Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
Until and unless you can quantify and measure "net suffering" and "net happiness," science has nothing to say on these topics.
How I see it is that science is a tool. With homo sapiens wielding it circa 2020, no, we most likely can not exhaustively and precisely quantify and measure those. Still, I'm sure we could make pretty good qualitative assessments on many issues, far better than what eg. religion does currently. It might take a long time to perfect it, but what scientific endeavor doesn't? Science totally can (=could) answer if not all, at least most moral questions.

Let's try it the other way around, which moral question can not be answered by science?

Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
Furthermore, you'll need to find a way to demonstrate, via incontrovertible, observable data, that utilitarianism is always the superior moral framework above all other moral frameworks.
I believe there's more flavors of utilitarianism than there's of Ben & Jerry's, I'm not at all sure what I'd endorse, most likely some version of consequentialism. I'd be satisfied with just showing whatever we'd decide to go with is better than what we currently have.