Objective morality is the idea that certain moral principles are universally true and valid, independent of personal opinions, feelings, or cultural beliefs. It does not say morals will be clear or that we will necessarily know them.
Scientists may have harmed people and animals, but this is due to ethical choices, not science itself.
Science does not demand unethical practices like eugenics; those abuses are human misuses of scientific knowledge.
Science and morality are linked through the concept of purpose and truth, even if science studies the physical world.
Science can study moral ideas and tendencies but cannot fully resolve moral debates, which are inherently philosophical.
Some religious critics reject secular morality simply because it doesn’t come from God, not because it lacks moral value.
The classic “is-ought” problem is addressed by showing that descriptive facts (what is) underlie moral “oughts” (what should be), making morality grounded in reality.
These points are useful when considering Sam Harris' arguments in the book The Moral Landscape. Because it says objective morality is wellbeing and wellbeing is grounded in science, it concludes that morality is based on science.
PROBLEM: Scientists have abused people and animals in the name of research and
science.
ANSWER: But abused is not the right term here. The correct way to phrase it is, "Scientists have needed to use and hurt people and animals in the name of research and science." It has to be a real pressing need. Some are trying to demean science. But in fact, what is demeaning is to oppose science which had to be done. And which had to learn at great cost in terms of human and animal suffering. The critics are demeaning those people and animals - it is not science.
They are the first to benefit from how people and animals have suffered in the name of science.
The responsibility lies with the individual scientist, not with science itself.
PROBLEM: Many scientific people think that if those who weaken the human gene pool were sterilised then that would be scientifically good and thus you can say science requires it.
ANSWER: It is very important to answer this question for Nazi style eugenics is
the biggest fear people have of science. But science does not demand that we
exercise eugenics for science does not engage in it itself. Most of us are born
without any such manipulation. It is man using science that does eugenics.
Science does not make man do so or demand that man must do so!
PROBLEM: Science looks at the physical nothing else. You may ask science why your coal is hot and you will get information about temperatures and molecules etc. That is science speaking. It is said that it will not even look at how you are the one that heated the coal for you wanted to be warm. So it is not thinking of you so it is not about morality
ANSWER: Science will look at you if it decides to.
Morality is about purpose and so is science. Thus science and morality have got that in common. Purpose is just purpose and morality is a kind of purpose. So there is at least an indirect relationship between science and morality. Be aware that indirect does not mean weak. An indirect link can be the strong one. A link can be strongest because it is indirect not direct. You walk from a to b and that is a direct link but it would not happen without the more important link, the indirect one, of gravity.
Science can recognize that a person is motivated by what they call morality, even if it cannot fully define or assess the content of that morality. Arguments that science and morality have nothing to say to one another are confusing science with the brute, the mechanical and the physical. Physical and science are not exactly the same thing.
FINALLY
Bad science or unethical actions by scientists don't disprove the idea that science can ground morality. Science, by revealing truths about human well-being, helps define what we ought to value.
Those who claim that science has nothing do with with morality which is why it leads to harms are clearly calling science evil or dangerous. Jesus said that what is not for him is against him meaning that evil and sin rush in to fill the space that should be filled with him.
Harris equated well-being with morality and argued that science can ground moral values. The main objection, that “just because something feels good doesn’t mean it’s morally right or fair” is invalid—because it also doesn’t mean it isn’t. We may need to rely on a process of elimination and accept the best available grounding, even if it feels imperfect or unsatisfying. Admittedly this leads to collateral damage. We might have to accept that. We will be accused of settling for convenience over truth. But that is not true if the truth is that we are still doing our best. No matter how unclear morality might be, it is clear that nobody should be asked to do the impossible.
We don’t demand perfection from other forms of knowledge—like science, law, or medicine—so why demand it from morality? If, after serious reasoning and elimination, the best foundation we have for morality is imperfect but workable (such as well-being grounded in science), that doesn’t make it false or invalid. Morality doesn't need to be ideal, just functional, consistent, and capable of guiding action. Wanting more than that may be a wish for metaphysical certainty, not a rational requirement. Doing our best with what we have is not settling—it’s being realistic.
By the way, Christian religion says that God is love. It says he grounds morality and seeks us to be moral beings mirroring his own goodness. This actually opposes the process of elimination method. That is inherently irrational. The process of elimination, in principle, is perfectly reasonable and sound. We probably all do it in our own way but with different outcomes. The faith infers that there is no reason to chose a moral system and ground it because it seems the best of a confusing or imperfect lot. No instead we are to embrace it positively as a connection with God rather than a leftover, or unavoidable inconvenience. It has to be merged with our adoration and our worship.
To oppose the process in principle is actually and potentially harmful.
If we equate morality and wellbeing and that the best we can think of, then that is fine. If there is something else just as good, then we can simply opt to equate them anyway. That leads us to regarding science as grounding morality. The book The Moral Landscape will then have a rich message for us.
If somebody thought that justice and compassion and love were physical things would that affect them as moral persons? No. They are still moral if they live up to them. Science does allow for considering if these forces are physical for science forbids assumptions. We see that even if science only cared about energies and materials it can still ground morality.
Science’s cardinal doctrine that claims and opinions must have suitable support from evidence. The scientist is searching for truth. Truth is an ethical matter. Thus science indicates a need for the scientists to follow ethical principles. Science values truth and thus it is endorsing an ethical principle in doing so. Even love and compassion are about truth. You cannot value a person unless the person should be made happy or allowed to be happy. It has to be true that the person needs to be happy.
Psychology is a branch of science. It shows how we consider things moral if these things are better for our group or community. We do not think of all humanity but of our group. Science seeks knowledge for all humanity and not just any group.
PROBLEM: Science deals with the biological and psychological causes of our ideas about morality. Science is not about morality but does study how we come up with moral ideas. It is about the process not the validity of morality.
ANSWER: So science examines the innate moral tendencies we have. Let us assume for the purpose of argument that is all it does. Then in that case science can only be morality or ethics in a very broad sense. In the case of detailed moral arguments it cannot pick a side. For example, pain by definition is bad so science will determine that a baby is being hurt and so bad is being done to it. But what it cannot do is test if those who say this hurting is needed for a better good are right. At least it asks if it is or isn't. That is a moral question. No matter what you try to ground morality in you are faced with that question. Morality is about the question.
So the problem shows science is morality in a broader and looser way than Harris would envisage.
PROBLEM: The idea that God is justice and love and compassion and morality is a duty for it simply calls us to be like him is beautiful. We don't want to believe moral principles come from science.
ANSWER: Those who are addicted to God and related ideas have started a backlash against Harris for they hate what he proposes. It matters little to them that it is an argument for love and compassion and justice. They only want them on God terms or no terms.
PROBLEM: An is does not give rise to an ought. The owning of money does not mean you morally ought to have it or keep it. Harris by equating wellbeing and morality makes that category mistake. The reason is simple, ought and is, are two different kinds of statements.
ANSWER: To ask if the universe should be better and different seems to confuse an is with an ought or an is not with an ought. In other words, it's pretty awful now and it should not be. But it does not change the fact there is a should there even if not a moral one. There is a descriptive should. Unless there is a descriptive should there cannot be any moral should so the former in a sense is more important.
So morality says, "If the only should you can come up with is a descriptive one then fine for I don't ask you to do the impossible. You are rejecting me to affirm me."