I guess it depends how "moral" is defined.
If moral, or IOW "what we should value" is defined as that which causes less suffering and better well-being for conscious beings in the long run, that's a factual matter and can be dealt with.
Science operationally defines a lot of things, but it doesn't stop science being done in other cases, so why in morality? We have to appeal to the values of reason, logic and empiricism in order to do science. Ultimately science is only done because we value it in the first place anyway.
"Why not make morality a subject in science?" I guess is what Harris is saying. The fact we can't all agree on exactly what "healthy" is doesn't mean there aren't obvious truths about health.... why can't morality be treated in the same way?
It seems that Harris is supporting a form of Moral Naturalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism
EvF
If moral, or IOW "what we should value" is defined as that which causes less suffering and better well-being for conscious beings in the long run, that's a factual matter and can be dealt with.
Science operationally defines a lot of things, but it doesn't stop science being done in other cases, so why in morality? We have to appeal to the values of reason, logic and empiricism in order to do science. Ultimately science is only done because we value it in the first place anyway.
"Why not make morality a subject in science?" I guess is what Harris is saying. The fact we can't all agree on exactly what "healthy" is doesn't mean there aren't obvious truths about health.... why can't morality be treated in the same way?
It seems that Harris is supporting a form of Moral Naturalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism
EvF
