[Is it possible a bioethics based on the experimental evidence?].

For years there are different types of criticism about principialist bioethics. One alternative that has been proposed is to introduce empirical evidence within the bioethical discourse to make it less formal, less theoretical and closer to reality. In this paper we analyze first in synthetic form diverse alternative proposals to make an empirical bioethics. Some of them are strongly naturalistic while others aim to provide empirical data only for correct or improve bioethical work. Most of them are not shown in favor of maintaining a complete separation between facts and values, between what is and what ought to be. With different nuances these proposals of moderate naturalism make ethical judgments depend normative social opinion resulting into a certain social naturalism. Against these proposals we think to make a bioethics in that relates the empirical facts with ethical duties, we must rediscover empirical reality of human action. Only from it and, in particular, from the activity of discernment that makes practical reason, when judged on the object of his action, it is possible to integrate the mere descriptive facts with ethical judgments of character prescriptive. In conclusion we think that it is not possible to perform bioethics a mode of empirical science, as this would be contrary to natural reason, leading to a sort of scientific reductionism. At the same time we believe that empirical data are important in the development of bioethics and to enhance and improve the innate ability of human reason to discern good. From this discernment could develop a bioethics from the perspective of ethical agents themselves, avoiding the extremes of an excessive normative rationalism, accepting empirical data and not falling into a simple pragmatism.