Editing Ethical naturalism (section)

==Morality as a science==
{{Main|Science of morality}}

Author [[Sam Harris (author)|Sam Harris]] has argued that we overestimate the relevance of many arguments against the science of morality, arguments he believes scientists happily and rightly disregard in other domains of science like physics. For example, scientists may find themselves attempting to argue against philosophical [[Skepticism|skeptics]], when Harris says they should be practically asking – as they would in any other domain – "why would we listen to a [[solipsism|solipsist]] in the first place?" This, Harris contends, is part of what it means to practice a science of morality.

[[File:Shishapangma.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Sam Harris argues that there are societally optimal "moral peaks" to discover.]]

In modern times, many thinkers discussing the [[fact–value distinction]] and the [[is–ought problem]] have settled on the idea that one cannot derive ''ought'' from ''is''. Conversely, Harris maintains that the fact-value distinction is a confusion, proposing that values are really a certain kind of fact. Specifically, Harris suggests that values amount to empirical statements about "the flourishing of conscious creatures in a society". He argues that there are objective answers to moral questions, even if some are difficult or impossible to possess in practice. In this way, he says, science can tell us what to value. Harris adds that we do not demand absolute certainty from predictions in physics, so we should not demand that of a science studying morality (see ''[[The Moral Landscape]]'').

Physicist [[Sean M. Carroll|Sean Carroll]] believes that conceiving of morality as a science could be a case of [[scientific imperialism]] and insists that what is "good for conscious creatures" is not an adequate working definition of "moral".<ref name="blogs.discovermagazine.com">[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/03/29/sam-harris-responds/ Sam Harris Responds | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100707042650/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/03/29/sam-harris-responds/ |date=2010-07-07 }}. Blogs.discovermagazine.com. Retrieved on 2011-04-30.</ref> In opposition, John Shook, vice president of the [[Center for Inquiry]], claims that this working definition is more than adequate for science at present and that disagreement should not immobilize the scientific study of ethics.<ref>[http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/sam_harris_vs._the_philosophers_on_morality/ Sam Harris vs. The Philosophers on Morality]. Center for Inquiry (2010-05-14). Retrieved on 2011-04-30.</ref>