Can science give us a foundation for morality and human values? Or is ethics definitely beyond its reach? Sam Harris argues that the separation between science and human values is an illusion, and a rather dangerous one. He sees values as a certain kind of facts, namely, “facts about the well-being of conscious creatures”, both personal and collective. And notions of human morality are, according to him, “at some point reducible to a concern about conscious experience and its possible changes.” That is why we have no ethical obligations towards inanimate objects or inferior animals such as insects, for instance. He doesn't claim that science could give us the answers to every conceivable moral question, neither that we are able to access all the states of conscious creatures' well-being. He says that, even if we are not capable of finding all the answers, the simple fact of admitting that there are right and wrong answers to such questions could change the way we talk about morality. In his excellent TED talk (see the video below) he provides very good (and well-humored) arguments in favor of these allegations. Very enlightening in post-modern times!