Acta Biotheoretica 59 (1):29-51 (2011)

Authors
Johan Braeckman
University of Ghent
Abstract
The impact of science on ethics forms since long the subject of intense debate. Although there is a growing consensus that science can describe morality and explain its evolutionary origins, there is less consensus about the ability of science to provide input to the normative domain of ethics. Whereas defenders of a scientific normative ethics appeal to naturalism, its critics either see the naturalistic fallacy committed or argue that the relevance of science to normative ethics remains undemonstrated. In this paper, we argue that current scientific normative ethicists commit no fallacy, that criticisms of scientific ethics contradict each other, and that scientific insights are relevant to normative inquiries by informing ethics about the options open to the ethical debate. Moreover, when conceiving normative ethics as being a nonfoundational ethics, science can be used to evaluate every possible norm. This stands in contrast to foundational ethics in which some norms remain beyond scientific inquiry. Finally, we state that a difference in conception of normative ethics underlies the disagreement between proponents and opponents of a scientific ethics. Our argument is based on and preceded by a reconsideration of the notions naturalistic fallacy and foundational ethics. This argument differs from previous work in scientific ethics: whereas before the philosophical project of naturalizing the normative has been stressed, here we focus on concrete consequences of biological findings for normative decisions or on the day-to-day normative relevance of these scientific insights
Keywords Science and ethics  Naturalistic fallacy  Normative ethics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10441-010-9096-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Two Dogmas of Empiricism.W. Quine - 1951 - [Longmans, Green].
The View From Nowhere.Thomas Nagel - 1986 - Oxford University Press.
Principia Ethica.George Edward Moore - 1903 - Dover Publications.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism.Willard V. O. Quine - 1951 - Philosophical Review 60 (1):20–43.

View all 55 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Ethics, Law, and the Science of Fish Welfare.Colin Allen - 2013 - Between the Species 16 (1):7.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Business Ethics, Ideology, and the Naturalistic Fallacy.Kenneth E. Goodpaster - 1985 - Journal of Business Ethics 4 (4):227 - 232.
Thinkers and Theories in Ethics.Brian Duignan (ed.) - 2011 - Rosen Education Services.
Why Ethics is Part of Philosophy.Stephen Darwall - 1999 - The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 1:19-28.
Normative Contexts and Moral Decision.Michael Philips - 1985 - Journal of Business Ethics 4 (4):233 - 237.
Toward a Foundational Normative Method in Business Ethics.Lester F. Goodchild - 1986 - Journal of Business Ethics 5 (6):485 - 499.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-05-07

Total views
418 ( #23,954 of 2,519,871 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #42,707 of 2,519,871 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes