*I don't think my example of abortion was carefully explained.
The point lies in that although I think science can derive the tools in which we can aplpy reason to (materialistic facts from materialistic observations) extending the scientific model into the philsoophical realm is a dangerous task. I am poorly read on the philosophy of science and accept that the exact role of science in this area needs to be defined by the experts, however I firmly believe we need a separate framework to help with moral application.
In the example above, say it was determined that life does begin at conception (this was a tested and proven scientific hypothesis and hence fact). What are the ethical implications? The innate morality dervived from evolution tells us not to kill each other, yet this is too simplistic alone to answer a deep question of whether in this case the killing is justifiable? That is, what amounts to "morally condemnable" killing? Should we take the context into account- ie the mental states of this living thing, the state of the mother, how long each has lived, does consciousness exist and does the mother's right to her own body supersede? Is there any suffering per se if an abortion procedes? We begin to delve into the nature of what is right and what is wrong. This is where say a philosophical stance of consequentialism may enter and provide guidance. This is where science has given us the facts; philosophy now needs to help us apply it to achieve the most acceptable moral outcome.
Without a framework, a strict adherance to scientific results as a pure moral compass would IMO be no less fruitless then the guidance of religion (but I hate absolute authoritarian ethics).
