Morale and ethics are detached from science. Science may never be able to answer the fundamental questions in life, i.e. what is worth living for.
Harris disagrees with this separation. Values
are facts. We care less about the feelings of a rock than about the feelings of a human, because we know that rocks don't have feelings. There. And while the moral landscape is not guaranteed to map
the scientific space, facts affect human actions. And there are facts that make it possible to guide morale decisions. Objective morality.
Is there a universal morale? Example: The "problem"
or women's bodies: cover them in a cloth bag/burka and beat them, kill them when they get raped, or carelessly expose them on the cover of magazines without any clothes at all? Both not really peaks
on the morale landscape.
Who are the moral experts? The demagogues all agree that we need a universal concept of morale. But in no other area of life do we value differences of opinion like we
do in ethics, and we are struggling to clearly prove "right" and "wrong". But... we don't declare right and wrong in science, because in science opinions don't matter. Why in the moral sphere then
does every opinion count and we do not acknowledge or trust morale experts?
What the world needs now is to admit that there are right and wrong answers to human well-being, there are morals
that are better for the world than others.