Science and morality

Sam Harris is wrong. But, I would to hear your view on the topic.

Science is based on things that are testable. At the core of my system of morality is my (unscientific) belief that human life is sacred. Please explain how this is testable.

If my core belief isn't at at the center of your system of morality, please explain what it is. Then if you want to make it scientific... provide an experiment to test this belief.

Any system of morality will be based on core beliefs that are held on faith... they can not be tested by experiment.

Sci is too embarrassed to directly address the issue since it might observe that morality is relative. Thus we keep Porky in a cold, muddy pen until--as devout Christians--the day we hang him up by the back feet and cut his throat so he bleeds to death before cutting him up and devouring him

Come on now, fellas, he's one of the most friendly critters and smart as a 3-year-old humanoid. So why isn't it okay for us to chop up, say, the abandoned child

'Cause Porky's ugly. Suppose, however, he were in charge

He made several points. About what and why do you think he was wrong? He linked morality to things that improve the well-being of all creatures. Can we not test whether there is improvement or worsening in well-being; either through general agreement of an operationalized outcome or opinion of an effected person?