Abstract
The relation between ethics and social science is often conceived as complementary, both disciplines cooperating in the solution of concrete moral problems. Against this, the paper argues that not only applied ethics but even certain parts of general ethics have to incorporate sociological and psychological data and theories from the start. Applied ethics depends on social science in order to asses the impact of its own principles on the concrete realities which these principles are to regulate as well as in order to propose practice rules suited to adapt these principles to their respective contexts of application. Examples from medical ethics (embryo research) and ecological ethics (Leopold's land ethic) illustrate both the contingence of practice rules in relation to their underlying basic principles and the corresponding need for a co-operation between philosophy and empirical disciplines in judging their functional merits and demerits. In conclusion, the relevance of empirical hypotheses even for some of the ‘perennial’ problems of ethics is shown by clarifying the role played by empirical theories in the controversies about the ethical differentiation between positive and negative responsibility and the relation between utility maximisation and (seemingly) independent criteria of distributive justice in the context of social distributions.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bedau, H. A., Justice and classical utilitarianism, in C.J. Friedrich and J.W. Chapman (eds.), Justice. New York: Atherton Press, 1963, pp. 284–305.
Birnbacher, D., Tun und Unterlassen. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1995.
Callicott, J.B., The conceptual foundations of the Land Ethic, in J.B. Callicott (ed.), A companion to A Sand County Almanac. Interpretative and critical essays. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987, pp. 186–217.
Edgeworth, F.Y., Mathematical psychics. London: Kegan Paul, 1881.
Ehrenfeld, D., The Arrogance of Humanism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Elster, J., Local Justice. How Institutions Allocate Resources and Necessary Burdens. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Kant, I., Ñber den Gemeinspruch: Das Mag in der Theorie Richtig Sein, Taugt Aber Nicht für die Praxis, in Kants Werke, Akademie-Ausgabe Bd. 8. Berlin: Reimer, 1923, pp. 273–314.
Keown, J., Euthanasia in the Netherlands: sliding down the slippery slope? In J. Keown (ed.), Euthanasia Examined. Ethical, Clinical and Legal Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 261–296.
Kuhse, H., Voluntary Euthanasia in the Netherlands and Slippery Slopes. Bioethics News 11(4) (1992), pp. 1–7.
Leopold, A., The Land Ethic, in A. Leopold (ed.), A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949, pp. 201–226.
Miller, D., Distributive Justice: What the People Think. Ethics 102 (1992), pp. 555–593.
Rescher, N., Distributive Justice. A Constructive Critique of the Utilitarian Theory of Distribution. Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.
Schmidt, V. H., Bounded justice. Social Science Information 33 (1994), pp. 305–333.
Slote, M. A., The morality of wealth, in W. Aiken, H. La Follette (eds.), World Hunger and Moral Obligation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977, pp. 124–147.
Stone, C. D., Earth and Other Ethics. The Case for Moral Pluralism. New York: Harper & Row, 1987.
Trapp, R.W., "Nicht-klassischer" Utilitarismus. Eine Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. Frankfurt/ M.: Klostermann, 1988.
Trapp, R.W., 'Utilitarianism Incorporating Justice' - A Decentralised Model of Ethical Decision Making. Erkenntnis 32 (1990), pp. 341–381.
WaIzer, M., Spheres of Justice. A Defence of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
Williams, B., A critique of utilitarianism, in J. J. C. Smart, B. Williams Utilitarianism for and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973, pp. 77–150
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Birnbacher, D. Ethics and Social Science: Which Kind of Co-operation?. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2, 319–336 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009903815157
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009903815157