I was thinking about something similar just the other day. I was considering what morality is, and what is needed for it. It got me thinking about how you even describe morality...what is it? Is morality about yourself, or is morality about yourself with other people, or is it just about other people? I came to a satisfactory definition of morality: The use of reason to influence behavior. In this definition, even animals have morals. For instance, cobra snakes do not bite each other when fighting for a mate. They are using knowledge of their toxicity versus the nature of their reproductive cycle and making a rule against it. And while I am sure that bites happen from time to time, the general moral principle is observable.

Though, I don't think science is part of that equation entirely. Science is a notion of trial and observation. I don't know if you need that for the development of moral principles and ethics. I like to think of science as a mod or reason, a rectangle to reasons square. Empirical inquiry, for instance, can't tell you what morals even are or should be. Empirical inquiry, in fact, is very very limited in the types of questions it can even answer. Very useful for many many things, but as far as ethics go, it doesn't have much to offer. You can get more help from pure logical, a priori modes of inquiring when talking about things of this nature, IMO.