The science and philosophy of morality

Are science and philosophy at odds when it comes to the study of ethics? Should they be?

Science vs philosophy, according to Midjourney.

Here is my proposed candidate for most abused quote in the history of philosophy:

“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it is necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers.” (David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, book 3, part 1, section 1)

Hume wrote the above in 1739–40, and his admittedly ambiguous prose has ever since created a lot of needless acrimony…