Modern-day technologies allow knowledge to be accessed and possessed through different mediums. The title, when put as a knowledge claim, states “The possession of knowledge carries an Ethical Responsibility. ” The knowledge issue, “How do we know the possession of knowledge carries an ethical responsibility? ” will be evaluated. Language is a way of knowing. The definition theory of language states that lagnuage is creative and different people can have different interpretations of a term, when placed in different contexts. Definitions of key words, in context of the research question, must first be clarified.
Possession refers to property ownership; though property may not be physically touchable or seen with our senses. Reasoning justifies that once a party possesses the property; they have the right to access it. Ethics justifies that the party should be responsible for looking after the property and being responsible for potential implications brought through its possession. ‘Property’ refers to ‘knowledge’ a party possesses. Knowledge is broad, transferrable and comes in different levels. Personal discoveries are categorized as first-hand knowledge and others’ findings, second-hand knowledge.
As knowledge is developed and shared amongst different parties, it will gradually be seen as ‘common sense’. Although concepts and theories contained in knowledge may be modified over time, it is likely for certain central concepts to remain highly similar. The natural sciences are an area of knowledge. It believes that ‘true’ knowledge is derived from logical reasoning and scientific theories which can be explained and understood by different parties. Ethical responsibilities are branches of the area of knowledge ethics.
Ethics may be used for determining acceptability and popularity of a party’s decision making processes. Determination may be assisted by religious values and their guidelines. The conclusion may be drawn that the possession of knowledge definitely carries an ethical responsibility. However, depending on how the party uses the possessed knowledge and cares for its implications linked the relative degree of ethical responsibility, ultimately changes. 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.