Science, by itself, can determine moral truths

I would like to apologize to my opponent for not expressing my initial argument in the best way.I will be arguing that science (rationalization of statements from testing and data) to create a basis of morality and moral codes.Without getting into a rebuttal:The reason I present this now is because more modern philosphy refutes the divisions created by Hume and allows sceince to interact with subjectivism to be used in the establishment of facts and interpretation of data.Hume's philosphy only allows "Premise -> Conclusion" and does not allow any connection of "Conclusion -> Conclusion".Metaphysics is often rejects Hume's establishment of statements of values and facts. For example Hume's division of fact and value is unable to explain time and space.The use of Hume undermines my own argument and would make it "illogical". I need to present a philosphy now that is more accurate then Hume, of which allows my argument.You did not state in R1 that Hume must be used. I would like to present Kant's Critque of Reason [1] and Pirsig's Quality [2]. Both of which allow data to be created into facts based on patternized rationalization without the need for hypthesis-test. [3] [4] and [5] are for more indepth reading into the philosphies.Utilitarianism:I will use premises and conclusions to create morals. Morals will be listed as R's, they are conlusions.Let's begin with certain observable facts and/or facts that can be easily found by hypothesis testing:P1. Others are more capable of certain tasks then us. (testable)P2. We need to accomplish certain tasks to live. (testable but don't test it on yourself)C1. Others are more capable than us to accomplish certain tasks that help us live.P3. There is limitations to us as individuals to accomplish tasks we need to do to live. (observation)P4. Certain resources are limited and shareable. (testable)P5. Certain tasks we each accomplish can benefit both of us. (testable)C2. If we share certain resources, accomplish tasts that benefit both of us, and because we are limited as individuals; we can benefit from each others existance.C2 leads to several morals, two are:R1. Sharing resources and ideas is mutually beneficial so a "good" idea.R2. Caring for the others well being and health help me so a "good" idea.P6. Your existence benefits me. (C1, C2)P7. Killing you makes you not existant. (....testable)P8. Hurting myself is conterproductive to living. (testable, observational)R3. Killing you hurts me so it's a "bad" idea.Now that we don't kill each other, there are several of us in a group.P9. We serve as different roles in the group that correspond to our abilities for mutual benefit. (C1)P10. In our roles we use and need certain tools. (testable, more observational)P11. Making sure each other is capable of helping the group is mutually beneficial. (observational)R4. Making sure each person has their tools is beneficial so we have created a "respect of other's property".Set of Moral CodesR1. ShareR2. Care for othersR3. Don't KillR4. Respect other's propertyI can continue if need be. Of course not all of our morals would be created but still we would form enough to function as a society.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...