Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A role for structured observation in ethics

  • 198 Accesses

  • 4 Citations

Abstract

Progress in the natural sciences has depended upon the collection and use of carefully controlled observational data. By contrast, ethicists have failed to agree upon a role for observational data in their enterprise. Although factors embedded in the human condition obscure the role of observational data in ethical theory, barriers to the use of such data in ethics may be superable. Observation may not provide definitive answers to most ethical or metaethical questions. However observation of carefully constructed experimental conditions may provide the basis for cumulative progress in some branches of ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abel, C. F., and Oppenheimer, J. A. (1982). Liberating the industrious tailor: The case for ideology and instrumentalism in the Social Sciences. Polit. Methodol. 8(1): 39–60.

  2. Boyd, R. B. (1988). How to be a moral realist. In Sayre-McCord, G. (ed.), Essays in Moral Realism, Cornell Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 181–228.

  3. Brink, D. O. (1989). Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

  4. Firth, R. (1952). Ethical absolutism and the ideal observer. Phil. Phenomenol. Res. 12(3): 317–345.

  5. Frankena, W. K. (1963). Ethics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJ.

  6. Frohlich, N. Oppenheimer, J. A., and Eavey, C. (1987a). Laboratory results on Rawls’ principle of distributive justice. Brit. J. Polit. Sci. 17: 1–21.

  7. Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J. A., and Eavey, C. (1987b). Choices of principles of distributive justice in experimental groups. Amer. J. Polit. Sci. 31(3): 606–636.

  8. Frohlich, N., and Oppenheimer, J. A. (1990). Choosing justice in experimental democracies with production. Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 84(2): 461–477.

  9. Frohlich, N., and Oppenheimer, J. A. (1992). Choosing Justice: An Experimental Approach to Ethical Theory, University of California Press, Berkeley.

  10. Frohlich, N. and Oppenheimer, J. A. (1995). The incompatibility of incentive compatible devices and ethical behavior: Some experimental results and insights. Public Choice 25: 24–51. [Incorrectly published without Oppenheimer’s name on it.]

  11. Frohlich, N., and Oppenheimer, J. A. (1996). Experiencing impartiality to invoke fairness in the n-PD: Some experimental results. Public Choice 86: 117–135.

  12. Hardin, R. (1971). Collective action as an agreeable n-prisoners’ dilemma. Behav. Sci. 16(5): 472–479.

  13. Harman, G. (1988). Ethics and observation. In Sayre-McCord, G. (ed.), Essays in Moral Realism, Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, pp. 119–126. [Originally published as Chap. 1 of Harman, G. (1977). The Nature of Morality, Oxford, New York, pp. 3–10.

  14. Harrison, J. (1956). Some comments on professor Firth’s ideal observer theory. Phil. Phenomenol. Res. 17: 256–262.

  15. Harsanyi, J. C. (1953). Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-taking. J. Polit. Econ. 61: 434–435.

  16. Harsanyi, J. C. (1955). Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J. Polit. Econ. 63: 302–321.

  17. Jackson, M. (1995). A fair share. J. Theoret. Polit. 7(2): 169–179.

  18. Laudan, L. (1987). Progress or rationality? The prospects for normative naturalism. Am. Phil. Quart. 24(1): 19–31.

  19. Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In Kagel, J.H. and Roth, A. E. (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, pp. 111–194.

  20. Lissowski, G., Tyszka, T., and Okrasa, W. (1991). Principles of distributive justice: Experiments in Poland and America. J. Conflict Resolution 35: 98–119.

  21. Maxwell, N. (1972, June). A critique of Popper’s views on scientific method. Phil. Sci. pp. 131–152.

  22. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books, New York.

  23. Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of collective action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

  24. Rawls, J. (1951). Outline for a decision procedure for ethics. Phil. Rev. 60(2): 177–197. [Reprinted in Thomson, J., and Dworken, G. (eds.), Ethics, Harper & Row, New York, 1968 (Page numbers are to the reprint).]

  25. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

  26. Saijo, T., and Turnbull, S. (1994). Personal correspondence regarding experiments conducted at Tskuba University in Japan in 1994.

  27. Sayre-McCord, G. (1988). Introduction: The many moral realisms. In Sayre-McCord, G. (ed.), Essays in Moral Realism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 1–26.

  28. Strang, C. (1960). What if everyone did that? Durham U. J. 53: 5–10. [Reprinted in Brody, B. A. (ed.), Moral Rules and Particular Circumstances, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1970, pp. 135–144.

  29. Sturgeon, N. L. (1988). Moral explanations. In Sayre-McCord, G. (ed.), Essays in Moral Realism, Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, pp. 229–225. [Originally from Copp, D., and Zimmerman, D. (eds.), Morality, Reason and Truth, Rowman & Allenheld, Totawa, NJ, pp. 49–78.]

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Joe Oppenheimer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J. A role for structured observation in ethics. Soc Just Res 10, 1–21 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-997-0009-0

Download citation

Key Words

  • ethics
  • justice
  • experiments
  • methodology
  • impartial reasoning