There are epistemologically objective answers in principle to what is and is not good for the well being of conscious creatures just as there are for matters of health. At the beginning of his book Sam Harris makes it clear that he is talking about epistemic objectivity and not ontological objectivity.
I understand Hume's is ought distinction perfectly and see no proof that prescriptive statements cannot be understood descriptively as Sam Harris suggests.
I understand Hume's is ought distinction perfectly and see no proof that prescriptive statements cannot be understood descriptively as Sam Harris suggests.
