When defining an action or mode of thought as right or wrong, it may be deemed moral if it aligns to personal or cultural definitions of those standards. Ethics, however, are universal, without ties to any specific culture or religion. In his short story, “Escape from Spiderhead”, George Saunders explores the concept of ethics in our society as it pertains to science and the treatment of test subjects, specifically those who have been incarcerated. Jeff, the narrator, is a convicted murderer serving time in a pharmaceutical testing facility instead of a traditional prison. These drugs can make Jeff and the other inmates do or feel anything, from an intense appreciation of nature (courtesy of ED763 or NatuGlide) to love. The focal experiment …show more content…
Saunders explores this concept by presenting the reader with two characters: Jeff, a criminal, and Abnesti, the head scientist of the testing facility. Abnesti is introduced as a nonchalant, goal oriented scientist. To test the effectiveness of ED289/290, he threatens to use Darkenfloxx™ on the subjects’ former romantic partners. Darkenfloxx™ is a drug of torture. It floods the brain with an overwhelming amount of negative emotions. It is so potent in its effect that it is worse than if one were to “imagine the worst you have ever felt, times ten” (56). At first this is simply a bluff, yet when he is told to actually administer the drug, he recognizes the order merely as a slightly unpleasant turn of events. After Heather unexpectedly dies after only five minutes of Darkenfloxx™-inflicted torture, his excuse is, “This is science. In science we explore the unknown. It was unknown what five minutes on Darkenfloxx would do to Heather. Now we know” (72). As well as serving as the story’s main antagonist, Abnesti is symbolic of scientific progress in general. The Darkenfloxx™ incident, especially, paints him as an unsympathetic man with a stubborn moral code, but his definition of morality emphasizes the “group”—or society at large—over the individual prisoners whom he experiments on. Despite this, Abnesti is not altogether evil. He reminds Jeff, “When a certain …show more content…
Through themes of predetermination and redemption, the reader is able to conclude that the good of the whole (society) does not take precedent over the individual, no matter how disturbed their past. The ending of the story, especially, offers insight into this ethical plight. Using Darkenfloxx™ on himself, instead of Rachel, is how Jeff comes full-circle and forgives himself for killing Mike Appel. This redemption is integral to the story’s message, as it proves that anyone can overcome their past to do the right thing. Abnesti’s willingness to sacrifice the inmates for the “literally tens of thousands of underloving or overloving folks” that ED289/290 is aimed toward is thwarted. The story is optimistic in its resolution, which clearly represents Saunders’s views of the ethics of his subject matter. Despite this, the ending is left deliberately ambiguous. It ends without the reader seeing whether the experiments in the facility will end after Jeff sacrifices himself to save Rachel. Based on his beliefs and personality, it is likely that Abnesti will merely call upon Rogan or Keith to finish the experiment, with little to no resulting changes in his character or opinions. This, too, presents an ethical dilemma: can the sacrifice of one man change anything, and if not, were Jeff’s actions worth performing in the first place? From this one can conclude that his actions may not spur a
The story of Frankenstein written by Mary Shelley is revered as one of the greatest novels to be formulated. It takes the point of view of a scientist named ‘Victor Frankenstein’ who is fuelled by an insatiable thirst of expanding his knowledge. His interests draw to that of being able to give things life where he takes the seat of god feeling that he has the power to do all he envisions, which in the end destroys him. Almost 150 years later the book Flowers for Algernon written by Daniel Keyes and published in 1959, manages to recreate the conflict between science and ethics and the implications of ungoverned scientific experimentation. The book observes a young man named Charlie who has a mental disorder, he continuously seeks to “become smart” and is attending a special school to achieve his goal. While visiting this school he is
Over the years, medical researchers have violated some of their individual rights. However, the results from the famous study of Henrietta Lacks has provided for significant advancements in medical research. In hindsight, it makes sense to choose to save one hundred people while sacrificing only one individual for the sake of the greater good. In the novel, Dawn by Octavia Butler, and an article written about Henrietta Lacks by Jessica L. Stump, correlations become evident between choosing the greater good over the individual. the choice to let an individual suffer somatically is acceptable when the sake of the greater good is in question.
In this study Zimbardo chose 21 participants from a pool of 75, all male college students, screened prior for mental illness, and paid $15 per day. He then gave roles. One being a prisoner and the other being a prison guard, there were 3 guards per 8 hour shift, and 9 total prisoners. Shortly after the prisoners were arrested from their homes they were taken to the local police station, booked, processed, given proper prison attire and issued numbers for identification. Before the study, Zimbardo concocted a prison setting in the basement of a Stanford building. It was as authentic as possible to the barred doors and plain white walls. The guards were also given proper guard attire minus guns. Shortly after starting the experiment the guards and prisoners starting naturally assuming their roles, Zimbardo had intended on the experiment lasting a fortnight. Within 36 hours one prisoner had to be released due to erratic behavior. This may have stemmed from the sadistic nature the guards had adopted rather quickly, dehumanizing the prisoners through verbal, physical, and mental abuse. The prisoners also assumed their own roles rather efficiently as well. They started to rat on the other prisoners, told stories to each other about the guards, and placated the orders from the guards. After deindividuaiton occurred from the prisoners it was not long the experiment completely broke down ethically. Zimbardo, who watched through cameras in an observation type room (warden), had to put an end to the experiment long before then he intended
Imagine a puppy spending his entire life in a locked cage where he is deprived of food and water, and force-fed chemicals from time to time. This is the life of animals in a laboratory. Live-animal experimentation, also known as vivisection, is not only unethical, but also cruel and unnecessary. In the article “Vivisection is Right, but it is Nasty- and We must be Brave Enough to Admit This”, Michael Hanlon claims vivisection is a moral necessity that without the use of animals in the laboratory, humans would not have modern medicine like antibiotics, analgesic, and cancer drugs (1). For example, Hanlon believes sewing kittens’ eyelids together can aid researchers to study the effects of amblyopia in children (1). Conversely, the use of animals
With the topic of moral corruption comes evil; everyone is innately evil. Dr. Jekyll’s innate evil was hidden for many years until he performed his experiments and transformed into Hyde. Jekyll states that as Hyde he, “...could walk steadfastly and securely on his upward path doing the good things in which he found his pleasure and no longer exposed to disgrace and penitence by the hands of this extraneous evil”(43). Jekyll is morally corrupt, for he is able to carry out all of his hidden dark desires as Hyde, and not be accounted for any of it. For example, after Hyde murdered well-known politician Sir Danvers, he was able to avoid prosecution by remaining as Jekyll. In the case of Rappaccini’s Daughter, Signor Rappaccini is corrupt because he risks the lives of others for his experiments without a single tinge of remorse. Signor Baglioni states that Rappaccini, “...would sacrifice human life...or whatever else was dearest to him, for the sake of adding so much as a grain of mustard-seed to the great heap of his accumulated knowledge”(4). Rappaccini would willingly risk any life in the name of science; he purposely poisoned his daughter as an infant, regardless of any peril it entailed. The two texts also include the theme of limits on scientific experimentation; both Jekyll and Rappaccini are condemned by fellow men of science for their unconventional
Although Charlie was a thirty seven year-old man, his understanding and comprehension of a situation was far too low to understand such consequences that the surgery could come with. In the article, "Five Steps to Better Ethical Decision Making", it says to ask yourself if you could understand making that choice (Dobrin). The doctors in "Flowers for Algernon" did not ask themselves if they were lacking as much intelligence as Charlie, could they make the choice to have the surgery? Charlie didn't know what could happen to him if the there were side effects until it was too late. Therefore, the doctors did not act ethically when choosing Charlie as the test
Since the beginning of time man has been infatuated with the idea of pushing the human body to its limits. The Guinness Book of World Records, the Olympics, the Space program, and more are all dedicated to celebrating Humans that push these boundaries. In the age of technology and scientific advancement ideas that once seemed like science fiction are now a reality. In order to push these constraints to human evolution, ethics and morals have been pushed aside. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein a scientist, Victor Frankenstein, plays God by bringing his creature to life. When Frankenstein realizes the full extent to what he’s done, he abandons the monster. The monster then seeking revenge, killing all who Victor cares for. In Ishiguro’s Never Let
According to Webster’s dictionary the definition of ethics is, “Moral principles that govern a person or group's behavior. The definition of moral is, “Concern with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.” Pulp Fiction presents many ethical issues of violence, racism, drugs, greed, and excessive individualism that reflect human experience. It connects the storylines of LA mobsters, small-time criminals, and a mysterious briefcase in a battle between courage and vengeance. In this essay I will explain how Quentin Tarantino’s film Pulp Fiction is a profound ethical exploration of human nature and that morals can be found even in seemingly evil people and in the darkest of situations.
When put into an authoritative position over others, is it possible to claim that with this new power individual(s) would be fair and ethical or could it be said that ones true colors would show? A group of researchers, headed by Stanford University psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo, designed and executed an unusual experiment that used a mock prison setting, with college students role-playing either as prisoners or guards to test the power of the social situation to determine psychological effects and behavior (1971). The experiment simulated a real life scenario of William Golding’s novel, “Lord of the Flies” showing a decay and failure of traditional rules and morals; distracting exactly how people should behave toward one another. This research, known more commonly now as the Stanford prison experiment, has become a classic demonstration of situational power to influence individualistic perspectives, ethics, and behavior. Later it is discovered that the results presented from the research became so extreme, instantaneous and unanticipated were the transformations of character in many of the subjects that this study, planned originally to last two-weeks, had to be discontinued by the sixth day. The results of this experiment were far more cataclysmic and startling than anyone involved could have imagined. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the discoveries from Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment and of Burrhus Frederic “B.F.” Skinner’s study regarding the importance of environment.
By recognizing evil as banal, society is forced to face the reality that monstrous acts are not committed by those carrying an abnormal trait. It is the normality and mediocrity which terrified Arendt, along with others who study the Eichmann trial. It is the way in which evil became so average that makes Eichmann as dangerous as he was considered, not just the thoughtless acts he committed. By changing views on evil, however, society will be able to makes steps toward understand how events such as genocide can occur within the larger society.
We see that the author’s purpose is to allow the readers to understand that the prisoners were not treated humanly, and allows us to see the negative attitudes the authority had towards the prisoners.
Even when Jeffrey was incarcerated for the death of Tim in the penitentiary institution he was still being bullied! He thinks about being reborn as someone better. Jeffrey told the truth when he was tried in court, which proved he showed remorse. Jeffrey proved that he was really strong and has a lot of self-control (you know, besides when he hugs his bully of a boss to death), considering the circumstances, anyone would have eventually snapped. At least Jeffrey did not kill a complete innocent. In the end, Claude used his observation skills against Jeffrey to maintain his authority he had on the job.
Similarly, to the ethics of medical experimentation, the filmmakers present the fear of the advancement of
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a nineteenth century literary work that delves into the world of science and the plausible outcomes of morally insensitive technological research. Although the novel brings to the forefront several issues about knowledge and sublime nature, the novel mostly explores the psychological and physical journey of two complex characters. While each character exhibits several interesting traits that range from passive and contemplative to rash and impulsive, their most attractive quality is their monstrosity. Their monstrosities, however, differ in the way each of the character’s act and respond to their environment. Throughout Frankenstein, one assumes that Frankenstein’s creation is the true monster. While the creation’s actions are indeed monstrous, one must also realize that his creator, Victor Frankenstein is also a villain. His inconsiderate and selfish acts as well as his passion for science result in the death of his friend and family members and ultimately in his own demise.
Development of Code of Ethics. In: McNeill PM, ed. The Ethics and Politics of Human Experimentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1993:37-51.