More handpicked essays just for you.
Principles of ethics in biomedical research
Principles of ethics in biomedical research
Principles of ethics in biomedical research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
To the great extend ethical judgements limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in both the arts and the natural sciences. But in my opinion such a limitations are essential, while people need to be to some extend controlled. The boundaries are needed because giving to people to much freedom and power is very dangerous. The only one problem in case of ethical judgements is that the perception about something wrong or right differs among the people. I think that this comes from the inside, generally there are some “informal laws” how to behave, what is good and bad, but this is a personal matter of every single person which ones from that “laws” he or she accept and reject. The morality is determined by culture and experiences and differs among people. If there would not be something like moral code the production of knowledge in art the same as in natural science would not have any limitations. Using examples from art and biology I will try to show how ethical judgements limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in both the arts and the natural sciences, but also I will try to explain my statement that such a limitations are necessary.
Human is very complicated organism, and even with so much developed technology scientists are not able to uncover all mysteries of a human body. That will be more easier while the studies and experiments on humans were allowed. But how the world will look like than, scientists will be playing god choosing victims to their research? It took place for example during World War II when Nazi doctors conduced series of experiments on people from concentration camps. There were all unethical studies, which caused death of many people and great suffering to the victi...
... middle of paper ...
...reflects the historical events that should not be forgotten.
We develop our views using different ways of knowing, sense perception, reasoning and emotions helps us to determine whether something is moral or not, right or wrong. It of course differs among people while we all perceive world in various ways. Ethical judgements limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in both the arts and the natural sciences. But this judgements are definitely needed to keep some safety while exploring the world. As my examples showed the lack of morality in both art and natural sciences let in consequence to suffering and death of living things. Ethical judgements limit the methods available in the production of knowledge, but in my personal opinion such a limitations are necessary, while people need boundaries which will help them to not overuse their power.
There has been a huge debate throughout the years of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition as well as environmental factors such as culture, socialization, and parenting. In order to understand if we are ethical or not, we need to understand the difference between being moral or ethical. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are a bit different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more
society so these experiments are not seen as heinous or inhumane. This Information is all revealed in the introduction. The author tells this from a moral standpoint. The social construct determines if a particular event is seen as good or bad. Experiment back then on people were seen as okay but if they were performed on they would be extremely tabooed. The government even participated in human experiments to show how okay it was back then. In Conclusion, I am convinced that these bias among the scientific community is what caused black people to still be afraid of the doctors to this day.
In Gaut’s essay, “The Ethical Criticism of Art”, he addresses the relevance of an art piece’s ethical value when making an aesthetic evaluation. His key argument revolves around the attitudes that works of art manifest such that he presents the following summary “If a work manifests ethically reprehensible attitudes, it is to that extent aesthetically defective, and if a work manifests ethically commendable attitudes, it is to that extent aesthetically meritorious”. In direct contrast with formalists, who divine a work’s merit through an assessment of its style and compositional aspects, Gaut states that any art piece’s value requires a pro tanto judgement. This pro tanto position allows for pieces considered stylistic masterpieces, to be
Courage is a praised characteristic in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Many characters embody the true meaning of courage, although different aspects of courage are illustrated throughout the course of the novel. Mrs. Henry Lafayette Dubose, an elderly ill-tempered woman, shows admirable determination by kicking her morphine addiction on her deathbed. Atticus Finch, a lawyer in a Southern town plagued by racism, defends a colored man in the South without submitting to social pressures. A reclusive, yet benevolent Boo Radley confronts his fear of the outside world and leaves his home in order to save the lives of two children from a murderous drunk. Scout and Jem’s interpretation of courage continues to change through the course of their experiences, and they begin to understand the perspectives of those who demonstrate courage. By adhering to strong moral convictions, and demonstrating incredible willpower and determination, each of these characters proves to be courageous in his or her own right.
Then, using ART or not is a personal decision, taking into account all aspects that it involves. There are advantages for many people that have more value than the disadvantages. Nowadays, society is most morally permissible, and is concerned over personal needs more than the social consequences. Although there is always the preoccupation of the limits of science, but the most common thought is that "it is not an issue for us,” law, religion, and scientists are those who must solve it.
The dropping and the atomic bomb and the continued use of human subjects during scientific testing in the 20th century continues to be a controversial subject. It is because the actions carried out saved many lives and that those hurt were informed and volunteered that these methods were moral. It is because of the debate surrounding these actions that science has continued to evolve. From these earlier practices, more rigid experimental methods are enforced. These new regulations protect the patient and continue to ensure that those sacrificing their safety to aid others are not injured without fully understanding the risks involved. The modern world will continue to benefit from the actions taken by the United States during the 20th century.
There has been a huge debate throughout generations of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition environmental factors such as culture, parenting, and socialization. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are very different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more about being right or wrong but being ethical is more about understanding the consequences of an action and interpreting the situation.
Lessons can be learned through experiments but at what cost? Steven Pinker, a experimental psychologist, once said, “If you give people literacy, bad ideas can be attacked and experiments tried, and lessons will accumulate.” This quote by Pinker gives a great idea what could happen when people get literate and conduct experiments that they will do to learn more. The Nazi’s wanted to learn more about the human body. During the Holocaust, the experiments that they performed were the most wicked and dehumanising crimes in history.
A disturbing thought about man’s ethical barometer is that most of the theories, categories and principles emanate from the point of man’s reason. There is a cause to shudder at the thought of man as the absolute authority of what is right and wrong; what is ethical and what is not. Born into a sinful nature, man will ultimately make decisions that will lead to a moral philosophy that is shaky at best. Even philosophers with the best of intentions fall short to God’s model for the order, organization, and meting out of ethical actions. Because of man’s finite vision of what should be done to improve the present situation, mankind will always be found lacking in making the best ethical decisions; not being able to see the long term outcome and the impact those decisions and actions would have on others in the world.
College football has been around for 142 years and finally may have found a system that works to identify a National Champion (Rosenberg, 2014). As sports fans, it is natural to want a particular team to be identified as the best team in any sport. In college football, in some way that is a different story. There are bragging rights among schools for a year and traditions that are to be held for historic programs such as; Alabama or Notre Dame. Believe it or not, college football may have finally gotten it right after suffering through 15 years of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS).
For over two thousand years, various philosophers have questioned the influence of art in our society. They have used abstract reasoning, human emotions, and logic to go beyond this world in the search for answers about arts' existence. For philosophers, art was not viewed for its own beauty, but rather for the question of how art and artists can help make our society more stable for the next generation. Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived during 420-348 B.C. in Athens, and Aristotle, Plato’s student who argued against his beliefs, have no exceptions to the steps they had to take in order to understand the purpose of art and artists. Though these two philosophers made marvelous discoveries about the existence of art, artists, and aesthetic experience, Plato has made his works more controversial than Aristotle.
Production of knowledge is generally seen in a positive light. However, when ethics and morality become involved in the process of production, judgements will undoubtedly be made that may seem to limit the availability of that knowledge. Ethical judgements are made by the combination of a knower, his or her standard of value, and the situation itself. In the field of the arts and natural sciences, ethics plays a crucial role in the extent one may possibly be allowed to go to when discovering new knowledge. Reason and emotion are important ways of knowing that help guide knowers in making certain moral decisions. Both ways of knowing can be associated with teleological or deontological arguments; the ethics are based on either an objectives-focused or obligations-focused mindset. In this essay, I will be discussing the limitations set on both the arts and the natural sciences as areas of knowledge. To what extent do ethical implications hinder the way art can be produced or the methods involved in expanding society’s knowledge of science?
“The end justifies the means” is the famous quote of Machiavelli (Viroli, 1998) which puts the emphasis of morality on the finale results rather than the actions undertaken to achieve them. Is this claim true in the field of the natural sciences? Whether atomic bombings, as a mean used to end World War II, justifies the death of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What is moral limitation in the acquisition of knowledge in the natural sciences? How is art constrained by moral judgment?
Unethical experiments have occurred long before people considered it was wrong. The protagonist of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study ( Vollmann 1448 ).The reasons for the experiments were to understand, prevent, and treat disease, and often there is not a substitute for a human subject. This is true for study of illnesses such as depression, delusional states that manifest themselves partly by altering human subjectivity, and impairing cognitive functioning. Concluding, some experiments have the tendency to destroy the lives of the humans that have been experimented on.
Ethics is the study of moral values and the principles we use to evaluate actions. Ethical concerns can sometimes stand as a barrier to the development of the arts and the natural sciences. They hinder the process of scientific research and the production of art, preventing us from arriving at knowledge. This raises the knowledge issues of: To what extent do moral values confine the production of knowledge in the arts, and to what extent are the ways of achieving scientific development limited due to ethical concerns? The two main ways of knowing used to produce ethical judgements are reason, the power of the mind to form judgements logically , and emotion, our instinctive feelings . I will explore their applications in various ethical controversies in science and arts as well as the implications of morals in these two areas of knowledge.