Look at your scenario. Consider your dilemma from a scientific perspective. Is it possible to solve these complex problems without other areas of knowing? Construct a TOK question from your scenario addressing the fundamental issue at stake.
It is possible to solve without other areas of knowing if my scenario had to do with research that was based on people's cultural actions. -i.e. killing infants due to evil spirits
Soooo, we kinda already did this, but, mine was the hypothermia one. From a purely scientific stand point, subjecting those humans to those tests was a form of advancing scientific knowledge. Now the only reason that problems with this arise is the fact that ethics exists. It not so much of being able to solve these problems with other AoK's but rather how they make the situation so controversial.
Question: What aspects make these test ethically right? Ethically wrong?
I also have the hypothermia one with Kabir. And i believe from a scientific standpoint the solution to the dilemnia does not necessarily need the other AoK because we dont know what the results will be and if the risk is worth it. Its all just a wild guess. Question: How can we determine if the test results will make everything "worth" it?
Does having less knowledge of potential outcomes make an experiment more or less ethical? Certainly scientists understand and can hypothesize a limited range of results. You observation almost makes it seem like the less research you do before an experiment, the less culpable you are in the outcomes.
Anyways, I think my scenario was about unnatural water (or something like that) and how the people were getting infected, but they believed the water was sacred. This is an ethical problem for scientists because they are caught between purifying the water and getting yelled at, for lack of a better word, by the natives. PoK question: Are scientists at en ethical disadvantage when it comes to helping others?
It's definitely been a while and I forgot these things existed, but i believe mine was about this tribe in some remote location where in order to control their peaking population, they had to commit infanticide. My job as a scientist was to introduce the tribe to birth control in order to reduce their population without killing babies.
The hardest part about this entire situation is the idea of ethics as being relative. I'm trying to impose my ethical views of infanticide onto a culture which had never seen it as a negative thing.
Not only that, but the effects of the birth effects have not really been tested on anyone in this kind of genus, from a human science perspective, meaning the effects not only on the health of each native but also on the environment.
Finally, any way to get the natives to take the birth control would be ineffective as the science behind my convinving are absolute hogwash for the natives. In order to get them to accept the birth control, we'd have to relate it to their culture. In essence, we'd be lying in order to enforce our own views onto a society that never had a problem before us.
The best PoK I can think of:
To what extent should a scientist interfere with a culture in order to conform it to a single kind of world view?
My scenario was also the one about the hypothermia experiments. From a scientific view, it was sacrificing the lives of a test group to make further advancements in the field of science. From an ethical standpoint, these experiments were horribly wrong. My PoK would have to be: Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to perform harmful experiments on other people for the benefit of future generations?
Uhhhh i dont understand what kind of scenario
ReplyDeleteThe one you were given in class. We discussed them today. It was a printout.
DeleteIt is possible to solve without other areas of knowing if my scenario had to do with research that was based on people's cultural actions.
ReplyDelete-i.e. killing infants due to evil spirits
Soooo, we kinda already did this, but, mine was the hypothermia one. From a purely scientific stand point, subjecting those humans to those tests was a form of advancing scientific knowledge. Now the only reason that problems with this arise is the fact that ethics exists. It not so much of being able to solve these problems with other AoK's but rather how they make the situation so controversial.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What aspects make these test ethically right? Ethically wrong?
Would scientific advancement exist without ethical reasoning and limits, or would it advance faster?
DeleteI also have the hypothermia one with Kabir.
ReplyDeleteAnd i believe from a scientific standpoint the solution to the dilemnia does not necessarily need the other AoK because we dont know what the results will be and if the risk is worth it. Its all just a wild guess.
Question: How can we determine if the test results will make everything "worth" it?
Does having less knowledge of potential outcomes make an experiment more or less ethical?
DeleteCertainly scientists understand and can hypothesize a limited range of results. You observation almost makes it seem like the less research you do before an experiment, the less culpable you are in the outcomes.
Morris, I think you have a weird obsession with Breaking Bad. I think there is something he's not telling us guys.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I think my scenario was about unnatural water (or something like that) and how the people were getting infected, but they believed the water was sacred. This is an ethical problem for scientists because they are caught between purifying the water and getting yelled at, for lack of a better word, by the natives.
ReplyDeletePoK question: Are scientists at en ethical disadvantage when it comes to helping others?
It's definitely been a while and I forgot these things existed, but i believe mine was about this tribe in some remote location where in order to control their peaking population, they had to commit infanticide. My job as a scientist was to introduce the tribe to birth control in order to reduce their population without killing babies.
ReplyDeleteThe hardest part about this entire situation is the idea of ethics as being relative. I'm trying to impose my ethical views of infanticide onto a culture which had never seen it as a negative thing.
Not only that, but the effects of the birth effects have not really been tested on anyone in this kind of genus, from a human science perspective, meaning the effects not only on the health of each native but also on the environment.
Finally, any way to get the natives to take the birth control would be ineffective as the science behind my convinving are absolute hogwash for the natives. In order to get them to accept the birth control, we'd have to relate it to their culture. In essence, we'd be lying in order to enforce our own views onto a society that never had a problem before us.
The best PoK I can think of:
To what extent should a scientist interfere with a culture in order to conform it to a single kind of world view?
My scenario was also the one about the hypothermia experiments. From a scientific view, it was sacrificing the lives of a test group to make further advancements in the field of science. From an ethical standpoint, these experiments were horribly wrong. My PoK would have to be: Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to perform harmful experiments on other people for the benefit of future generations?
ReplyDelete