For those unfamiliar with my book, here is my argument in brief: Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, of course, fully constrained by the laws of Nature (whatever these turn out to be in the end).
Therefore, there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science. On this view, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life. - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-critics#sthash.KWAkXJTI.dpuf
What can I say,I like this man,I like his mind. To me morality is about reducing suffering and increasing happiness, for everyone. That is what morality should be about, to my mind. I studied the idea begun in Victorian times called Utilitarianism advocated by Jeremy Bentham and politician John Stuart Mill. The basic concept is bringing the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Who could argue with that? Now the problem is when you try to please all of the people all of the time.
For example in the UK the government is cracking down on benefit thieves to increase the amount of dwindling resources to give out to the needy but sadly vulnerable people like the elderly and the disabled are slipping through the net and losing out. I cite this example because this is how it was explained to me in my degree that trying to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people is a beautiful and practical application of fact (or science) based morality without resort to religion. The devil is in the detail of course!