The problem I see with Harris' approach is that he is unable to start using science in moral reasoning without first adopting a philosophical principle. In thi

The problem I see with Harris' approach is that he is unable to start using science in moral reasoning without first adopting a philosophical principle. In this case, he is using the idea that morality is predicated on human and animal well-being. Ok, whose human well-being, that which is best for the majority? Does the well being of salmon trump humans? Is it ok to sacrifice the well-being of some individual humans to benefit the majority? Although I agree with Harris that religion is no solution to morality, science isn't either. For moral answers, philosophy is key.