So what was it you were trying to argue? Atheistic moral systems? Atheism is just an outcome of the admission to be honest with yourself and those around you. Once religion is finally gone for good and we can really start to discuss morality sensibly the word “atheism” can go away too. We will not need it. I don’t need it now, I’m a human being who values the happiness and wellbeing of other forms of life. I never needed atheism for that. I absolutely didn’t need religion for it either.

  • http://joepilot-theeagleisthinking.blogspot.com/ Eagle Driver

    I like your questioning, searching for difficult answers to equally difficult questions. I especially enjoyed your point on the subtitle of his book: "rephrased as “How Philosophy Can Determine Human Values”". I wonder if Human Values are scientific or are they to confound science.I happen to agree with Lukas and the point of:"It seems to me that the question of morality takes us back to the question of purpose.""The planets, plants, and animals cannot deviate from the necessity of their nature, from the laws of their species, i.e., from their truth. They become what they ought to be; 'is' and 'ought' are not divided. But human freedom contains free choice within itself and can sever itself from human necessity." – HegelSo I propose that science cannot "discover" Human Values because of the ability of humans to do what they "ought" to do and yet they do not. Animals cannot "not" do what they ought to do as it is instinctual. Science can never "prove" the actions of a Medal of Honor recipient. Free will is something animals do not possess.Food for ThoughtIf you are Hungry

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11174257204278139704 Charles

    Call it "Natural Law" if you want, but I think it is almost self-evident to me that moral values are absolute. The old 'find a moral relativist and actually behave as if morality was subjective and he'll change his tune' actually works!I do think it is strange that the framing has flipped he argument to the point that non-theists feel the need to defend morality without a god, when it is entirely debatable if theists have ever shown a compelling reason why you need god for morality.Catholics would argue that morality is absolute without needing to bring god in, primarily because he was there at the start and set the whole system up! But I don't think someone like Aquinas would find it acceptable to say that morality requires divine revelation, in fact he wrong extensive works discussing morality entirely rationally.I also don't see how purpose has anything to do with it, is the implication really the simplistic take that you are only moral to "know and love god" and the moment you lose your faith you become a psychopath?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04746612189094458441 Lukas

    "I do think it is strange that the framing has flipped he argument to the point that non-theists feel the need to defend morality without a god, when it is entirely debatable if theists have ever shown a compelling reason why you need god for morality."I actually don't think you need God for morality, although I can see how it sounded like that was what I thought in my last comment. What you really need is a general purpose or human nature for mankind a whole. When you say, "It is good for people to be generous," you are generalizing about people. But, from an evolutionary / materialist perspective, evolution produces a wide variety of different types of people, and although you can say "most people will be happier if they are generous," I don't see how you can say, "part of being a complete human being is to behave generously." From a materalist perspective, there is no universal human nature, there are only particular people with particular psychological characteristics and moral sentiments. Therefore, you don't have the resources to explain why people who don't enjoy generous activity are in some way flawed human beings. Flawed compared to what standard?"I also don't see how purpose has anything to do with it, is the implication really the simplistic take that you are only moral to "know and love god" and the moment you lose your faith you become a psychopath?"No, that is obviously false. We are not discussing whether theists are more moral than atheists. We are discussing whether atheists have a well-grounded basis for morality. A person who lacks a well-grounded basis for morality may still be a good and honest person, and a person who has a well-grounded basis for morality may still fail to live up to what he or she believes.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/05770115249740948307 For The Sake Of Him

    Leah, as an ardent Thomist, I agree with several of the points you make above. Also, just a quick question, you mentioned last week that you'd soon be releasing the list of books you'd be reading for the upcoming year. Have you figured out when you'll be posting that?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885 March Hare

    "Any halfway decent moral system should be able to argue that female genital mutilation is bad"And here lies the problem with wishing for an absolute morality. There are enough people round the world that are convinced in their absolute morality that approve of this practice that we cannot write it off as psychopaths.You are using your own subjective morality (if not, then what else are you using to judge?) to say that FGM is wrong and that any moral system that is decent must be able to condemn this practice. But that system has to be able to condemn it on the basis of something rather than just declare it immoral.I am hopeful that Sam Harris' attempt to prove the unprovable will give us better tools along the way to judge moral situations (even if solely based on our subjective morality) even if his attempt is utterly futile.So here's my 'moral relativism':Do I think FGM is immoral? Of course.Do I think the FGM practitioners think it's immoral? No they don't.So can I criticise the practice? Yes, as strongly as is humanly possible.Can I convince them they are wrong? Yes. I have to find out what their values (and aims) are first. Then I can see if there is any internal conflict in their values, then describe the outcomes in the world of having those values compared to mine and try to convince them that it is their values that are wrong.Unfortunately people who think their values come from the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe are unlikely to be swayed by some atheist.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04746612189094458441 Lukas

    "Then I can see if there is any internal conflict in their values"And what if their values are internally consistent but different from your values? Or what if their values do not include a concern for internal consistency?"describe the outcomes in the world of having those values compared to mine and try to convince them that it is their values that are wrong."This description sounds like you are assuming a basics similarity in moral outlook, but with a difference in moral views. You might convince people who don't value honesty but do value friendship that they need to be honest in order to have good friendships. That makes sense. But I don't see how it works when the differences are more fundemental – how do you tell that the sociopath's values are worse than your own? We all assume that the sociopath is wrong… we both take that as a given. But what I don't understand what you really mean when you say that something is 'wrong'. Do you just mean you disapprove of it strongly and wish that everyone else would do similarly?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04746612189094458441 Lukas

    geez I cannot spell.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12103905129399107125 Mark P. Shea

    Leah:Have you read The Abolition of Man? Or seen its (unwitting) dramatization, "Dollhouse"?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16496144988509668275 Leah

    @Mark Shea: I haven't read it, but, given my fondness for Lewis and my fangirling for Whedon, that's getting moved up the list.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914 Matt DeStefano

    I just found this site, and am definitely enjoying the reading. I'm a Sam Harris fanboy and just wanted to point out some things you seem to have missed in your review."So, in other words, the subtitle “How Science Can Determine Human Values” could be rephrased as “How Philosophy Can Determine Human Values” or even “How Having a Good Think Can Determine Human Values.” I don’t disagree with these rephrasings, but they’re no longer controversial or challenging."What Harris is saying is that normative facts (stealing is bad, killing is bad, honesty is good) are grounded in positive facts (gravity, brain structure, chemical reactions). He claims that science (both physical lab sciences and philosophy) can best scrutinize positive facts and make concerned judgments on them.It's really a gigantic claim (especially in academic philosophy circles, and even more so to anyone who believes in god(s) because he is saying that the epistemological limits of empirical study does not stop at there apparently physical world. Or, rather, he scoots past Hume's pleated man skirt in order to proclaim that we can get an "ought" from an "is". Also: this notion that Harris is a utilitarian but doesn't define utils is a bit of a stretch. Harris notes that the "well being of conscious creatures" (WBCC) is what we should be striving for, but also realizes the complication of actualizing this in reality. This is why Harris harps on peaks and valleys in the 'moral landscape', noting that there may be variations of "good" and variations of "bad" with respect to specific moral questions. I have yet to meet an atheist who subscribes to virtue ethics (that might be a carryover from Catholicism, I know they looooove virtue ethics), if you have any posts exploring that topic I'd be intrigued to read them.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16496144988509668275 Leah

    Hi Matt, and welcome! I want to reply to one of your biggest points:Also: this notion that Harris is a utilitarian but doesn't define utils is a bit of a stretch. Harris notes that the "well being of conscious creatures" (WBCC) is what we should be striving for, but also realizes the complication of actualizing this in reality. This is why Harris harps on peaks and valleys in the 'moral landscape', noting that there may be variations of "good" and variations of "bad" with respect to specific moral questions.It seems to me that there's a fair amount of disagreement about what the 'well being of conscious creatures' constitutes. Not on some of the easier cases (rape, murder, starvation, etc), but on plenty of others (what constitutes a good relationship, do we have higher duties to our family than to people generally, etc). I couldn't intuit Harris's moral positions on these kind of issues from his book. Nor did I have much of a guess about how he approached them. I will post about virtue ethics at some point in the future, but I think they'll end up mixed into my current series on marriage soon.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914 Matt DeStefano

    Thank you!"It seems to me that there's a fair amount of disagreement about what the 'well being of conscious creatures' constitutes. Not on some of the easier cases (rape, murder, starvation, etc), but on plenty of others (what constitutes a good relationship, do we have higher duties to our family than to people generally, etc). I couldn't intuit Harris's moral positions on these kind of issues from his book. Nor did I have much of a guess about how he approached them. "Well, Harris actually deals with this extensively in the book, I'm surprised you didn't come across it. What he says is that while our definition of WBCC might be fluid and ever-evolving, this shouldn't stop a science of morality from success. He points to our concept of "health", which is constantly changing (think healthy in the 1800s vs healthy now), and must evolve due to new data. The same would be so of a definition of WBCC.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16496144988509668275 Leah

    I don't know if the 'health' comparison is fair. I think you could argue that our knowledge of 'well-being' is imperfect and ever improving or evolving whereas there's not some abstract idea of health that we're striving toward.More to the point, Harris pushes a lot of important questions forward til when science and our understanding of our well being has progressed. I can't suss out, from reading the book, what his current heuristic is for making moral decisions. Does he only apply his scientific thinking to FGM or his hypothetical example of the society that blinds every third child?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914 Matt DeStefano

    There isn't a set definition of health, it is ever-evolving as our science becomes more advanced. Right now, it's incredible to see someone that is over 100 years old. In two centuries, we might not be as amazed to see people alive and well at age 150. I think it's quite easy to illustrate how it is an abstract concept that we use to loosely fit our conception of what it means to be "healthy". The same goes with WBCC, the more we learn about the brain, the more we learn about the origins of thought/action, the more we can expand WBCC to fit our expanded knowledge. For instance, the people that wrote the Bible arguably have a far less cultivated knowledge of WBCC (seeing as they allowed slavery, genocide, and stoned people who had natural inclinations towards the same sex), but as our knowledge has progressed, so has our concept of well-being. His current "heuristic" for solving moral problems is use of scientific thought. This isn't excluded to simple white-coat lab results, but includes our own application of neuroscience, physics, psychology, biology, etc. While there isn't a set formula to tease out moral truths like one might desire, he says that there may be a range of acceptable answers (the peaks and valleys of the moral landscape), but that as our knowledge progresses, we may be able to further hone in on what benefits us most.

  • http://walk-by-me.blogspot.com Sverige

    The idea that our basic morals are hardwired into us and into our animal cousins is remarkable. Harris backs up his theory with hypotheses tested in his lab, and even traveled to Africa to work with bonobos and chimps. Whether or not one eventually agrees with his theory, this book is a fascinating, morally conscious, treatise on something that makes us uniquely human.

  • Pingback: Scared of Darwin for All the Wrong Reasons

  • Pingback: What would be the impact of objective morality? | Smidoz' Blog

  • Darren

    A reply to one particular part of the post, “Any halfway decent moral system should be able to argue that female genital mutilation is bad…”
    After having a good rousing argument with my Father, who has inexplicably transformed himself post-retirement from a decently Agnostic Utilitarian into a Limbaugh-quoting Evangelical (I blame living in Texas), I undertook a brief study of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). I did this after my Father’s remark that all Muslims deserved to die because: all Muslims practiced FGM; and all Muslims thought it to be a right and just practice. I quickly found that his statements were exaggerations, no surprise there, but I also found that FGM was both more widespread, and more nuanced, than I had suspected.
    Hedging statement – for the record, I do not hold that FGM is morally Right as it is performed on children with no, or at best dubious, informed consent.
    Proponents of FGM are a bit more nuanced than I had suspected. There are flavors of: cultural / tribal identity, rites of passage, conforming to a communal aesthetic, participation in an ancestral tradition, symbolic (or not so symbolic) ‘cutting away’ of the carnal / sinful flesh so as to attain a more respectable / Matronly identity. I was also surprised to find this is not so much a Muslim practice as a tradition rooted in certain regions of Africa, though there has certainly been a bit of diffusion where the two overlap. I was also surprised to read of the strength of defense for the practice among the female members of the affected cultures.
    These practitioners are not amoral, or Evil, or psychopaths. They have, to their opinion and satisfaction, a coherent and reasonable moral system. And their system says FGM is not only permissible, but an actual Good.
    To me, it is an abominable practice, and I think they are flat wrong, but that is most likely because I find it distasteful and culturally alien. Ethically, I find it Wrong based upon my belief that the sovereignty of the individual is violated. But, from that standpoint, it falls in line with such practices as foot-binding, male infant circumcision, child scarification, and even infant ear piercing. Certainly FMG is more invasive and painful than pierced ears, so from a Utilitarian perspective, it is much worse. But from an Absolute Objective Morality standpoint, can we draw such a line?
    Based upon yesterday’s news of the (seemingly) effective banning of infant male circumcision in Germany, I would be curious how such a ruling would go over in the U.S. Certaily there would be protests and celebrations, histrionics on both sides, and claims by supporters of circumcision that it is: tradition, not really that bad, offering health benefits, a religious prerogative, etc. In short, the same claims made by proponents of FGM…
    Apologies for the rambling, but all of this is to say that I disagree with the premise, “Any halfway decent moral system should be able to argue that female genital mutilation is bad…” One could just as easily make the counter statement that, “Any halfway persuasive moral system should be able to argue that female genital mutilation is good…”

    • Darren

      I realize that I may, with my last post, have been kicking at a straw man.
      The statement, “Any halfway decent moral system should be able to argue that female genital mutilation is bad..” is not the same as the statement, “Every halfway decent moral system will conclude that female genital mutilation is bad…”

  • Pingback: It’s Utilitarianism All the Way Down?

  • Pingback: Can You Pick a Humanist Out of a Lineup?

  • Pingback: coach outlet online A Brief History in Coach Handbags plus Boots-spun9_1

  • Pingback: wholesale mac cosmetics The Ways of Funny T-Shirts_2

  • Pingback: bottes ugg pas cher soldes

  • Pingback: fitflop sale

  • Pingback: nfl jerseys

  • Pingback: marc jacobs bags

  • Pingback: north face outlet

  • Pingback: louis vuitton outlet

  • Pingback: salvatore ferragamo outlet

  • Pingback: air max 1

  • Pingback: furla handbags

  • Pingback: gucci handbags

  • Pingback: michael kors outlet stores

  • Pingback: nike kd

  • Pingback: ugg boots

  • Pingback: red wing shoes

  • Pingback: louis vuitton outlet store

  • Pingback: Yves Saint Laurent Shoes

  • Pingback: isabel marant sneakers

  • Pingback: michael kors outlet online

  • Pingback: nike heels

  • Pingback: clarks outlet

  • Pingback: balenciaga bag

  • Pingback: celine handbags sale

  • Pingback: michael kors handbags

  • Pingback: moncler outlet

  • Pingback: canada goose jackets

  • Pingback: uggs outlet store

  • Pingback: north face jacket

  • Pingback: ray ban sunglasses

  • Pingback: tory burch outlet

  • Pingback: isabel marant sneakers

  • Pingback: gucci handbags

  • Pingback: woolrich outlet

  • Pingback: juicy couture handbags

  • Pingback: burberry black friday 2014

  • Pingback: canada goose outlet sale

  • Pingback: louis vuitton black friday sale

  • Pingback: mcm bags

  • Pingback: nike shox nz

  • Pingback: uggs clearance

  • Pingback: north face black friday

  • Pingback: buy celine handbags

  • Pingback: zumba fitness

  • Pingback: chi hair products

  • Pingback: p90x workout

  • Pingback: coach factory

  • Pingback: discount ugg boots

  • Pingback: cheap true religion

  • Pingback: belstaff outlet store

  • Pingback: michael kors bags

  • Pingback: coach outlet online

  • Pingback: longchamp outlet

  • Pingback: nike high heels

  • Pingback: burberry handbags

  • Pingback: black friday beats by dre

  • Pingback: new balance shoes

  • Pingback: patagonia jackets

  • Pingback: mbt shoes

  • Pingback: kd v

  • Pingback: woolrich jackets for women

  • Pingback: mac cosmetics

  • Pingback: cheap beats by dre

  • Pingback: reebok outlet store

  • Pingback: tods shoes

  • Pingback: ugg boots clearance sale

  • Pingback: prada outlet

  • Pingback: mcm outlet

  • Pingback: discount uggs cheap uggs

  • Pingback: hollister outlet

  • Pingback: canada goose parka

  • Pingback: uggs outlet

  • Pingback: pandora bracelets

  • Pingback: ralph lauren polo outlet online

  • Pingback: ugg boots outlet

  • Pingback: north face on sale

  • Pingback: parajumper jacket outlet

  • Pingback: dolce and gabbana

  • Pingback: north face sale outlet

  • Pingback: cheap lebron james shoes

  • Pingback: burberry outlet

  • Pingback: cheap uggs for sale

  • Pingback: air max cheap

  • Pingback: ugg sale

  • Pingback: uggs black friday sale 2014

  • Pingback: kobe bryant shoes

  • Pingback: nike outlet black friday 2014

  • Pingback: air yeezy 2

  • Pingback: cheap christian louboutin

  • Pingback: christian louboutin outlet

  • Pingback: jimmy choo outlet

  • Pingback: canada goose jacket sale

  • Pingback: ugg boots

  • Pingback: north face jackets on sale

  • Pingback: ugg outlet

  • Pingback: ugg outlet online store

  • Pingback: canada goose jackets on sale

  • Pingback: ugg sale clearance

  • Pingback: nike shox shoes

  • Pingback: cheap ugg boots

  • Pingback: parajumper jackets outlet

  • Pingback: michael kors black friday

  • Pingback: tory burch black friday sale

  • Pingback: north face outlet store

  • Pingback: uggs sale

  • Pingback: cheap ugg boots for sale

  • Pingback: vera bradley black friday sale 2014

  • Pingback: uggs for cheap

  • Pingback: rolex watches

  • Pingback: ugg boots sale

  • Pingback: air jordans

  • Pingback: canada goose outlet store

  • Pingback: cheap uggs 2014

  • Pingback: ugg boots sale cheap

  • Pingback: air max

  • Pingback: nike basketball

  • Pingback: dansko sandals

  • Pingback: ray ban outlet

  • Pingback: manolo blahnik shoes

  • Pingback: uggs outlet stores

  • Pingback: ugg boots outlet store

  • Pingback: polo outlet

  • Pingback: nike roshe run women

  • Pingback: ugg boots sale clearance

  • Pingback: parajumper jacket

  • Pingback: cheap uggs

  • Pingback: nike basketball shoes

  • Pingback: pandora black friday 2014

  • Pingback: canada goose black friday

  • Pingback: coach purses

  • Pingback: kd vi

  • Pingback: woolrich outlet store

  • Pingback: louis vuitton outlet

  • Pingback: kate spade bags

  • Pingback: beats by dre cheap

  • Pingback: uggs on sale

  • Pingback: uggs for sale

  • Pingback: kate spade black friday

  • Pingback: lebron james shoes

  • Pingback: moncler jackets outlet

  • Pingback: discount uggs

  • Pingback: patagonia outlet store

  • Pingback: gucci bags

  • Pingback: ugg boots clearance

  • Pingback: kevin durant shoes

  • Pingback: oakley sunglasses

  • Pingback: ugg boots on sale

  • Pingback: discount uggs boots

  • Pingback: nike shox

  • Pingback: uggs for sale cheap

  • Pingback: chloe handbags

  • Pingback: canada goose jacket

  • Pingback: belstaff jackets

  • Pingback: ray bans

  • Pingback: ugg outlet online

  • Pingback: guess handbags

  • Pingback: north face jackets outlet

  • Pingback: miu miu wallet

  • Pingback: mulberry bags

  • Pingback: babyliss

  • Pingback: oakleys sunglasses

  • Pingback: north face outlet

  • Pingback: fendi bags

  • Pingback: uggs sale clearance

  • Pingback: uggs outlet online

  • Pingback: patagonia sale

  • Pingback: oakley sunglasses cheap

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: toms outlet store

  • Pingback: look at

  • Pingback: kate spade diaper bag

  • Pingback: belstaff sale

  • Pingback: good share

  • Pingback: here

  • Pingback: nike dunks

  • Pingback: michael kors handbags clearance

  • Pingback: ugg outlet store

  • Pingback: coach black friday

  • Pingback: louis vuitton handbags

  • Pingback: brazilian buttlift

  • Pingback: giuseppe zanotti sneakers

  • Pingback: new balance sneakers

  • Pingback: moncler jackets on sale

  • Pingback: christian louboutin sale

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: ugg black friday

  • Pingback: jimmy choo shoes

  • Pingback: michael kors purses

  • Pingback: prada purses on sale

  • Pingback: more about

  • Pingback: gucci outlet

  • Pingback: see more

  • Pingback: grade AAA miu miu bags cheap

  • Pingback: north face sale

  • Pingback: url

  • Pingback: right

  • Pingback: Mulberry UK

  • Pingback: Hermes wallets outlet

  • Pingback: mcm handbags

  • Pingback: buy cheap ugg boots

  • Pingback: hermes macchine agricole

  • Pingback: sac michael kors pas cher

  • Pingback: bottes ugg pas cher france

  • Pingback: sac gucci pas cher

  • Pingback: bottes ugg pas cher france

  • Pingback: mulberry outlet

  • Pingback: portefeuille lancel

  • Pingback: jordan 475

  • Pingback: gucci outlet


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X