Normative ethics does not need a foundation: it needs more science

Area of Science:

• * Philosophy of Science
• * Ethics
• * Evolutionary Biology

Background:

• * Ongoing debate regarding science's role in normative ethics.
• * Disagreement on whether science can inform ethical principles beyond describing morality's origins.
• * Criticisms often cite the naturalistic fallacy or undemonstrated relevance.

Purpose of the Study:

• * To argue that scientific normative ethics does not commit the naturalistic fallacy.
• * To demonstrate the relevance of scientific insights to normative ethical inquiries.
• * To highlight how differing conceptions of normative ethics underlie the debate.

Main Methods:

• * Reconsideration of the naturalistic fallacy and foundational ethics.
• * Analysis of criticisms against scientific ethics for internal contradictions.
• * Focus on the practical consequences of biological findings for normative decisions.

Main Results:

• * Current scientific normative ethicists do not commit the naturalistic fallacy.
• * Criticisms of scientific ethics are often contradictory.
• * Scientific insights provide relevant information for ethical debates and norm evaluation.

Conclusions:

• * Science is relevant to normative ethics, especially within a non-foundational framework.
• * Biological findings have concrete consequences for normative decision-making.
• * The core disagreement stems from differing views on the nature of normative ethics.