BIO - ETHICS
1st Master Biomedical Sciences
UAntwerpen
,1. OUR APPROACH TO BIOETHICS
WHAT IS MEANT BY AN ‘ETHICO-ONTO-EPISTEMOLOGY’?
"Ethico-onto-epistemology" is an integrated approach to understanding ethical, ontological (the nature of
being), and epistemological (the nature of knowledge) questions as interconnected rather than separate
domains. This concept is inspired by the work of feminist philosopher Karen Barad, who argues that ethics,
ontology, and epistemology are not distinct fields but are entangled and must be considered together.
Breaking Down Ethico-Onto-Epistemology
1. Ontology (The Nature of Reality):
Ontology concerns itself with what exists and how we categorize and conceptualize reality. In bioethics,
this might involve questions such as: What does it mean to be a living being? How do we define health
or disease? Is autism a disorder or a natural form of human neurodiversity? DiYerent cultural and
scientific perspectives shape our understanding of these concepts, demonstrating that our definitions
of reality are not neutral but embedded in broader ethical concerns.
2. Epistemology (The Nature of Knowledge):
Epistemology explores how we know things and what counts as valid knowledge. In science and
bioethics, this includes questions about how scientific facts are established, how biases influence
research, and whether knowledge is truly objective. Feminist philosophers of science argue that
knowledge is always situated—meaning that who produces knowledge (and from what perspective)
aYects the knowledge itself. For example, the historical focus on male bodies in medical research has
led to gaps in understanding women’s health, showing how epistemic choices have ethical
consequences.
3. Ethics (Moral Considerations and Responsibilities):
Ethics in this framework is not just about rules or guidelines for responsible research but is embedded
in the very process of knowledge creation and interpretation. Ethical questions—such as whether a
particular genetic modification should be pursued, or how scientific research should consider
indigenous perspectives on nature—cannot be separated from ontological and epistemological
concerns. The way we conceptualize and study the world directly impacts ethical decision-making.
The Significance of an Ethico-Onto-Epistemological Approach
Traditional bioethics often separates ethical considerations from scientific facts and philosophical inquiry.
However, the ethico-onto-epistemological approach challenges this separation, emphasizing that ethical
considerations shape and are shaped by how we define reality and produce knowledge. This perspective
encourages scientists and ethicists to critically reflect on how research questions are framed, what values
inform scientific practice, and how diYerent perspectives can enrich ethical discussions.
For example, the field of OneHealth, which integrates human, environmental, and animal health, aligns with
this approach by recognizing that health cannot be considered separately from the ecological and ethical
contexts in which it exists. Similarly, debates about genetic engineering, artificial intelligence in medicine, and
environmental sustainability all benefit from a perspective that integrates ethical, ontological, and
epistemological insights.
In sum, ethico-onto-epistemology urges us to move beyond rigid disciplinary boundaries and adopt a holistic,
reflective approach to bioethics—one that acknowledges the entanglement of ethical values, knowledge
production, and our conceptualizations of reality.
1
, WHAT DO THOMAS HOBBES AND FRANS DE WAAL SAY ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF MORALITY?
Thomas Hobbes and Frans de Waal oYer contrasting views on the origins of morality, reflecting diYerent
philosophical and scientific perspectives.
Hobbes: Morality as a Social Contract Rooted in Egoistic Prudence
Seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that morality emerged from egoistic prudence—
the rational self-interest of individuals seeking survival in a chaotic world. In his Leviathan, he described the
"state of nature" as a violent and lawless existence where life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
To escape this, people formed a social contract, agreeing to moral rules and laws enforced by the state. For
Hobbes, morality is not innate but rather a strategic response to the dangers of unchecked competition.
De Waal: Morality as an Evolutionary Adaptation
In contrast, Frans de Waal, a primatologist, argues that morality has biological roots and is not exclusive to
humans. His research on primates reveals behaviors such as reciprocity, empathy, and fairness, suggesting
that moral tendencies evolved to promote social cohesion within groups. He challenges Hobbes’ idea that
morality is purely a human invention, asserting instead that prosocial behavior—the foundation of moral
systems—exists in many species and predates formalized laws.
Key DiQerence:
Hobbes sees morality as a rational construct for social stability, while de Waal views it as a natural
extension of social instincts shaped by evolution. Their perspectives highlight the ongoing debate between
morality as a cultural product vs. morality as an innate biological trait.
2
1st Master Biomedical Sciences
UAntwerpen
,1. OUR APPROACH TO BIOETHICS
WHAT IS MEANT BY AN ‘ETHICO-ONTO-EPISTEMOLOGY’?
"Ethico-onto-epistemology" is an integrated approach to understanding ethical, ontological (the nature of
being), and epistemological (the nature of knowledge) questions as interconnected rather than separate
domains. This concept is inspired by the work of feminist philosopher Karen Barad, who argues that ethics,
ontology, and epistemology are not distinct fields but are entangled and must be considered together.
Breaking Down Ethico-Onto-Epistemology
1. Ontology (The Nature of Reality):
Ontology concerns itself with what exists and how we categorize and conceptualize reality. In bioethics,
this might involve questions such as: What does it mean to be a living being? How do we define health
or disease? Is autism a disorder or a natural form of human neurodiversity? DiYerent cultural and
scientific perspectives shape our understanding of these concepts, demonstrating that our definitions
of reality are not neutral but embedded in broader ethical concerns.
2. Epistemology (The Nature of Knowledge):
Epistemology explores how we know things and what counts as valid knowledge. In science and
bioethics, this includes questions about how scientific facts are established, how biases influence
research, and whether knowledge is truly objective. Feminist philosophers of science argue that
knowledge is always situated—meaning that who produces knowledge (and from what perspective)
aYects the knowledge itself. For example, the historical focus on male bodies in medical research has
led to gaps in understanding women’s health, showing how epistemic choices have ethical
consequences.
3. Ethics (Moral Considerations and Responsibilities):
Ethics in this framework is not just about rules or guidelines for responsible research but is embedded
in the very process of knowledge creation and interpretation. Ethical questions—such as whether a
particular genetic modification should be pursued, or how scientific research should consider
indigenous perspectives on nature—cannot be separated from ontological and epistemological
concerns. The way we conceptualize and study the world directly impacts ethical decision-making.
The Significance of an Ethico-Onto-Epistemological Approach
Traditional bioethics often separates ethical considerations from scientific facts and philosophical inquiry.
However, the ethico-onto-epistemological approach challenges this separation, emphasizing that ethical
considerations shape and are shaped by how we define reality and produce knowledge. This perspective
encourages scientists and ethicists to critically reflect on how research questions are framed, what values
inform scientific practice, and how diYerent perspectives can enrich ethical discussions.
For example, the field of OneHealth, which integrates human, environmental, and animal health, aligns with
this approach by recognizing that health cannot be considered separately from the ecological and ethical
contexts in which it exists. Similarly, debates about genetic engineering, artificial intelligence in medicine, and
environmental sustainability all benefit from a perspective that integrates ethical, ontological, and
epistemological insights.
In sum, ethico-onto-epistemology urges us to move beyond rigid disciplinary boundaries and adopt a holistic,
reflective approach to bioethics—one that acknowledges the entanglement of ethical values, knowledge
production, and our conceptualizations of reality.
1
, WHAT DO THOMAS HOBBES AND FRANS DE WAAL SAY ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF MORALITY?
Thomas Hobbes and Frans de Waal oYer contrasting views on the origins of morality, reflecting diYerent
philosophical and scientific perspectives.
Hobbes: Morality as a Social Contract Rooted in Egoistic Prudence
Seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that morality emerged from egoistic prudence—
the rational self-interest of individuals seeking survival in a chaotic world. In his Leviathan, he described the
"state of nature" as a violent and lawless existence where life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
To escape this, people formed a social contract, agreeing to moral rules and laws enforced by the state. For
Hobbes, morality is not innate but rather a strategic response to the dangers of unchecked competition.
De Waal: Morality as an Evolutionary Adaptation
In contrast, Frans de Waal, a primatologist, argues that morality has biological roots and is not exclusive to
humans. His research on primates reveals behaviors such as reciprocity, empathy, and fairness, suggesting
that moral tendencies evolved to promote social cohesion within groups. He challenges Hobbes’ idea that
morality is purely a human invention, asserting instead that prosocial behavior—the foundation of moral
systems—exists in many species and predates formalized laws.
Key DiQerence:
Hobbes sees morality as a rational construct for social stability, while de Waal views it as a natural
extension of social instincts shaped by evolution. Their perspectives highlight the ongoing debate between
morality as a cultural product vs. morality as an innate biological trait.
2
