Why neuroscientist Sam Harris Believes Science Can Determine Human Values?*

"In my view, morality must be viewed in the context of our growing scientific understanding of the mind. If there truths to be known about the mind, there will be truths to be known about how minds flourish; consequently, there will be truths to be known about good and evil."

Harris continues: "Many critics claim that my reliance on the concept of 'well-being' is arbitrary and philosophically indefensible. Who's to say that well-being is important at all or that other things aren't far more important?
.................................................................................................................................
"It seems to be that there are three, distinct challenges to my thesis, put forward thus far:

1.There is no scientific basis to say that we should value well-being, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
2. Hence, if someone does not care about well-being, or cares only about his own and not about the well-being of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
3. Even if we did agree to grant "well-being" primacy in any discussion of morality, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure well-being scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of morality. (The Measurement Problem)

"I believe all of these challenges are the product of philosophical confusion. The simplest way to see this is by analogy to medicine and the mysterious quantity we call 'health." Let's swap 'morality' for 'medicine' and 'well-being' for 'health' and see how things look:

1. There is no scientific basis to say we should value health, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
2. Hence, if someones does not care about health, or cares only about his own and not about the health of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
3. Even if we did agree to grant"health" primacy in any discussion of medicine, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure health scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of medicine. (The Measurement Problem).

Harris adds, "While the analogy may not be perfect, I maintain that it is good enough to nullify these three criticisms.
___________________________________________________________________
*The Moral Langscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, by Sam Harris, pp.198-199. Note: Sam Harris, apparently, is the first scientist to claim that science does not only provide facts, but it can also provide or "determine" human values.