Ethics are often deeply involved in anything we do and in much of our knowledge. We ask ourselves if something is ethical or not based on one system of morality of another. Individuals who are proficient in the natural sciences often confront ethical roadblocks that seem to hinder human innovative progress. The same has been and continues to be seen in the arts. Artists are often tempted not to follow through or even begin with projects that they believe to be immoral according to their own beliefs or the beliefs of others.
The same is true for the natural sciences. And even if we take our western society as a base, there are some aspects of ethics and some specific topics of which people do not have a standardized opinion. The idea of it being ethical or not depends on thebeliefs of every individual. In this essay I am going to focus on the fact that some people carry out unethical investigations (in arts), experiments ( in the natural sciences) or processes ( in both), knowing that the people will not accept it. This is because they think that the unethical methods will lead them to an end that is of a greater good, or that will cause more good than bad.
Within the meaning of ethical relativism we can derive two theses; cultural relativism and the dependency thesis. Ethical relativism is a problematic theory because there are so many differences within cultures, and individual choices might not always be morally right choices. Because of this, what is culturally acceptable is not always morally right. Ethical relativism also has some objections towards the more specific theories of subjectivism and conventionalism. Ethical relativism is supported due to the narrowing view of ethnocentrism, which is causing great “prejudice tantamount to racism and sexism” (Pojman, 25).
Dishonesty is an equivalent of lying and it is in many cases considered to be morally wrong by many people. A lie refers to a false statement that is made with a deliberate intention of deceiving. Many philosophers who have explored the concept of dishonesty or lying have looked at it on different dimension or perspectives. For instance, philosophers such as Immanuel Kant considered it to be wrong because it corrupts an important quality of being human as well as the ability of an individual to make rational choices. According to Aristotle, dishonesty is in many cases a moral vice because it hampers individual efforts of achieving what he termed as the eudaimonia.
In conclusion, I think that reproductive cloning should not be legalized because it will bring new social, moral and economic problems. It ultimately objects human dignity, threatens the survival of humanity and individuality, and goes against humans playing God. Sevanthinathan says that reproductive cloning is powerful and has some advantages and disadvantages. One of the main disadvantages which Nordgren claims is that in the ethical presupposition, abnormalities may cause suffering to the cloned being, which is entirely unethical. On the other hand, Van den Berg, M.E.S says that to be sure that reproductive cloning is safe, cloning needs to be tested on humans, but it contradicts all factors that would even in the slightest support the idea of reproductive cloning.
Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs. Second, there is the criticism that governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only "bad" men would try to undermine these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies on an assumption of i... ... middle of paper ... ...s beliefs are not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not truly understand the doctrines they hold dear, and their misunderstanding leads to serious mistakes.
If one judges another for their mistakes and can only focus on the negatives of their work, then I believe that they themselves are not being moral. It all comes down to opinions of what is ethical and moral. Truly one cannot have an exact definition of what is moral or ethical. Overall ethical judgments do limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in both the arts and the natural sciences. Artist and scientist are afraid to express themselves.
Human bias also act as a restriction because when artists' and scientists' endeavours are met with opposing force, it discourages them and their desire to produce knowledge through whatever they were going to do. However it is much better to see the limitations as an obstacle that can be overcome to produce knowledge regardless.
Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles Darwin are two influential thinkers who posited compelling arguments about morality. The two philosophers rejected the traditional Christian teachings, but their stance on morality differs considerably. However, the two differing opinions require a closer examination and analysis due to the complex but yet interesting nature of their arguments. Darwin offers a provocative analysis of the evolution of human morality and concludes that morals (especially empathy and sympathy), which comes from experiences, were critical to human development and survival. On the other hand, Nietzsche disagrees and literally deconstructs the accepted understanding of morality (slave morality) and deems it irrelevant.
In the natural sciences, ethics affects the methods that are available for the production of knowledge. This raises the question of should ethical judgment stop the use of certain methodologies that are deemed unethical? The first example of this happening is the use of humans as test subjects. In this instance ethical judgments should and do stop the use of this methodology. This is because of all the potential harm that can come from testing drugs on humans with no knowledge of their effects as this often can be inhumane.