This sounds like an argument where if you take it literally, then there is nobody opposing it

Because of course once you define an objective function like "maximize wellbeing" then science (and the humanities, which in Germany would just be called sciences btw) can give lots of input about how to achieve that.

If you take the argument more like it was meant, then it becomes a bit more controversial, because what it really says is

>It's a no-brainer that wellbeing is the objective of ethics/morality, it's just defined like this. Everybody is consequentialist, some people just don't admit it.
>
>And because that point, which philosophers deem to be the heart of the debate, is trivially solved, then the real debate about how to reach wellbeing is to a large part answered by science.