Values can be reduced to facts about the experiences and related well-being of the minds of concious beings. Since we know the human brain is the physical existence of the memories and personality of concious beings, we will be able to, eventually ,map these experiences and the related effect on the well-being of individuals. Based on this logical progression, it follow that there could potentially be scientifically provable right and wrong answers on the subject of morality.
Morality itself is generally deemed to not be answerable by science, and science often has no official standpoint on morality, but why not? There are experts in all other fields of knowledge. Why could there not be experts of morality?
Sam Harris discussed these points at TED2010 and a variety of common morality related questions of good and evil, right and wrong, stating that science can, and indeed should, have an authority on moral issues.
He states that science should be able to logically shape human values and more specifically determine what exactly a good moral life can consist of.
What do you think?
If you liked this post, you may be interested in these: