-A Response to Sam Harris’ argumentative talk on applying science to resolve issues concerning moralities for a better life constitution. –
In the TED Talk, Harris argues that morality can all be answered through scientifically proven facts however, this may only be done if the global population of different religions and cultures converge to agree to the only answers that these morality questions embark and merge a universal conception. Furthermore, he states that in order to resolve answers to such disputable questions on human flourishing, it is necessary that we exclude personal opinions, and only discuss based on facts by admitting what is correct and what is wrong. In my perspective, I believe science can answer questions concerning morality to a certain extent however, facts only account for a partial sector when deducing answers concerning values.
First of all, as Harris had stated, it is true that science is generally understood as a factor that can aid us in getting what we value however, it will not remind us of what we should value. I think that science is a constitution of proven facts or theories, and that it does not consider morality values. Therefore, it is not possible to answer these questions as science does not embrace any opinions.
However, I do agree with Harris’ statement that the separation of science and human values is an illusion, to a certain extent, and that science can answer question concerning values, to a certain extent. Although science discuss about facts and values discuss about the well being of the conscious, these two factors can be merged to a certain extent, but not at all situations. For example, a question concerning the food pyramid Harris discussed about, ‘Should we all become vegetarians?’. This question can be argued through the support of measured nutritional values (Insufficient amount of—) however, it will also require ethical implications (We can stop killing livestocks).
Overall, I believe that Sam Harris is correct to some extent that science and human values can be converged to answer questions that require acknowledgment of moral implications however, it is not a factor that we can completely rely on and consider to answer argumentative questions. Therefore, my answer is that science can not completely answer moral questions.