Ethical judgements often add complex implications to the pursuit of knowledge, regardless of the area of knowledge. In the areas of the arts and natural sciences, ethics can pertain in diverging ways. For the arts, ethics often comes into question when determining whether or not it is worthwhile to sacrifice ethics for artistic choices and messages. For the natural sciences, in contrast, ethics is often debated in the pursuit of new knowledge. There are many different criteria to when it comes to the ethical justification of knowledge, all based on different perspectives; whether these judgements have a direct impact in knowledge production or come into play in hindsight depends largely upon how ethics is perceived. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that suggests that the goodness of an action is dependent on its consequences. When we consider the two areas of knowledge from a utilitarian perspective, ethical judgements would be made based on hypothesis by weighing potential advantages against consequences. But are results alone a well-founded basis to raise ethical limitations from? This is problematic because in the sciences, it is often difficult to foresee the implications of scientific research; likewise, in the arts, it is seldom possible to anticipate what messages the audience will attain from a work. Furthermore, when unintended effects in either area arise, ethical considerations may often be re-evaluated. Adhering to utilitarianism, conflict exists between limiting knowledge production from the beginning or moving forward and risking repercussions. When viewed with reason, utilitarianism is a practical method of judging ethics because we are generally concerned with not only gaining knowledge but how it is a... ... middle of paper ... ...easons. However, it was later proven to be more effective as an herbicide; then, during the Vietnamese War, the substance became chemical warfare when it was contaminated and turned toxic, subsequently injuring and killing hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese people. Although Agent Orange later became a chemical of mass destruction, Galston had positive intentions and the agent was originally intended to be a beneficial discovery. This shows how virtue ethics and utilitarianism contrast; while utilitarianism would suggest persecuting Galston for Agent Orange's inadvertent consequences, virtue ethics regards Galston's objective as evidence that he was The fact that the destructive effects of the agent only arose later is an example of how ethical judgements failed to predict and limit the impact of chemical research, which subsequently resulted fatal consequences.
Almost thirty years after the last troops were pulled out of what was then South Vietnam, its effects are still felt in today’s society. It is hard not to find someone who’s life has not been affected because of this war. One of the most controversial decisions made in the war was to use chemicals to fight the enemy. The most boradly used chemiucal was called Agent Orange. Some people agreed with the use of Agent Orange. They saw it as a very viable weapon that needed to be used in order to keep the Communist from taking control of South Vietnam and subverting their democratic government. Many others disapproved of its use. They knew, correctly, that it would severely devastate the landscape of Vietnam and would forever ruin the land for agricultural use. They also knew of the harmful effect it would have once adults and children came in contact with the harmful chemicals that form the chemical make up of Agent Orange. Once the first bombs carrying Agent Orange were dropped there was no going back. For some people the use of Agent Orange changed their whole opinion of the war and what we were really fighting for. Pictures showing burns and disfigurement were soon to hit the presses. Once the American public could see exactly what was happening and how the civilian life was being treated impacted many people so much that they could no longer support what the United States was doing over in Vietnam. The goal of this paper is to show how the use of Agent Orange changed many people’s perspective of the war in Vietnam.
U T I L I T A R I A N I S M. (n.d.). Retrieved May 19, 2014, from http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Utilitarianism: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Utilitarianism%20notes.htm
Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
Critics of Act Utilitarianism argue that AU cannot be a correct ethical theory, as it can present unjust answers to ethical dilemmas, which a rational being can see as incorrect, and no correct ...
The aim of utilitarianism in general is optimal happiness, which is the only intrinsic good according to Mill. More specifically, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner in which they asses what will yield the greatest amount of happiness. Often, one of the objections to utilitarianism is that it is overly demanding. However, this objection that the utilitarian view is too demanding is fitting for both forms of utilitarianism, according to the Fundamentals of Ethics. In the following, I will address why utilitarianism is habitually seen as overly demanding, and I will provide a defense of utilitarianism contrary to these objections.
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
Who appoints ethical limits that prevail in our society? Is every individual responsible for their own actions even though their morals may be different from others? Ethical judgments are made for every individual separately and some of them are based on their own emotions or their own reason. There are many factors that influence ethical judgments in a society or culture. In my essay I will use reason and emotion as ways of knowing, because I believe that in order to make an ethical judgment in both the natural sciences and arts a person’s emotion and reason play a role. Discovering new knowledge in natural sciences is mostly done with controlled experiments, while artists can express their knowledge in a different way with pictures, sculptures, movies… In both areas of knowledge ethics cannot be excluded. Art has more freedom to express without getting negative feedback from spectators or society, while a natural scientist must be aware of lots of ethical limits in order that their experiment would be ethically acceptable. My claim is that ethical judgments do limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in arts and natural sciences, but the limitations are stricter when it comes to conducting experiments than creating art works. Ideally an objective view should be considered when evaluating this claim but our emotions can be stumbling blocks to ethical judgments.
A person making an ethical judgment uses reason to decide what is the best alternative to resolve one problem or to determine that one alternative is morally right and another alternative morally wrong. In short, ethical judgment is a process of considering several alternatives and choosing the most ethical one. In the natural sciences there are always ethical norms that limit how knowledge can be produced. In the natural sciences, experimentation is an important method of producing knowledge but ethical judgments can limit the use of this method.
Utilitarianism can be described as an ethical theory that states if the consequences of an action
According to Hunt and Vitell (1986)1, ethical judgment is the process of considering several alternatives and choosing the most ethical one. In my opinion, ethical judgments are the moral principles that justify the values of certain behaviors. Ethical judgments can be very subjective for different people because people use their own cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs, personal perspectives and life experiences to make judgments. The question arises: how do we justify what ethical judgments limit methods in art and nature science? The way to justify and who justifies the judgments brings different results in limiting methods in art and nature science. Most of the ethical judgments reduce the amount of methods in the production of knowledge; however, a few expand the methods to create art and explore natural science. People usually use reasoning to address ethical judgments, but at the same time personal emotions also affect their judgments.
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?
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.
Due to boundaries within the natural sciences and art, it can be said that the production of knowledge is limited when the methods are limited. This ‘production of knowledge’ is gained through experience, practice, and personal involvement. I agree that ethical judgments limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in the arts and natural sciences. Ethical judgments are placed by the audience/society observing, but in the end it is up to the artist/scientist whether or not they will let these judgments keep them from their work. With artists such as arina ro i and science research experiments such as the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment or stem cell and genetic research, one can evaluate the limitations in respect to the production of knowledge due to ethical limitations.
Art is limited in a very large number of ways by the ethical judgements we make, but it is also often brought into existence as a result of our morals and emotions. These judgements seem to handicap the production of knowledge of and through art, but they are also vital to it. This is a sign that abandoning our morals would be difficult, but impractical for the arts. For science, however, abandoning these morals to avoid the obstacle of ethical judgements would allow us to understand much more than we do today, and even more than we did hundreds of years ago; however, these judgements also keep our developments in check. They may prevent some good, but they definitely prevent irreversible harm as well. It is clear that ethics has many drawbacks, but it is a necessary element of our lives.