The Sciences and Ethics 2/4

It is in the field of the experimental sciences that we can best understand the need for
ethics to be autonomous in both senses. Ethics is inevitably bound up with the subject
who refers to it or produces it (in the case of religious or rational ethics) or with the
object to which it has to be applied (the life science, medicine: the realms of
bioethics), but must remain distinct from both the subject and the object. The subject,
in other words, puts forward his ethics as, on the one hand, a norm (or corpus of
norms) that he would like to be shared by all and, on the other, as a norm that must
never be confused with the free practice of a science as it establishes ethical and
juridical limits (whose goal is to prevent the abuse of science). No matter whether we
are speaking from within a philosophical or religious tradition, or from the point
where they interact, imposing one’s own norm is an expression of the spirit of
dogmatism and exclusivism, whereas interfering with the twofold autonomy of
science and ethics (by confusing the two realms of knowledge) can muzzle the
sciences and can let the inquisitorial spirit emerge once more.

It also has to be said that the contemporary sciences remind us every day of
the need for ethics. Scientific knowledge is now so complex and efficient that men
have the power to transform nature and the Creation, to manipulate genes and to
produce the means of their own destruction. The experiments that have been carried
out, the technologies that have been developed and the constant scientific advances
that are being made have implications for life, the intellect, collective psychology,
social relations, the natural order, the climate and, of course, the future of humanity.
Expert and scientific commissions have been established, and the number of
committees on ethics has increased dramatically: their goal is to open up a space for
collective negotiations between the agents of scientific progress and the guardians of
the human conscience who wish to prevent abuses of knowledge that might turn
against its human authors and destroy them.

There are numerous and contradictory interests involved here. Science is
indeed concerned with knowledge, but its interdependent relations with the world of
the economy make its decision-making procedures more complex. The knowledge
and progress that the sciences allow generate skills, interests and wealth. The
contemporary sciences, for instance, produce both knowledge and money, and
economic operators (who are rarely invited to sit on scientific commissions and ethics
committees) often play the part of the omnipresent but absent agent who bears upon
the atmosphere of the place and influences the direction taken by the debates and the
nature of the decisions that are taken. When so many millions of dollars and so many
private and/or public interests are at stake, realism demands that we put into
perspective the competence and powers of the committees on ethics and the calls for
collective responsibility. Declarations of good intent, scientific studies and expert
opinions notwithstanding, we have seen how little effect ethical and ecological
recommendations have when the economy and the multinationals bring all their
influence to bear on political decision-making processes. The United States’ failure to
ratify the Kyoto protocol on cutting emissions of greenhouse gases (even though it is
the most polluting country on earth) is only one of the many examples of how a
conflict of interests can arise between the domains of ethics, the sciences, the
economy and politics.

The world of the experimental sciences means that we have to think about
ethics in terms that concentrate upon its concrete application and which, to that extent,
prevent us from getting lost in nebulous and relatively unproductive preliminary
philosophical debates. Moreover, an inductive approach – one which works
backwards from the question of the practical applications of ethical norms to their
source – allows us to clarify the status of ethics at the core of the pluralism of
spiritualities, religions and philosophies on the one hand, and with respect to the
object or activity to which it is applied on the other. The principles of ethics can be
derived from what is considered to be a universal moral law (to use Kant’s
terminology), but we must all be aware that there are many different philosophies and
spiritual and religious traditions, and that we must therefore debate and exchange
different points of view and determine the status and nature of the values we share.
Those values do not belong to us alone, and nor are they the property of a religion or
philosophy that can be imposed on others. They are the common property of the
social or human community (depending on whether the question is discussed in
national or international terms). Some basic challenges call into question our ability to
produce, together, a shared universal ethics that can and must be applied, because they
are global, transnational and transcultural. That is what the theologian Hans Kung
wishes to achieve with his project for a ‘planetary ethics’ that is in keeping with
interfaith initiatives and transversal and very concrete forms of cooperation between
different traditions and religions.

Ethics is born of itself, but is independent of itself. Once it becomes a product
that is shared collectively it must also, as we have already said, become distinct from
its object if it is to ensure that, rather than forcing itself upon scientific methods, it
concentrates on the limits to their applications (whilst obviously concerning itself
with their meaning). It is imperative for it to maintain its independence from all other
domains of human activity, and above all from politics and economics. And that
independence is both its strength and its weakness. Because it is not subordinate to
any order, it can claim to be the objective norm we can use to evaluate the accurary of
human choices, be they scientific, political or economic. And yet its independence
does not give ethics any leverage that allows it to have a practical influence on the
real world or to transform behaviours. Theologians, philosophers, scientists and
ecological activists may well discuss meanings, limitations, human responsibility and
the destruction of the planet, but they often look like ineffectual dreamers. They
sometimes speak loudly, but they do not really have the means to change anything.
The power of ethics is no longer religious, philosophical or political; it lies simply –
and unfortunately – in its awareness of the imminent catastrophes that men are about
to unleash because they are so irresponsible. The power of a rational ethics stems
from the fact that it is, objectively, the last defence against human madness. Because
of their actions, men find themselves under an obligation to summon their conscience
in one way or another in both the North and South. The destruction of the planet,
global warming, corruption and new forms of slavery leave them no alternative. We
are now approaching the limits of survival, and ethics now is invested with the power
of the collective consciousness that must teach us how to survive. We are witnessing,
as the philosopher Michel Serres has said, the return of morality. It is no longer the
universality of its principles that allows us to call it ‘the moral law’, as the Kantians
would have it, but the nature of the global catastrophes that threaten the whole planet
and each and every one of us. The return of morality ‘forces’ us to take stock and to
accept that we have an individual responsibility as to how we behave in our day-to-
day lives. A personal ethics obliges us to take another look at our behaviour, our
habits, the amount we consume and our whole way of life. We have come a long way
from philosophical debates and conventional distinctions, and we are witnessing the
marriage or fusion of morality and ethics: we no longer have any real choice between
obligatory universals and individual choices. When we lose our freedom, morality and
ethics are essential.