Brendan Lee
Mr. Sweeney
Theory of Knowledge P7
September 24th, 2012
“The possession of knowledge carries an ethical responsibility.” Evaluate this claim.
In this ToK essay, I will exploring the idea of to what extent does knowledge carry an ethical responsibility. With radical studies and media creations happening globally, new knowledge about our world is being acquired and because of this phenomenon, issues of knowledge arise. Do scientists have an ethical responsibility when they acquire new knowledge? Also, to what extent do artists and creators of media have an moral obligation tied in the creation of their material?
With new and often exciting research results appearing every so often, do the scientist who do this research and acquire new knowledge from this have an ethical responsibility? In some perspectives, when world issues occur and they are connected with a research done by research team, some say that it is the ethical responsibility of the scientist to withhold the knowledge. For example, research opportunities from the Large Hadron Collider have experienced the same dilemma such as nuclear studies. In some perspectives, nuclear research can benefit many people but this research can lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. Do the scientist who acquired this knowledge have the ethical responsibility to indirectly cause a bigger, nuclear problem? Some would say that since the problem began with the research of nuclear energy, it would be the scientists’ ethical responsibility to consider if the research can benefit humanity. This side of the argument is stating their ideals on an ethical code which dictates that a person should strive for happiness not only for himself but also for society. Also, because of this idea, scientists would therefore have an ethical responsibility to bring about happiness by withholding information that can potentially cause a huge problem. Another exciting research that is the development of human tissue. Some say the knowledge from this research is priceless but this may be because of their own emotional attachments. Christians believe that life begins with birth and ends with death. To them this research is a defiance to their ideals. So, to what extent do these scientist have the ethical obligation to acquire this knowledge as it cause dispute amongst different groups? This side of the argument is arguing against moral relativism in which that despite different people have different ethical codes, there are some core moral values that are common worldwide. They are assuming that these scientist want to bring happiness not only to themselves but also to others. By acquiring this knowledge, which causes dispute and unhappiness, scientists do have an ethical responsibility when acquiring new knowledge.
On the other hand, some say and in my opinion, despite the repercussions of the acquisition of new knowledge, scientist do not have any ethical responsibility with the acquisition of knowledge because of the definition of a scientist – one who studies a certain scientific discipline and acquires knowledge. These people are arguing in an utilitarianism standpoint, in which that it is the action that matter rather than the intentions. If the scientists intentions were for pure scientific research but the eventual result would lead to nuclear catastrophe, since it was not the intention of the scientist for the outbreak of nuclear weapons proliferation, the scientist does not have any ethical responsibility towards acquiring knowledge. Counter points to the idea above creates continuous debate and disagreement, which leads to the ambiguity in not only the definition of a scientist but also the ethical responsibility of a scientist who acquires new knowledge.
Artists and media creators are people that look at the world and acquire knowledge from it. With the prevailing pretense of ethical responsibility and acquisition of knowledge, the arts have a similar problem. Some say that an artist is someone who has the ability to freely express their knowledge derived from observing and experiencing a world issue. Therefore, some people are saying that creators of media do not have any moral obligation tied in the creation of their material. For example, KONY 2012 is a primary example. Although the main purpose of this campaign was to raise awareness of this issue, some people are questioning to what extent Invisible Children had the ethical responsibility to raise awareness about a man who has done no harm since 2003. Although the KONY 2012 campaign did have some truth in it, many are saying that the unethical part about this is the emotional aurora emitted from the campaign itself. Because this campaign went against the Ethics of Journalism, many are saying that Invisible Children did not have any moral obligation with this issue and did it for the sole purpose of profit increase. Another issue that shows to what extent creators of media have a moral obligation to the creation of their material is the recent, private press conference by Republican Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney. A journalist was able to infiltrate into this press conference and to capture a controversial statement made by Romney. When this footage of Romney was uploaded to the Internet, many people and his potential voters were upset about what he said. In terms of ethics, to what extent did this journalist have the moral obligation to expose Romney? Some say that and as the rules of Media ethics concerning public officials state that as a journalist, he or she had the right to expose the truth, as truth telling is crucial in media ethics since public officials do not want to be seen as trying to deceiving.
On the other hand, some agree because as an advocacy group for rights for children, Invisible Children had all the moral obligation needed to expand on this topic, whether it was for profit or not. So, by labeling Invisible Children unethical, to some, is not agreeable since they abided by what their job dictated and followed by the Ethics of Journalism. Also, the Romney controversy seems to be having the same issue with the undisputed argument about whether or not the journalist had a moral obligation to film the footage of Romney. Although some may state that it was the job of the journalist to capture the moment of truth since he was taught to do so but others argue that who is the journalist to decide whether or not this moment should be captured. Many are saying that this journalist did not have any moral obligation with the matter and it was actually quite unethical for the journalist to expose Romney as such because he or she is not part of Romney’s political campaign and was there as an undercover journalist. Many are concerned how media ethics are so emphasized nowadays but the unethical act of undercover journalist still exist. However, because of these disputes and constant disagreement on the role of ethics and media, ambiguity continues to grow in this area of study.
In conclusion, the question of whether or not scientist or creators of media have some sort of ethical responsibility towards knowledge is still an unanswered question. The constant disagreement on the role of science and ethics, and media and ethics continue to fuel these disputes between members of each side of the argument. This essay depicts to what extent creators of media have a moral obligation towards their material and if scientists have an ethical responsibility when they acquire knowledge.