In order to evaluate the research question’s knowledge claim, various examples will be raised to illustrate the range of knowledge issues concerned.
“Academic honesty forbids parties cheating in examinations because other candidates will be put at a disadvantage. During my Mathematics test, I heard continued paper flipping sounds. Looking up, I saw my best friend flip through sheets of paper and appeared to have transferred answers onto her test-paper. The knowledge issues question, “How do I know whether she was guilty? Would it be more ethically responsible for me to save her or to report her suspicion?”
Sense perception, a way of knowing justifies that I did not see the paper’s content. Rational reasoning suggests that I did not possess knowledge of whether she was guilty. The knowledge claim, “seeing is believing,” derived from the eye witness testimony, was not established. Emotion affected my rational reasoning because having known her well; I did not expect her to be guilty. Since I did not have clear confirmation of the event through other senses, it was possible for the expectation to be biased, making me unable to distinguish observations from reality.
An individual’s dignity is an important consideration when making judgments by ethics. If the suspicion was reported without evidence, my personal reputation and friend’s reputation could be affected, together with our friendship. Meanwhile, some parties insist that it is more ethically responsible for any suspicions to be raised immediately for the sake of academic honesty.
Religious guidelines require the followers to stay away from activities that are against their religion’s moral values. Followers of certain religions believe that God may send temptations and disasters on a party in order to test their faith, allowing them to learn the hard way. (Such as Job in the Christian Bible.) This supports the argument for suspicions to be raised immediately. Meanwhile, the non-religious may view personal gains of specific activities as more important, therefore ignore ethical implications of the activity.
Personally, I believe it would be considered more ethically responsible and respectful for suspicions to be kept secret unless evidence is available when reporting the suspicion, for the good of the various parties’ reputation.”
“Medical drugs can improve individuals’ lives. Since they are costly to develop and produce, they are often produced with assistance of tax-revenue-based government subsidies. With my sister participating in a clinical study for GARDASIL* vaccine development, the knowledge issue, “How do we know whether it is ethically responsible for the pharmaceutical company to test their vaccine on schoolgirls?” arises.
My sister’s voluntary participation was due to the vaccination being free of charge. Reasoning and emotion suggest that the free vaccinations would benefit her from “cervical, vaginal and vulvar cancers and genital warts.” (Knowledge claim from the pharmaceutical company.) Participation meant permission for the pharmaceutical company to possess my sister’s experimental data, in the form of Statistics (Mathematics, an area of knowledge).
If the pharmaceutical company stuck to their promise of keeping all experimental data confidential, as agreed upon when the parties involved signed the contract, it would be considered as ethically responsible for the company to possess my sister’s experimental results. Since the contract was written in English and orally explained to my family in Cantonese prior to signing, language was a communication barrier because there could be translation errors, terms with secondary meanings and untranslatable terms in the contract.
Overall, it was ethically correct for the pharmaceutical company to possess knowledge of my sister’s personal information because permission was granted by the parties involved. However, if the pharmaceutical company broke their contract and used my sister’s personal information for other purposes, their act will definitely be considered ethically irresponsible and an act against integrity.”
Higher Economics taught me resource management and implications of scarcity on the human race. Atomic theories from Higher Chemistry taught me the process of nuclear fission. Living in a world with a limited supply of natural resources yet a high demand for electricity in particular, development in the natural sciences caused establishment of the knowledge claim, “nuclear energy was developed by the process of nuclear fission.” Although nuclear energy relieves “13-14% of the world's electricity demand, which continues to increase rapidly in the developing world,” numerous debates regarding their dangerous drawbacks were often raised, especially after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011. The raised awarness of the knowledge issue, “How do we know if it is ethically responsible for the world to use nuclear energy as an energy source in the long-run?”
“Sense perceptions tell us that it is ethically responsible for humans to use and develop nuclear energy because large amounts of energy can be generated from few resources. Emotionally, parties who did not previously have access to electrical power are now more likely to have access to it – improving their daily lives.
Although nuclear power appears to be a highly attractive energy source, historic evidence reminds us of previous life-taking nuclear disasters. Emotion and reason affect our decision making process because we would want the public have access to electricity and an improved life. However, we do not want innocent lives to be lost from nuclear disasters. It is therefore difficult for a balance between the two potentially ‘mutually exclusive’ factors to be established.
Despite the potential problems brought by nuclear power development, reasoning still suggests it is ethically responsible for scientists to developing different forms of sustainable energy for the sake of benefiting long-run human development. Some parties may believe that possessing knowledge of previous nuclear disasters is helpful and an ethically responsible act because nuclear plants can be built away from human and wildlife settlements in future, minimizing dangers.”
A knowledge claim states, “due to safety reasons, visitors are required enter the United States with a visa.” I was ‘ten printed’ before I was granted my US visa because ‘ten-printing’ was believed to minimize the possibility of visitors committing crimes in the US. It would also allow their government ability to search for crime suspects. However, the practice raises the knowledge issue, “How do we know whether it is ethically responsible for the US government to possess knowledge of our ten-prints?”
Religious parties may consider each individual’s fingerprints as artistic creations of God, therefore it being unethical for foreign parties to possess images of the fingerprints as knowledge. Biologically, the natural sciences justify that physical health issues have made some individuals incapable of ten-printing. With the reasons put together, the human sciences argue that it is ethically irresponsible for the US government to possess knowledge of individuals’ ten-prints because some parties may feel emotionally insulted. Ethically, some may even feel that they have lost their dignity. These factors raise the knowledge issue, “How do we know which individuals should be excluded from ten-printing; and would it be considered ethically irresponsible if they did not ten-print?”
Sense perception and reasoning suggest that it is scientifically possible for other methods to be used to trace crime suspects. This may be done by DNA profiling – a technique discussed in Higher Biology. However, with practical experience of conducting DNA profiling at a workshop (CAS Minor) and in class, I personally think the process of DNA profiling is complicated because it requires excellent skills with micropipettes and scientific equipment. Moreover, it is not very reliable because slight contaminations caused by human actions would impact significantly on the accuracy of results collected.
In conclusion, after consulting various examples concerning possession of knowledge and their ethical implications, I realized that the possession of knowledge definitely carried an ethical responsibility. However, ethical leeway may be allowed depending on the nature of knowledge a foreign party possesses or wants to possess.
BIBLIOGRAPHY (MLA FORMAT)
"Another Drop in Nuclear Generation." Another Drop in Nuclear Generation. World Nuclear News, 05 May 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. <http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE_Another_drop_in_nuclear_generation_0505102.html>.
"GARDASIL." INFORMATION ABOUT GARDASIL. GARDASIL, 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. <http://www.gardasil.com/>.
REFERENCES
* "GARDASIL is the only human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that helps protect against 4 types of HPV. In girls and young women ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 2 types of HPV that cause about 75% of cervical cancer cases, and 2 more types that cause 90% of genital warts cases. In boys and young men ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 90% of genital warts cases.
GARDASIL also helps protect girls and young women ages 9 to 26 against 70% of vaginal cancer cases and up to 50% of vulvar cancer cases." – GUARDASIL’s official website:
by
ycykkk (student)
