> If you agree upfront that a correct society should seek to e.g. maximize individual happiness, or maximize economic output, or whatever, there are scientific

> If you agree upfront that a correct society should seek to e.g. maximize individual happiness, or maximize economic output, or whatever, there are scientific arguments that would support one policy over another. And that's the key. How do you define what a 'correct' society should seek to do? What might make some people materially/'objectively' better off may also make them miserable. What makes people happier may make the world worse by encouraging people to 'waste' their lives on meaningless things (like say, virtual reality experiences). What makes most lives better might make a lot of other people happy (the utilitarian issue). Science cannot say what the goal you're trying to achieve is. That's where philosophy comes in.