Phillip Gorski’s thesis that social science can result in improvements in human well–being is quite a persuasive argument. His observation of overlap between facts and values is one of the most obvious claims that can be made, and it is simply summed up when he states, “…the fundamental difficulty with…the fact/value distinction is this: new facts can also lead to new values. We all know this…We may seek to implement a particular moral code or ethical value in our lives only to discover that it leads to unhappiness or ill-being…And this may eventually cause us to change not only our behavior but our values as well.”[1] The distinction between Gorski and others on the matter of ethical naturalism, like August Comte and Sam Harris, is merely a matter of severity. Gorski does go further than many other scholars, but Comte brings the argument even further by articulating, “there can be no positive philosophy without a basis of social science, without which it could not be all-comprehensive; and… we could not pursue social science without having been prepared by the study of phenomena less complicated than those of society, and furnished with a knowledge of laws and anterior facts that have a bearing upon social science”.[2] Additionally, Sam Harris advocates for the empirical evaluation of all moral issues so that we can organize the greatest human benefit possible.

In my own research, there seems to be a bent towards the sort of ethical naturalism that Gorski suggests to be possible rather than Comte or Harris. Despite this, I think that it wouldn’t take too much for my project to posit these moral arguments. After all, the entire project deals with policies surrounding the use of metro systems, something that relies on people’s morals and values attract riders. I think that the underlying implication of my project is that eventually, there will be a moral decision that is made by the majority of metropolitan citizens that prioritizes the use of metro systems over the use of private automobiles. That is not to say that I will be trying to make that moral statement in my project immediately, far from it in fact. What I do aim for is that my project presents empirical data for other people to base their decisions off of in the future, something that ties in with the arguments of Gorski, Comte, and Harris. If my results are used to empirically justify a moral claim that metro system use will benefit humanity over all, I think that would acceptable.

[1] Philip S. Gorski, “Beyond the Fact/Value Distinction: Ethical Naturalism and the Social Sciences,” Society 50, no. 6 (December 1, 2013): 548.

[2] Gertrud Lenzer, ed., Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings (New York: Harper, 1975). pp. 71–86.