The DOI matches its Crossref record.
EMPIRICAL ETHICS AND ITS ALLEGED META‐ETHICAL FALLACIES
Abstract
This paper analyses the concept of empirical ethics as well as three meta‐ethical fallacies that empirical ethics is said to face: the is‐ought problem, the naturalistic fallacy and violation of the fact‐value distinction. Moreover, it answers the question of whether empirical ethics (necessarily) commits these three basic meta‐ethical fallacies.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Public input is one factor among many that should inform policy, and this input can be invaluable for assessing public understanding and areas of concern, identifying previously unrecognized ethical issues, describing facts relevant to normative arguments, avoiding solutions likely to be rejected by many, and learning from people's lived experiences.
“Public input is one factor among many that should inform policy, and this input can be invaluable for assessing public understanding and areas of concern, identifying previously unrecognized ethical issues, describing facts relevant to normative arguments, avoiding solutions likely to be rejected by many, and learning from people’s lived experiences (32, 86).”
From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [32]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens
Beskow, L. M. (2016) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022536 · Cited by 146
Metadata
- Authors
- DE VRIES, R., & GORDIJN, B.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
- Dublin City University (IE)
- Corresponding author
- DE VRIES, ROB
- Venue
- Bioethics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-03-27
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 193-201
- ISSN
- 0269-9702 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8519
- OpenAlex
- W2139127931
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 88.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Bioethics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Keywords
- empirical ethics, is-ought problem, naturalistic fallacy, fact-value distinction, metaethics, normative ethics
- MeSH terms
- Ethics, Medical, Humans, Logic, Morals, Bias, Empiricism, Ethical Analysis, Principle-Based Ethics, Ethical Theory, Ethical Relativism, 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
