What drove me to write this paper is the will to  examine if there is a philosophically and scientifically viable  alternative foundation for an objective morality other than what we like to refer to as "God". The  American philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris presents in his book The Moral Landscape a thesis for an objective morality based on science in which he states that  science can determine human values. The purpose of this paper is to perform a theoretical trial of The Moral Landscape, examining Harris' thesis and it's relations to the philosophical obstacles that stands in its way, these being mainly the famous philosophical principle "Hume's Law" and G.E. Moore's "Naturalistic Fallacy and Open Question Argument" and thus will serve as my main theoretical foundation. The results of my study was not conclusive since Harris in fact doesn't succeed in bridging the gap between facts and values on a scientific ground. He does, however, present a philosophical case, which is hard to argue against, on which you could found moral principles that require science in practice.