Science can prove moral?

[adrian1]

I heard a thing: “Science can’t proof that what did Hitler was wrong”. But if we take a man before Hitler killed him, we can see (scientific) living cells, and after he killed him, that cells become dead. Can be this a fact that science can prove moral? I want a clarification about this axioma: Science can’t proof morality, what is wrong and what is good.

 

[Zaccheus]

Science can prove or disprove statements about the physical world.
But ‘murder is morally wrong’ is not a statement about the physical world. It’s a moral or spiritual statement.
Science won’t help you there. You need theology or philosophy.

 

[petra22]

Dying isn’t always bad…?

 

[adamhovey1988]

The belief that science has to be able to prove something is not scientific.

 

[RandomAlias]

if we take a man before Hitler killed him, we can see (scientific) living cells, and after he killed him, that cells become dead.

Science would show that certain chemical reactions caused other chemical reactions to cease. For example, when cyanide is added to a certain protein, it binds tightly to iron sites in the protein, which in turn prevents oxygen from binding to the iron sites, which halts the production of ATP, which halts other chemical reactions.

So far none of this relates to morality. If science has a definition of life, it could be shown that the addition of cyanide stops life. However, many other things stop life, like being too cold, or being too old.

Where does morality enter into it? With intention, I believe. How can science describe, let alone prove intention? How can it prove the goodness or badness of intention? I don’t think it can.