Skip to main content
Log in

Meaning Matters: The Biosemiotic Basis of Bioethics

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

If the central problem in philosophical ethics is determining and defining the scope of moral value, our normative ethical theories must be able to explain on what basis and to what extent entities have value. The scientific foundation of contemporary biosemiotic theory grounds a theory of moral value capable of addressing this problem. Namely, it suggests that what is morally relevant is semiosis. Within this framework, semiosis is a morally relevant and natural property of all living things thereby offering us an ecological, as opposed to merely environmental, ethic. A consequence of this semiotic theory is that living things are accorded inherent moral value based on their natural relational properties—their ability to signify. This consequence establishes a hierarchy of inherent moral value based on the scope of signification: the larger the Umwelten, the greater the value. This paper argues that a robust semiotic moral theory can take into account a much wider scope of inherent value.. These consequences have positive ramifications for environmental ethics in their recognition of the natural ecological networks in which each organism is bound. This presentation of a biosemiotic model of value offers a justificatory strategy for our contemporary moral intuitions concerning our semiotic/moral relationships with living things while also productively pushing our normative ethical boundaries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html (section three) accessed 6.17.11.

  2. For a historical overview of this codification, see Bekoff 2010, 635–642.

  3. We would have to, of course, tell a much more detailed story about what we mean by “sufficient justification.” The epistemic problem must be vetted against and in context of our best scientific knowledge of the world and our place in it. Whatever the epistemological approach, the disconnect between our theories of value and our scientific theories is obvious and problematic. The approach I offer in this paper offers at least strong if not sufficient justificatory support.

  4. See Buchanan, Brett. 2008. Onto-Ethologies: The Animal Environments of Uexküll, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Deleuze. Albany: State University of New York Press. 2008.

  5. Clearly, biosemioticians are not the only ones to deny this dualism.

  6. For an excellent summary of the key theses of biosemiotics, see Kull et al. 2009.

  7. Note the important distinction: semiosic refers to the use of signs, while semiotic refers to the understanding of signs as such.

  8. Following our earlier distinction from Deely, we will assume that Tønnessen meant “semiosic” rather than “semiotic” in this passage.

References

  • Bekoff, M. (2010). Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare. California: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Burns, J. H., Hart, H. L. A. (eds) London: Methuen. 1982.

  • Bernstein, M. H. (1998). Considerability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deely, J. (2001). Four ages of understanding: The first postmodern survey of philosophy from ancient times to the turn of the twenty-first century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deely, J. (2010a). Semiotic animal: A postmodern definition of “human being” transcending patriarchy and feminism. South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deely, J. (2010b). Theses on semiology and semiotics. The American Journal of Semiotics, 26(1–4), 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. E. (1978). On being morally considerable. The Journal of Philosophy., 75(6), 308–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. (2010). The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (1993). In B. J. Haveland & B. J. Haveland (Eds.), Signs of meaning in the universe. Trans. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (1995). In V. Shiva & I. Moser (Eds.), Biosemiotics and ethics. Biopolitics. London: Zed Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). In J. Hoffmeyer & D. Favareau (Eds.), Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Trans. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2010). God and the world of signs: Semiotics and the emergence of life. Zygon, 45(2), 367–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, W. M. (1980). Are mere things morally considerable? Environmental Ethics, 2, 59–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2001). Biosemiotics and the problem of intrinsic value of nature. Sign Systems Studies., 29(1), 353–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K., Deacon, T., Emmeche, C., Hoffmeyer, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2009). Theses on biosemiotics: Prolegomena to a theoretical biology. Biological Theory, 4.2, 167–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrilli, S. (2004). Semioethics, subjectivity and communication. For the humanism of otherness. Semiotica, 148(1/4), 69–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. (1976). Natural and conventional meaning: An examination of the distinction. The Hauge: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. (2006). Science and ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1985). Language and human nature. Human agency and language (pp. 215–247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2003). Umwelt ethics. Sign Systems Studies, 31(1), 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Beever.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beever, J. Meaning Matters: The Biosemiotic Basis of Bioethics. Biosemiotics 5, 181–191 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9133-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9133-1

Keywords

Navigation