If we conclude that there is some knowledge we should not pursue on ethical grounds, how can we determine the boundaries of acceptable investigation within an area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Natural science

History

Keyword

Counter claim:


Mini Conclusion:

Some knowledge is in fact important enough to be pursued even when doing so entails extensive suffering.
RWE: COVID-19's vaccine development

The limits of investigation should be set where there is a significant degree of suffering involved
and minimal benefit to be gained. (related to utilitarianism theory)

Claim

counter-claim

Unacceptable historical research focuses on those sensitive topics that could perhaps result in information that leads to actual discrimination or violence.

Avoiding controversial subjects could cause more issues than actually exploring them.

Mini-conclusion

Only restrict historical research in situations where doing so would likely fuel current turmoil or violence.

Some knowledge we not pursue on ethical grounds

Problematic knowledge that has issue on it
-Knowledge based on human/animal experiments
-psychological experiments

method on how the knowledges disseminate (is it ethical)

to what extent it has limitations/ how far the knowledge can be seek

how much the knowledge would impact real world

Ethical grounds

the bases by which we make ethical decisions

Boundaries of investigation

what constraints does the knowledge holds

why there is limitations and restrictions

Claim:

Based on whether the knowledge in question may only be attained through methods involving significant degrees of physical or psychological suffering.

Lead in:

Certain types of scientific knowledge, and the way they are obtained, are ethically problematic in nature.
RWE: Unit 731

KQ: To what extent natural science should not be pursued on ethical ground? To what extent the boundaries of acceptable investigation within natural science can be determined?

overall conclusion

  • there is no exception of being bias in accepting knowledge
  • both of these AOK require strong evidence and justification to be proven as true
  • so, one might want to come up with their justification to prove that their claim is true
  • however, as a normal person within the human nature itself, they will always think of the consequences that they will cause for every of their act