What can the social sciences contribute to the study of ethics?: theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations
Open accessAbstract
This article seeks to establish that the social sciences have an important contribution to make to the study of ethics. The discussion is framed around three questions: (i) what theoretical work can the social sciences contribute to the understanding of ethics? (ii) what empirical work can the social sciences contribute to the understanding of ethics? And (iii) how does this theoretical and empirical work combine, to enhance the understanding of ethics, as a field of analysis and debate, is socially constituted and situated? Through these questions the argument goes beyond the now commonly cited objection to the over-simplistic division between normative and descriptive ethics (that assigns the social sciences the 'handmaiden' role of simply providing the 'facts'). In extending this argument, this article seeks to establish, more firmly and in more detail, that: (a) the social sciences have a longstanding theoretical interest analysing the role that a concern with ethics plays in explanations of social change, social organisation and social action; (b) the explanations that are based on the empirical investigations conducted by social scientists exemplify the interplay of epistemological and methodological analyses so that our understanding of particular substantive issues is extended beyond the conventional questions raised by ethicists, and (c) through this combination of theoretical and empirical work, social scientists go beyond the specific ethical questions of particula…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Singh, I. (2011) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.049 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
- Authors
- Haimes, E.
- Affiliations
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Haimes, Erica
- Venue
- Bioethics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-04
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 89-113
- ISSN
- 0269-9702 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8519
- OpenAlex
- W2101264173
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 61.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Bioethics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Science and Policy Research
- Keywords
- ethical considerations, social change, social action, social organization, epistemology of ethics, interdisciplinary ethics
- MeSH terms
- Bioethics, Ethics, Humans, Social Sciences, Reproductive Techniques, Assisted, Interdisciplinary Communication, Behavioral Research, Empirical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review