Science can determine human values.

ClarificationThe issue of whether we should treat each other well is an issue of human well-being, and therefore, is a human value. So yes, treating each other well is an issue of human well-being. I hope that satisfactorily answers Con's question.ArgumentP1: Moral questions are about the well-being of conscious creatures. Well-being is a human value by the definitions made in Round 1.P2: Well-being relates to physical states of the brain.P3: Science can tell us what actions improve or hurt human human well-being.C: Science can determine human values.Premise OneAll moral questions are reducible to the well-being of conscious creatures. For instance, the moral issue of whether women should be forced to wear hijab is a question relating to well-being. Does it make human beings more compassionate to one another? Does it make life safer for the woman (prevented rape, etc)? Does it improve the woman and her mental health? These are all questions relating to the well-being of conscious creatures.We do not feel moral obligations to rocks or lightbulbs, as they are not conscious creatures. They are only inanimate objects. I suppose that one could argue that we have moral obligations to inanimate objects, but ultimately, that could be reduced to the well-being of conscious creatures as well. Due to the fact that humans only feel moral obligations to conscious creatures, it is becoming clear that the well-being of conscious creatures is the central point of morality.I understand that I have presented only one example of a case where a moral issue relates to the well-being of conscious creatures. Obviously, it is impossible to type out every moral question and then prove that it relates to the well-being of conscious creatures. Therefore, in order to refute this premise, I ask Con to present a moral issue that does not relate to the well-being of conscious creatures.Premise TwoThis claim is rather overt, unless one wishes to undermine a very fundamental aspect of modern day neuroscientific research. Neuroscience (italics are from 'The Compass of Pleasure' by David Linden) shows that when neurons in the region called the ventral tagmental area (VTA) are active, brief electrical impulses (called spikes) race from their cell bodies (located in the VTA proper) along long, thin information-sending fibers called axons. The axons have specialized structures at the endpoints called axon terminals. Some of the axon terminals of the VTA nuerons are located some distance away in a region called the nucleus acumbens. When the traveling electric spikes reach the axon terminals, they trigger the release of the neurotrantsmitter dopamine, which is stored in the terminals in the tiny membrane-bound blobs called vesicles. When a spike enters the axon terminal, it iniates a complex series of electrical and chemical events that result in the fusion of the vesicle membrane with the membrane of the axon terminal, thereby causing the contents the vesicle, including the dopamine neurons, to be released into a narrow fluid-filled space surronding the axon termal called the synaptic cleft. The dopamine molecules then diffuse and bind to specialized dopamine receptors on their target neurons, initiating a series of chemical signs therein. The experiments that cause the dopamine-containing neurons of the VTA to be active and thereby release dopamine in their targets will be felt as pleasurable, and the sensory cues and actions that preceded and overlped with those pleasurable experiences will be rememebred and associated with positive feelings.Neuroscientific research shows that states of the brain are responsible for our feelings of well-being, such as pleasure. I also wish to point out that the atatomy of a rat's pleasure circuit is very similar to that of our own. This brings experiments such as those done by psychologist B.F. Skinner with rats that found the reward circuits of their brain.The main point that I am making is that pleasure (and therefore well-being) has a neurological basis.Premise 3I wish to bring us back to my earlier example in Premise 1 of women being forced to wear hijab. I gave an example of three questions we could ask if we were to try and discover what impacts compulsory hijab has on a woman and society. These questions all fall under the domain of scientific research. Scientific research can be conducted to investigate the affect that compulsory hijab has on compassion or the mental health of women who are forced to wear hijab. Science could also determine if wearing hijab makes one any else likely to get raped, and it can also tell us why people rape other people in the first place. That would also work to help us decide the affect of hijab on well-being.Science can also analyze the physical states of the brain, and determine if an action has harmed or improved the well-being of the subject.ConclusionThe well-being of conscious creatures is the central point of moral questions and values. The well-being of conscious creatures is a human value. Well-being is sourced in the physical states of the brain. Science can tell us if actions improve well-being or not. Therefore, science can determine human values.SourceMy quote from David Linden on the neurological basis of pleasure can be found on page 20 and page 21 of 'The Compass of Pleasure' The experiment from B.F. Skinner that I mentioned is also found in this book,.NotesCon has agreed (over PM) that he will be postulating his own moral system in the next round.