To piggyback off my earlier question.
In this, Ethical Naturalism is described, in short, as:
The overall effect of an action has positive or negative impact on the world's well-being, making it moral or immoral. Telling the truth has an overall positive effect, so it is considered moral.
My question is, if an act is determined on basis of its average, is it not context independent?
To paraphrase Sam Harris, "If you can't imagine a situation where torture is appropriate, you simply aren't trying hard enough". This is because you can imagine a situation, where torture would have a positive effect on the worlds well-being, but if it isn't on average, should you then never do it?
Similarly, he argues that while telling the truth is moral, lying to save a life is also moral, but I'm struggling to see how in this average based system.
This can also be older interpretations of Ethical Naturalism. The science part Harris introduced is not important necessarily. I am unfortunately not very read on this subject. So, is morality context independent in Ethical Naturalism?