Is ethics a science ? Can it be a science? Should it be a science? There are no clear and comprehensive answers for these questions. Obviously, ethics is a well-established discipline in the global academic community: there are several peer-reviewed journals, popular world-wide conferences, etc. And while it has many attributes of a science, it is not developed like a science. It seems that moral philosophers have an implicit consensus that this is impossible or unnecessary. Is this so? The book will try to discuss this problem in detail and to suggest some steps for improvement.
The Problem
Can ethics be a science? Many philosophers would possibly answer “no” and some would add “why it should be?” However, there is at least one serious practical problem created by this state of mind —lack of respect in society for the discipline.
I refer to my experience of teaching business ethics and moral reasoning for managers. First, it is easy to observe an obvious lack of respect for ethics from students. If we look into business ethics textbooks, we will find a diversity of approaches to present normative theories, but not an academic rigor common for textbooks in physics or economics . As a result, a common attitude of students attending a business ethics course is that “this is entertaining but not serious” or even worse “it is a waste of time.” I conducted several surveys to observe students’ attitude to business ethics as a discipline. First, the students were exposed to all main approaches (golden rule , divine command, virtues ethics, natural law, intuitionism , Utilitarianism , Kant , Rawls, corporate social responsibility, stakeholder theory) and were asked to discuss their weak and strong sides. After this the students were asked to answer the question “Can moral theory be a science?” This is a sample of typical responses.
- “We cannot call moral theory a science because science has to be based on objective knowledge and we cannot conclude that moral theory is objective because it is very dubious notion.”
- “Moral theory is based on some perceptions which a hard to measure and compare. Morality is very subjective.”
- “In order to check moral theory for falsifiability we may take as example utilitarianism , which says that an action may be called “right” if it maximizes good consequences. It is rather hard to falsify this statement because the criteria of goodness is not objective, it is our sense and there is no certain way to measure good or bad consequences.”
- “Moral theory is subjective and is not measurable by any numbers. This is the main hurdle to deal with it as a science.”
- “Moral theory cannot be a science because: (1) no objective data, (2) no measurement of morality, (3) no criteria to refer facts to theories, (4) an empirical check is impossible, (5) no reproducible results.”
- “Moral theory cannot be referred to as general truth as it differs within different centuries and societies.”
- “Moral theory is closely interconnected with religion which contradicts science.”
- “Moral norms are always relative and subjective because there is no clear definition of what is moral. It is not universal because it varies from society to society, from place to place, etc.”
- “Scientific theories are objective, i.e. they exist regardless of individual perception. Law of gravity remains unchanged in Ghana, Russia or China. It is possible to verify it by observation and experiment. Moral theory does not meet this requirement.”
- “Everything in science should be proved to be considered as a truth but this is impossible in moral theory.”
- “The basis of considering things or actions in moral theory is subjective and unstable, because it is based on feelings , senses and emotions.”
- “Science has some attributes: it is systematic, well-organized knowledge in the forms of explanations and predictions. Moral theory does not actually respond to any of these features. It is too flexible, non-systematic, its predictions are hazy.”
- “It is not known whether morality is a national variable. If it depends on a particular society, each society should have its own theory.”
Maybe this lack of respect was a result of my poor teaching skills? Or improper pedagogy? This is rarely so. First, my students are usually quite excited by business ethics classes, so this is not a “boring professor” problem. Second, in this experiment I deliberately followed a standard approach of presenting alternative theories and discussing them like the authors of many business ethics textbooks do, so the outcome of such a survey in many other business schools would not be very different.1 A similar account on the cynical or skeptical attitude of students is provided in the book on ethics in economics (Hausman et al. 2016).2
The second and no less important problem is lack of respect from the business community. On the one hand, many professionals graduate from a handful of business schools, so this skeptical attitude is formed at the university bench. On the other hand, in recurring situations of ethical controversies the business community almost never hears the distinctive voice of a business ethics specialist who may confidentially resolve an issue . However, such a “scientific voice” is normally heard in other areas of human activity, e.g. professional opinion of physicists may resolve concern about global warming, the professional opinion of medical researchers may resolve concern about new disease treatment, etc. Normally, people have respect for science and follow recommendations of science in their ordinary lives. When geneticists say that some disease has genetic origins or cholesterol is not dangerous, we trust them because we know that this is science. However, when was the last time we have heard that business ethicists discovered some new moral truth?
Holland and Albrecht (2013) asked 211 scholars with expertise in business ethics to identify the three most important issues that business ethics academia will face in the near future. The first two were issues relating to business ethics education and the credibility of business ethics. By credibility they understood acceptance, legitimacy, respect, and recognition among students, academia, benefactors, and practitioners. Typical examples of responses were: “The scornful attitude of business school faculty: ethics is not academically legitimate or rigorous,” and “Taken seriously by other colleagues.”
Who is responsible for this lack of authority? My guess is that the academic community in the business ethics domain, and in moral philosophy in general, traditionally supports pluralism and freedom of opinions (which is obviously a good thing!), but at the same time does not pay enough attention to accuracy, logical rigor, and verification which are so important in other scientific domains (e.g. economics, physics, or medicine). The entry “Problems of moral philosophy” in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy tells us that “the major problem of current and traditional moral philosophy , then, is coming up with a rationally defensible theory of right and wrong action” (Honderich 2005, pp. 626–627). There are five approaches (Utilitarianism , Kantianism, contractualism, intuitivism, virtue ethics) but “no generally accepted solutions” to disagreement between them.3
This attitude is manifested in business ethics textbooks which demonstrate a rich diversity of approaches and colorful cases, but lack academic rigor. They present various frameworks (Utilitarianism , Deontology , virtue ethics , etc.) without trying to ...