Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:

Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view

whats new at ieet

The Future of News? Virtual Reality

Future Fiction: To an Antique Land

Could You Survive Nuclear Fallout?

Star Trek Philosophy: “Killing Is Wrong, No Matter Who’s Doing It”

What About Me?

How Digital Media Finally Enables Distributed Enterprise

ieet books

The Brain: The Story of You
David Eagleman


instamatic on 'Christians Should Support Scientists and Technologists' (Nov 28, 2015)

spud100 on 'Viewpoints on Modern Cosmism' (Nov 28, 2015)

spud100 on 'Christians Should Support Scientists and Technologists' (Nov 28, 2015)

Giulio Prisco on 'Viewpoints on Modern Cosmism' (Nov 28, 2015)

instamatic on 'Christians Should Support Scientists and Technologists' (Nov 27, 2015)

Rick Searle on 'Obfuscation: protect privacy by destroying the Web!' (Nov 27, 2015)

Mahee on 'Saudi Arabia implements electronic tracking system to monitor women’s movements' (Nov 27, 2015)

Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List


Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month

Why it matters that you realize you’re in a computer simulation
Nov 14, 2015
(67743) Hits
(14) Comments

The Future Business of Body Shops
Nov 15, 2015
(8013) Hits
(0) Comments

Crypto Enlightenment: A Social Theory of Blockchains
Nov 1, 2015
(7083) Hits
(0) Comments

Is Anyone Competent to Regulate Artificial Intelligence?
Nov 21, 2015
(4004) Hits
(1) Comments

Comment on this entry

Toward a Science of Morality

Massimo Pigliucci

February 19, 2013

An annotated response to Michael Shermer: Michael Shermer and I have been engaged in what I hope has been a productive discussion on the relationship between science and philosophy as it concerns the field of ethics. Roughly speaking, Michael contends that science has a lot to say about ethical questions (though he is not quite as reductive as Sam Harris, who contends that science is pretty much the only game in town when it comes to ethics). I respond that science provides informative background but grossly underdetermines ethical issues, which therefore require philosophical reflection. Michael’s opening salvo was followed by my response, with Shermer recently adding some thoughts, further articulating his position. The notes below are my point-by-point commentary on that third round. (Throughout, italics indicates Michael’s writing, with my comments immediately following.)


Complete entry


Posted by b.  on  02/19  at  11:53 AM

Thank you for posting. While I’m not clear on the continuity (or lack thereof) between morality and ethics, I agree with the author that science as the defacto base of morality is problematic.

I think there is a false separation between cultural values and science. Science is inherently dependent on cultural values that influence what questions are worth asking and what properties are worth measuring. The products of science are communicated through cultural means (language) that is subjective and imprecise. Science can tell us the difference between X and Y, but can’t compare them ethically.

We know there are general differences between make and female humans (lets set aside the fact of many who biologically and socially fit somewhere in between those attractors), and those differences were exploited to “prove” that women are the “weaker sex” and therefore subject to different moral and ethical behaviours. Same goes for skin colour and religion.

We treat non-human animals in a totally non-compatible way (in particular in science) with human animals, yet there is little biological difference between non-human mammals and ourselves. (Why would we study them to understand ourselves if they were not highly biologically similar?)

It seems obvious that any moral position could be supported by empirical evidence simply by controlling the variables to be measured, and the definitions of the terms.

If the aim is only survival and reproduction, then those domesticated animals that many of us consume are being morally tortured. Its quite clear you can increase the survival of a creature at the same time as robbing him/her of any quality of life or dignity. Indeed survival != flourish.

Add your comment here:




Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?


RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

East Coast Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @     phone: 860-428-1837

West Coast Contact: Managing Director, Hank Pellissier
425 Moraga Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
Email: hank @