There is widespread acknowledgment that it is very difficult to get a base for morality in science. Albert Einstein saw this clearly. In a discussion on science and religion in Berlin 1930, he said that our human sense of beauty and our religious instinct are "tributary forms in helping the reasoning faculty towards its highest achievements. You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality." Einstein proceeded to point out that science cannot form a base for morality: "every attempt to reduce ethics to scientific formulae must fail".

Richard Feynman, also a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, shared Einstein's view: "Even the greatest forces and abilities don't seem to carry any clear instructions on how to use them. As an example, the great accumulation of understanding as to how the physical world behaves only convinces one that this behaviour has a kind of meaninglessness about it. The sciences do not directly teach good or bad." Elsewhere he states that "ethical values lie outside the scientific realm".

It's a good question, in the sense that ethics is often discussed in a scientistic manner (not scientific). For example, we talk about ethical "theories", as if they are things that could be "proven". I don't think this is an appropriate understanding of the place of ethics in our lives. Ethics is not about knowledge, although there are plenty of psychological and sociological questions that can be asked about ethics in the human community, which can be answered scientifically.

Ethics is about values which we choose to have, and again, we might draw upon various facts when making our commitment to particular values. We might, for example, reason to ourselves that dishonest people generally get found out, and therefore decide to be honest.

But the key factor is that we choose to live in accordance with ethical values, not that we can prove that these are scientifically provable ethical values. I think Albert Schweitzer presents this argument well (in The Philosophy of Civilization, Prometheus, 1987). I have built on his stance in my own book, Human Values and Ethics in the Workplace (G.P. Martin, 2010)(check on Amazon).

The quest to make ethics a science is, I believe, doomed to failure, especially if it succeeds. Imagine if a company decided to be ethical because it read a study that showed that being honest paid off in an enhanced share price. But then, someone else does a study that concludes that honest companies do worse on share price. Rationally, the company should now choose not to be honest. You can see the problem. Ethics should not strive to be a science, even though it may make use of scientific data.

Could ethics be falsifiable in the Popperian sense?

Ethics is not science! It is philosophical, and philosophy is not science. Outputs of science can be transferred into technology; philosophy cannot be transferred into technology! There can of course be something called scientific study of ethics, and that would be quite another matter! A scientific study of history does not make history a field of science.

I think that science is ethics on condition that it can be justified by itself.

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results. Can we demonstrate an empirical base to ethics in the same way as to science?

It is because of the incomplete picture which we have of right and wrong, and our inability to give exact and verifiable demonstrations or proofs of the reliability and accuracy of the values that we hold, that we understand Socrates' to have been a champion of the notion of ethical humility.

Interestingly, he does not formally engage logic, metaphysics, or epistemology (though he touches on all these branches of philosophy in his questioning). His one concern seems to have been ethics. At the end of the day he discovers that the reason the Delphic Oracle said there was no one wiser than him was because he understood how little he actually knew.

Given that from of old the study of ethics is, normatively speaking, supposed to engender humility in the student, I think that we must conclude that it is not able to be compared to a science. Science can help the ethical agent, the moral reasoner, to have a better picture of the dilemma under consideration, but ethics cannot be a science. Regarding science I think that Jerry Fodor put it well when he said:

"“Science is about facts, not norms; it might tell us how we are, but it can’t tell us what is wrong with how we are.”

If we flip that around, ethics can tell us, via deductive reasoning, what is right or wrong in a given situation, but it cannot by its own methods identify factual from nonfactual states of affairs for the purpose of arriving at an indubitable "good" or "right". Einstein famously said that "Religion without science is blind while science without religion is lame." Although I am not comparing or equating ethics with religion, I would say that ethics without science is also blind, while science without ethics is frightening.

>>>I think that ethics are the borders of scientific findings and interpretation.

Examples:

* A scientist cannot use some material because it is against ethics, i.e. human organs cannot be used as a research material in nutrition science!

* A scientist has to limit his expectations from his theories if it violates customs and traditions of the society, i.e. if an economist suggest a new economical theory to increase the profit of a trade, so that it affects poor people, then he has to change his theory to maintain the stability in community.

>>>In addition, the rules of ethics can be considered a science that take many things into account like humanity, law, religion, customs, traditions, economy, social relationships, and community.

To respond to Larry, about whether a utilitarian approach would come close to making ethics a science. I think the problem with utilitarianism is that it has to come back and rely on a rule-based approach (forms of deontology) at critical times. The comments about law courts making decisions illustrates this. The court generally considers the flow-on effects of its decision (as a precedent), but it must abide by what the law says is right and wrong. The essential problem of utilitarianism is that it has to act as if we know all the outcomes of our actions. I offer this quote: "In a complex world, whatever you do goes outwards with a constellation of known and unknown effects. It may come back to you in completely unpredictable ways. Under such conditions, the optimal strategy for acting ethically becomes surprisingly simple: to always do the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, and for the right reasons." (Sally Goerner, After a Clockwork Universe: The Emerging Science and Culture of Integral Society, Floris Books, 2001)

The Dalai Lama talks about ethics from this perspective - that the effects of our actions flow outwards, without our knowing all their implications. (His new book, "Beyond religion", takes ethics as a core issue for all humans, not just those who have religious beliefs.)

The question is ethics, or can it ever be, in some sense of the word, a ‘science’ has been debated at length by ethical theorists, and tends to divide them into two broad camps. According to the ‘continuity’ position, science and ethics share basic similarities, and even if ethics may not really be a science, there are many more points of congruence between the two than popularly acknowledged. The ‘discontinuity’ camp, on the other hand, assert that ethics and science are fundamentally different kinds of activity, and the two shall never meet. Didn’t Hume in 'A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40)' clearly state that one cannot derive what ought to be (ie a moral answer) from what is (ie an empirical answer)?

John Rawls, a discontinuity proponent, argues that moral ‘facts’ are of a very different nature than scientific facts, even though both are theory-laden. In moral theory, according to Rawls, it is indeed possible to reach a consensus about what constitutes a fact, but only because this fact is constructed by certain sections of humanity that share a similar background and view of the world. Another prominent discontinuity theorist is Alan Gibbard, who says that facts in the natural sciences have an explanatory role that cannot possibly find an equivalent in moral theory. In the moral case, to say that something is wrong is to express an attitude, not an empirical finding.

Ethics is not and does not work like science. However, modern ethical theory simply can’t afford to ignore what the natural sciences tell us about human nature, about the neurological basis of moral decision-making, and about the evolution of morality itself. This I think is a happy middle ground between the two camps.

Along Levinas, ethics is the relation with the Other. Science is a subject/object relationship. The Other can be reduced to object only making violence. This way, ethics cannot be a science...

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.The term comes from the Greek word ethos, which means "character". Ethics is a complement to Aesthetics in the philosophy field of Axiology. In philosophy, ethics studies the moral behavior in humans and how one should act.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

I think that science is the proved and admitted knowledge 'savoir' in any field of fundamental or applied science ; ethics are the proved and admitted rules for human being. Science must follow ethical rules for human happiness and development. So is there good and bad science for knowledge improvement ? how distinguish between ethical science and non ethical one. In any case human must know which knowledge lead to development and which one guide to nothing or negative development. So the question is how protect knowledge from wrong usage, and how ethics could be highlighted in the science practice.

Hello all,

While some researchers would indicate that ethics comes under 'social science', I believe it is too difficult to pin point it under SCIENCE! as scientific --- mainly as this relates to the human values and beliefs which are difficult to measure - but, we need to find ways to measure... one of the ways that I tried to research - not ethics, but ethical mindsets was a framework that provided me with some 6 components of ethical mindsets - however, this would be pointing to the ethical mindsets which might be subject to change due to culture and situation! so, there would be too many variables to state that ethics is SCIENCE - it is a philosophy, but science might help! I hope I did not confuse you! regards

Larry, yes, I think it's important to remember that the beginning of ethics (or morality) is the distinction between selfishness and unselfishness. I like Albert Schweitzer's definition of ethics (one of his definitions) when he said "Ethics is the name we give to our concern for good behaviour. We feel an obligation to consider not only our own personal well-being, but also that of others, society as a whole [and the natural world]." (I added the last phrase; he wouldn't mind.)

Larry and Glenn

Thank you for your responses - well, this brings in some interesting issues... well, with regards to ethics and science I would borrow from Rollin (2006). In Science and Ethics, Bernard Rollin historically and conceptually examines the ideology that denies the relevance of ethics to science. Providing an introduction to basic ethical concepts, he discusses a variety of ethical issues that are relevant to science and how they are ignored, to the detriment of both science and society. These issues include research on human subjects, animal research, genetic engineering, biotechnology, cloning, xenotransplantation, and stem cell research. In engaging prose and with philosophical sophistication, Rollin cogently argues in favor of making education in ethics part and parcel of scientific training.

So, I believe this brings new dimension to the discussion -:)

Regards

In thinking about Theodora's comment, I am reminded of Jacques Ellul's book, The Technological Society (1954). He argued that our society has sanctioned (or privileged) the technological imperative, which is the blind urge to pursue technological innovation regardless of need or any human values, and then to naively ignore the fact that this in itself represents a values stance. Larry says our values may be sociologically driven and this is obviously true, otherwise different societies would not have distinguishing characteristics. But this is historical, not rational (in the sense that we should be able to articulate and stand up for our ethical values). And societies have evolutions and revolutions (witness the overthrow of slavery), so this process of examining and questioning the social reality from an ethical perspective is part of being human.

Thank you Larry and Glenn for your responses - highly appreciated... Whilst I liked and totally agree with Glenn's statement 'the process of examining and questioning the social reality from an ethical perspective is part of being human' I am a bit suspicious of this, especially with what the HUMANS did and continue to do in relation to the GREED in the world, the POVERTY, the CONFLICT, the PERSECUTION! that is happening around the world, if we are talking business or way of life...

As for Larry's comments 'Machiavellian ethics will be more 'appropriate' in a society run by a dictator - I do not agree with this statement, whereas it is evident that the self-centered individuals in the modern society are are practicing the Machiavellian ethics - and there is a support of that in the literature by Lee and Rhue (1999) when they conducted a study on Italian Business men - well, Italy was not then under dictatorship... In addition, Robbins et al (2006) also indicate that BUSINESS PEOPLE are mostly acting in a Machiavellian way... and here these authors are talking about different business people in the developed countries...

Happy to discuss!

Regards

Theodora Issa

Yes, Theodora, exactly. The problem is that some vocal business people seem to have hoodwinked the world into accepting that Milton Friedman's credo (our only responsibility is to make a profit) is necessary and acceptable. This is no different to the little boy who looks at the lolly jar and says "I should have all the lollies". It's merely an ambit claim, meaning "I know my claim is total nonsense, but wouldn't it be fabulous if you believed me!"

Hello Glen,

Thanks for that - agreed - but, what can we do... Freeman is trying and have some several lovely ideas about how we can --- but, the question that keeps on coming from my students, if we adhere to what Freeman is saying, would our competitors do the same... another dilemma!

Regards

Theodora Issa

So I think this is the real question. In terms of how we see ethics, there is actually a lot of agreement about what it is (ie some form of universal human values). The question is whether we think it is possible to live that way, especially in business. Some business ethicists have tried to argue that doing business ethically is good for business, but we know that, although there is some truth in this, it's not that simple. I think ethics is a call, it is a call to decide who you want to be in the world, what kind of person. Of course there are all the other arguments - like, being ethical may indeed be good if you want your business to be sustainable; and you can discuss the social environment and organisational culture, and how you can influence that. But choosing to be ethical is a personal choice, and it can't be any other way. There may be evidence that supports being ethical, but there is no proof.

There is also this to be said: if I knew a business's only commitment was to make a profit, I wouldn't do business with them, because they are telling me they have no interest in providing me with anything real or of quality. So very quickly this philosophy falls on its face. It delivers us into a world that relies on lies and deceit. And so we help create that.

I discuss the question of reasons for being ethical in this paper:

Martin, G 1998, “Once again: why should business be ethical?” Business & Professional Ethics Journal, vol. 17, No. 4, p. 39-60. I think I have uploaded it to Research Gate.

It has been few days... well, there are some more interesting ideas that you are engaged in when discussing ethical and ethics to science relationship.

Well, despite what is being said - I believe that businesses need to be ethical - and they should move from the idea that any damage that is done by their products or by the way they run their business is considered 'EXTERNALITIES' - the theories and the frameworks have moved well beyond this - and now looking at incorporating ethical standards within the core of the organisations - and the CSR is an integral part of the strategy of the organisation!

In this respect, I would like to share with you what Alzola (2011) discussed the relationship between business and ethics in academic research, providing an agenda of the reconciliation between the two … The purpose of this investigation was to examine the status of the separation and the integration theses. Alzola defended the claim that neither separation nor integration is entirely accurate; indeed they are both potentially confusing to the audience of business research. Alzola proposes a strategy of reconciliation of normative and descriptive approaches. The reconciliation project does not entail synthesizing or dividing prescriptive and empirical approaches, but rather respecting the identity of both inquiries, while recognizing the limitations they place on each other.

Regards

Theodora Issa

Larry raised some interesting questions above. Are human values vague? I think not. I think the concepts are clear, or can be clarified. But they are high-level concepts, and in human communities (societies, organisations etc) we need to operationalize the concepts, applying them to the context. I think the practice of ethics in a group is about moving up and down this ladder - we need to go back to the basic concepts (eg honesty) and see if we agree at that level, then we need to go back down the ladder and see how we will apply it. That is the process, for example, of formulating a code of conduct.

Also, we use laws rules, policies etc to set minimum standards of behaviour. And these are not "vague". This is because ethics can be discussed at different levels. With some people you don't say "it would be nice of you were honest"; you just say, "this is the law". With other people you might talk about ethics as an aspiration for high-quality relationships, or as a deep sense of identity (the kind of person I want to be).

Next, I think it is helpful to distinguish between two conversations about ethics. One is about deciding on ethics for myself - this is how I will live my life. The other is about reaching agreement on the ethics of our group. How you conduct the latter conversation might be a bit different, both in content and process.

Hello Glenn,

I liked this entry - especially - 'it would be nice if you were honest' !

I am interested to see what might be involved in the conversation with myself 'how I will be living my life' - I am curious to see if my belief system or my religion would play a role in here...

Regards

Theodora Issa

There is widespread acknowledgment that it is very difficult to get a base for morality in science. Albert Einstein saw this clearly. In a discussion on science and religion in Berlin 1930, he said that our human sense of beauty and our religious instinct are "tributary forms in helping the reasoning faculty towards its highest achievements. You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality." Einstein proceeded to point out that science cannot form a base for morality: "every attempt to reduce ethics to scientific formulae must fail".

Richard Feynman, also a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, shared Einstein's view: "Even the greatest forces and abilities don't seem to carry any clear instructions on how to use them. As an example, the great accumulation of understanding as to how the physical world behaves only convinces one that this behaviour has a kind of meaninglessness about it. The sciences do not directly teach good or bad." Elsewhere he states that "ethical values lie outside the scientific realm".

Hello all,

So, I tend to agree with the responses that coming through, thank you Larry and Issam for your contributions... I thought Einstein and Feynman would need to be mentioned to clarify the relationship! but the new ways of thinking have forgotten these distinctive sayings - it seems.

Consciousness is the core of ethics in science. There is not bad and good science, there is knowledge and its usage. Einstein's work has improved and expanded science to a great level of knowledge never seen before, and in another side was improperly and irresponsibly exploited in its version of massive destruction arm. which was not of a necessary benefit to humanity.

Aristotle states in the preface to his Nicomachean Ethics:

"Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs."

I understand this to be a claim about the characteristics of the field of ethics. I think Aristotle draws the polarities of science and rhetoric with a view towards setting ethics between them. I believe that for Aristotle ethics is dealing with something more than mere human innovation or invention (pace Sidgwick, Ayers, Stevenson, Mackie, Blackbur, and Gibbard), and yet less than science (pace Paul Lapie, von Hartmann, Robert Hartman, J.N. Findlay, Daniel Jacobson, Justin D'Arms, and Chandra Sripada). I cast my vote with Aristotle. It is not a science, but it is dealing with an area of human functioning which is more objective than are the arts.

Thanks, Bill. I suppose this thread was started because there is a view that science has territorial rights over the whole realm of consciousness, and you've reminded us of the inappropriateness of that view.

Jacob, I genuinely do not write so as to be adversarial, but I must say that to explain "certain aspects" is not the same thing as to explain it all. I believe that most of us would already grant that science and the social sciences have been a tremendous help in understanding "certain aspects" of ethics and of human behavior overall. Respectfully, I'm not sure why believing there are limits on the ability of science to explain all things is either bold or egocentric. Where is the boldness or the egocentricity in such a claim? Your statement puzzles me because it seems to encourage humility on the part of those who, from my perspective, are already speaking from a humility which doubts our ability to subsume all that exists under the categories of our own scientific endeavors.

There is a logical point to be made as well, in distinguishing between "science" and "ethics". It is simply to say that science (as we currently understand that enterprise) creates models of the world (and ourselves, and our constituent parts) and gathers empirical evidence about those models, while ethics talks about human judgements about "right" and "wrong". The latter are not open to evidence in the same way. They are matters of personal assertion (that something has value in itself) and of social agreement.

This is not to say that evidence could not be gathered to show that persons and groups that lived according to such ethics/values were better off over time, or however you choose to phrase that. But my commitment to a value is not conditional on such evidence. Sometimes a person will do the right thing even if it kills them.

Jacob -

I understand what you have said, but my perspective on this is quite a bit different from yours. When you state, "science (brain) can't explain ethics (heart), to me, is to say that my brain has nothing to do with the functioning of my heart," you are speaking from a very different place than I am. I would by no means make this sharp distinction between brain and heart regarding either science or ethics. Much of my study in the area of science and the nature of scientific discoveries leads me to conclude that our passions and our intuitions are very much involved in the exploration of the physical universe (in this regard see especially the works of Michael Polanyi). As well, I do not believe we can make proper use of our passions apart from the usage of our intellects. I do not believe the two activities should be thus designated (science as brain and ethics as heart). That would be to admit to a distinction that is usually attributed to Hume, but which he never made. By my reading of the Treatise, Hume himself would agree with what I am saying. Hume did not divorce "is" and "ought" as some suppose. He basically said that facts are motivationally inert, and that they cannot motivate a moral or ethical response by themselves alone. In the perceiving human mind something must be joined with the factual to create a value or an ethical "ought": he calls it "sentiment" but he means, by his usage of the word, the passions.

That being said, I am not claiming that science can't explain ethics at all, I am claiming that science cannot give us a full explanation of ethics. I do not think that will change with the elapse of time. The quote I gave above from the Nicomachean Ethics is Aristotle's acknowledgement that this is a field which has more of the objective than does the field of rhetoric, but less of it than does the field of what he calls "science". This is not to say (humbly or otherwise), as you have put it, that "we cannot recognize a way" in which science and ethics are related. What makes this field different than science properly so-called is that it has so many variables. There is the issue of separating out cultural norms from any sort of basic values which transcend specific cultures. There is the issue of a reasoning moral agent and the person-relative volitional aspect of making moral choices. There is the aspect of whether or not the moral agent is reasoning from a well-informed and factual perspective concerning the matter at hand. There is the issue of the mutable and fluctuating nature of human personality. There are the variables of taste, prejudice, pre-commitments, and obstinacy. There is the matter of desire and whether it is right or wrong desire (Aristotle says that "desire is to good as belief is to truth"). I could go on, but the point is that this is a field with too many variables and with too much that is subjective or inter-subjective for us to be able to deal with it as a science. I cannot see how this is going to change with time. I think it is not mere humility or false humility but basic sanity to admit this field cannot be subsumed under science. As well, I believe that it is an unwarranted arrogance as regards the capabilities of the human mind which causes us to think that everything can ultimately be reduced to a physicalist and scientific description.

As regards wonders of the ancient world, there actually have been many interesting and fairly satisfying explanations advanced to explain objects such as we encounter in the pyramids, Machu Picchu, Easter Island, the Nazca Lines, Persepolis, and many other of these ancient structures. Such explanations have, as you indicate, required us to think more simply about how one might accomplish such feats of construction. I'm not sure, however, that this has any bearing on the matter at hand. Whether we think more simply or in a more sophisticated manner, I believe Aristotle's distinction about the nature of ethics will hold into the future. The only way around it is by a diminuition of the human such as Skinner and others give us when they would turn human beings into highly complex stimulus-response mechanisms whose sense of personality is only what Koestler (echoing Ryle) called a "ghost in the machine." This is an unsatisfying sort of reductionism, but it is the only way in which we could hope to explain ethics entirely in terms of science.

I apologize for coming too late to this conversation. (I' ve been dead busy, lately).

I read and enjoyed the previous comments. Please allow me to add something else:

Ethics - in spite of many philosophers along the histoy- is not a science. Bill has provided solid arguments about it from the standpoint of Aristotle, the prime source, if at all.

Ethics has always been a matter of fine-tuned advise about how to live in the world and in the midts of others. Aristotle pioneer work is nothing else thata letter to his son (Nicomacus) gibing him very practical advises. Epicurus' letter to his son, Menelao, goes exactly along te same way. The classical book on Il Cortesano, di Castiglione is, accordingly, nothing else and nothing more than a set of parctical rules.

Ethics is largely grounded, henceafter, on common sense.

(I leave Kant's ethics aside here for a later comment).

Brought to the extreme, ethics has always been and still remains, in my own the equivalent of what nowadays is that bunch of (self-)edyfying literature - and in the end, self-help literature. That is where regular people go to find advise about what to eat, how to live, and so on.

In my own take: ethics is not a science and does not have to be one, isn' t it?

I take it that Carlos is saying that the findings of science do not and cannot provide us with guidance for how we think we 'should' live. I would accept that, although I think the concept of common sense is fragile.A person's (or community's) idea of what is common sense is influenced by their experiences, beliefs and motivations.

I think the idea of stages of development is needed to navigate through the minefield of people's different perceptions of what is ethical, or acceptable. Some people believe in getting away with what they can, some people believe in 'an eye for an eye', some people believe in 'turning the other cheek' to your enemy. So there is not a single set of values, even within one society. The idea of stages of development at least provides a conceptual framework for describing these differences. And there is a great deal of research on the incidence of these stages in society. That, of course, doesn't make ethics a science; it simply means that we can make systematic observations of human phenomena.

Dear Glenn, I like your comment and, moreover, I agree with you. What you have done, if you allow me to, is providing some methodology or descriptive layers of what "being ethical" menas and is carried out.

It does happen as you mention, indeed. The very fact that ethics (at large) is grounded on common sense) is what makes it bith attractive and problematic. For, if you push the argument a little bit farther, you can be ethical without this implying that you are "good". Thus, "ethics" and "goodness" are not necessarily and reciprocally connected. The reason is that some people can act according to their social surrounding and still baheve quite questionably. Plenty of examples and case can be provided about this.

Which brings us bak to the point: it is not a science, it cannot be a science, and whithin the general famework of what science is, should not be a science - as yet.

Dear All

Thanks for your contribution.

The question is also why we often wonder if ethics can be a science? Along Lévinas, ethics is the only way of living among others. Not a science at all!  Many times we would like ethics as a "science"... Maybe we should  simply accept unpredictability and try to resolve ethical controversies one by one, with interdisciplinary subsidy...   

Ethics is not a science and should not be.  The title 'science' does not convey any authority on a concept, after all many things that were science are now dismissed as nonsense.  We should not believe that for a matter to be taken seriously it needs to be a 'science'.  A more sensible way of looking at ethics is to place them in a philosophical framework with science and art.  

Ethics is simply a study of right and wrong.  Science is neutral and is neither right not  wrong.  It is not biology that is ethical or unethical it is the purpose to which it is put.  Physics is not 'wrong' because it facilitates the construction of H Bombs, it is the desire for weapons that is ethically flawed not the ability to make them.  

There is one area where they may be some congruence in definition.  Science is simply the search for the truth where the search is paramount.  Ethics are the study (or search) for right and wrong.  Neither can therefore stand still or ever be concluded.  

Dear All

Thank you for your contributions.

Regards

Ethics is not a Science. It includes some directions for good practices. Definitely, it lacks strong mathematical backbone. Ethics do not have any scientific methods involved in it.

Dear Sudev Thank you for your contribution. Regards