The perspective that human values can be derived from scientific observation seems based upon misleading and unsubstantiated terminology and assumption.
For example, one such case presented for the perspective seems to describe values as a type of fact related to the well-being of conscious creatures. To me, this seems consistent with the Bible's apparent suggestion that human values are indisputable assertions related to the well-being of conscious creatures that are given to humans by omniscient God.
However, the presented reasoning then seems to offer a human values example, then describe it as a factual claim: something that we could be right or wrong about. Google seems to first-define "fact" as "a thing that is indisputably correct" and Merriam-Webster seems to suggest "a piece of information presented as having objective reality", seeming to me to prevent misrepresentation (about the fostering of well-being of conscious creatures) from being appropriately categorized as a valid human value.
To me, the presenter seems to later clarify this seeming terminology misassociation of fact and opinion by asserting the (apparently by definition) indisputable propriety or impropriety of behavior. An appropriate summary seems to be that human values seem, by definition, perhaps most reasonably suggested to refer to behavioral outcome goals and guidelines such as justice that seem to apply indisputably and identically to well-being species-wide; personal values such as favorite foods seem to refer to facts pertaining to well-being that is potentially as unique as the individual to whom the dynamic applies; and misrepresentation of well-being dynamics might best be referred to simply as misrepresentation.
The next issue might seem somewhat of an aesthetically sticky sidebar. The presenter seems to suggest that corporal punishment is explicitly religious, apparently citing the Bible for reference. I respectfully propose that this suggestion seems unreasonably misleading, seeming likely, if not intended, to build negative sentiment toward belief in God and toward the Bible regarding corporal punishment. To me, the reference seems otherwise valueless, seeming to ignore the apparently perspective-balancing apparent likelihood of corporal punishment in societies pre-dating or otherwise not impacted by the Bible, the apparent findings of psychological science that seem to suggest an importance in child development of appropriate yielding of personal will to externality (which seems reasonably suggested to be achievable in some or all cases without corporal punishment), and the possibly genuine testimony of those who suggest being grateful for the capacity to yield personal will that they associate with having experienced corporal punishment during their child development (Note: This perspective does not support unnecesary punishment in any context).
The presenter addresses the issue of the objectivity of morality in light of the apparent lack of and differences in morality-related understanding. The issue seems simple: limited and fallible human perception seems reasonably suggested to be the cause of lack and variance in morality understanding. Level of understanding regarding the mechanics of optimal well-being seems reasonably expected to impact understanding of how to personally contribute to optimal well-being. Assuming that well-being dynamics are objective reality (as apparently established above) morality (the path that fosters well-being) seems most logically suggested to also be objective reality, whether applicable species-wide, applicable uniquely among individuals, or not perceived at a particular point in time.
The presenter next seems to address the logical basis upon which limited- perception attempt to enforce their understanding of what constitutes optimal well-being. The answer seems to me to lie within the apparently underlying issue of whether God exists as the infinitely-existent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent established and sovereign authority of and intended real-time decision-making guide regarding reality. If so, an individual seems most logically described as doing self and society a disservice by shifting personal guidance from God to another point of reference. If not, then there seems most logically to exist no objective morality, for there seems to exist no logical basis upon which any human among apparently-suggested equal humans can substantiate determining for another the definition of the apparently baseline concept "flourish" in a purposeless existence, and if any equal humans disagree, the definition seems incapable of being considered universal and therefore objective. The apparent logical preclusion of objective knowledge without an omniscient, sovereign authority seems reasonably suggested to be the reason that apparently fundamental social issues seem suggested to have persisted throughout the thousands to millions of years of apparently suggested human existence in an existential purpose context as apparently simple as fueling one's body with apparently logical resources and doing whatever else (appropriate) comes to mind with other apparently plentiful resources.
To me, perhaps in pursuit of circumvention of the apparently escapable logical link between universal acceptance of God as sovereign authority and optimal human experience, the presenter then seems to propose and question a number of principles over which so many lives seem suggested to have been lost, have suffered and still suffer both as a result of the implemented, proposed principles and the absence of the questioned principles, and as a result of the attempt to protect us from reemergence of the proposed principles and from the absence of the questioned principles:
(a) Moral expertise/talent/genius: this seems to essentially seems to equate to "I tell you what to do". Historical and current events seem suggested to report too much harm proliferated by both secular and religious humanly-established behavioral authority to embrace human moral leadership.
(b) Valuing every human perspective: seemingly too many examples of reported harm via suggested inappropriate disenfranchisement to embrace human management of others' right to form and hold perspective.
The presentation next seems to address a vision for balancing moral objectivity with appropriate lifestyle diversity. To me, the quality of the human experience's future seems logically tied to acceptance of God as priority relationship and decision-making guide. Without such acceptance, a human managed future seems logically likely to suffer from the same unresolved fundamental social issues because human limited and perspectives perception seems insufficient to identify the optimal related balance point, much less the path to achieving it.
Gaining insight into mind behavior and into that which seems to foster specific desired behavior doesn't seem to eliminate the individual choice to choose whether or not to adopt that behavior. Embracing involuntary/technologically administered compliance as the path toward shaping the human experience seems to forfeit any logical basis for criticizing God for requiring a specific range of behavior.
The presentation seems to address the value of moral standard in light of the big picture. Apparently, limited, fallible human perception seems possibly the insurmountable obstruction that prevents humans from perceiving the big picture and perceiving and achieving optimal human experience without accepting God as priority relationship and decision-making guide.
