[brutusborn]

Philosophy has existed long before science and produced things like democracy, so it’s unfair to claim it’s just “people talking shit.” I agree that science is very useful, but thinking that science can be applied to every problem is delusional. I think of it as a subset of philosophy (specifically epistemology). Thinking that science can be applied to morality results in dystopian situations, like nazi eugenics “improving” the population because Darwinism is scientific.

How can science inform morality? You are right that it can help us determine if animals are suffering; but what we do with that information comes down to our morals, which are generated through philosophy or theology. All the proponents of scientific morality are very passionate about promoting it, but you will notice that they don’t follow through and actually develop a moral system, they just discuss it theoretically (e.g. Sam Harris)

[NateEag]

In my limited experience, proponents of scientific morality don't seem to know about or grant David Hume's is/ought duality.

I'm still not entirely sure what I think of it, but it's certainly something anyone with an interest in moral philosophy ought to deal with.

[brutusborn]

I must admit I don’t know the philosophy very well, thanks for referencing actual theory.

I would love to have a rational, consistent, data driven moral system but I will need an existence proof before I become a true believer.