The Science of Morality

Imagine the ability to answer life’s toughest questions without subjecting to the bias nature of human beings. How should I live my life? Can murder (capital punishment) be just? Is it possible to answer ethical questions that seem inherently subject to opinion? In other words, can we subject these questions to science? Over the years, science has been able to uncover many truths about the universe. The laws of gravity, evolution and the shape of the earth are just a few revelations made using objective evidence. With this, science has been able to defeat religion in the many ways we perceive the world. It has rendered religion useless as a source of truth. The one thing left untouched is morality. It is often believed and agreed upon that science cannot answer questions about morality. It is argued by many that science is based on facts and morality is based on values, therefore science cannot solve questions on ethics. This argument is better described by Hume’s is/ought distinction. This fallacy claims that you cannot derive an “ought” from and “is” (for example Adam shouldn’t play basketball just because he is tall). Science is used to discover what “is” in the universe therefore it cannot decide what you “ought” to do. However, if there was a way to quantify morality, could science be used to discover moral truths?

Sam Harris boldly claims in his book “The Moral Landscape” that science can, in fact, solve ethical questions. He centers this argument on the concept of consciousness and wellbeing (value). Morality, in his definition, is defined as “the wellbeing of a conscious mind.”[1] Harris argues that values are, indeed, “facts about the well being of conscious creatures … facts of the kinds of experiences possible to have in this universe.” [3] In this definition, Harris claims that facts and values are not separate entities but one and the same. Therefore, the wellbeing of consciousness can theoretically be used to measure the effects of any action...