Candidate number: 002196 0013

" Ethical judgements limit the methods available in the production of

knowledge in both the arts and the natural sciences. Discuss."

Ethics must begin at the top of organisation. It is a leadership issue.(Hennessy,

n.d.). In my opinion this words perfectly convey the role that morality should play in our
lives. While moral code serves as an indicator of a life path which should be followed, in
some cases, ethics being a primary determinant of the extent to which we should gain more
advanced knowledge about the world - in fact may suppress the progress. In this essay I am
going to evaluate if ethical judgements limit the methods available in the production of
knowledge. For the purpose of this paper the term knowledge is defined as justified true
belief (Van de Lagemaat, 2011) and ethical judgement is understood as reasoning about the
possible actions in a situation and judging which action is the most ethical (Bock, 2001). The
areas of knowledge which I am going to discuss are the natural sciences and the arts. I am
going to refer to the ways of knowing such as reason, perception and emotion.
Photography is a form of art that gives a lot of room for creativity. As an amateur
photographer I am conscious that we can either depict the situation as realistically as possible
or we can present it in a totally different light so that it says completely opposite things. All
that depends on the creators will. However, there are in photography general ethical rules
that must be obeyed. First and foremost, we should never make our subject undignified.
When we take a photo of a catastrophe, we by reason know that we should take additional
care to not to hurt in any way those people who we photograph. It would be highly unethical
to photograph other people in their pain, making their misfortune an inspiration for our work.
A good example is Bruce Gilden, a photographer who is known for taking photos of people
taken by surprise, using his wide-angle lens and flash. In most cases he does not ask people
for permission. In his work usually there are pictures very personal, often presenting the

Candidate number: 002196 0013

scenes of pain and human tragedy. Our emotions tell us that it would be inappropriate to
photograph mothers that are crying for their dead sons that were shot in combat. Such
benefiting from peoples unhappiness is perceived by us to be callous, even if it would
certainly raise the quality of an article, give credit to the journalist or raise peoples
awareness of the real situation from other parts of the world.
What is more, we should never without permission convert the pictures in any way.
It is deemed to be very unethical to crop or add something to photographs, so that the key
element is discarded. Such an operation distorts reality, presenting the subject in an
absolutely different light. For example, it is very common for teenagers to transform the
photographs of their classmates so that, for example, the body shape or the surroundings are
totally antithetic. Although it considerably limits the methods of creation, the reason and
emotion should be used in making ethical judgements as to when and in what ways should we
use the materials gathered. We should bear in mind the good of other people and always be
direct and honest with people about why you're photographing them and what you're doing.
After all, you are taking some of their soul.(Mark, cited by Fulton, 1991, p. 16).
Nevertheless, there are situations when the basic ethical photographic rules does not
imply. Such a situation is, for instance, touristic photography. Obviously, when I wanted to
make a memorial picture in a crowded area this summer, I did not ask every potential person
that could have been walking by when I was pressing the button for permission. It would be
extremely tedious and almost impossible.
Ethics pertaining to natural sciences is even more a controversial issue. According to
professor Jan Moll, one of the things a doctor scares the most is being accused of
experimenting on people, what is considered one of the most unethical operations in
medicine and results in severe punishments. Recently, I read a book written by Hanna Krall

Candidate number: 002196 0013

(1999) To Outwit God, in which we can find an interview with doctor Mark Edelman, an
associate and close friend of abovementioned prof. Jan Moll. He tells an authentic story about
three unusual operations that saved patients lives; but could have saved even more only if
the professor acted earlier. The one of the cases pertained to inverting the blood circulation
that could save a life of an elderly woman. The physician knew by reason that without it the
woman would die anyway. There was an idea, never tested on humans, that was giving a
small chance of survival, but the professor was blocked by emotion the fright to act against
the medical authorities that were unanimously against any operation when a patient is in state
preceding heart attack. He was certain that if the patient die during or after the operation, he
would be accused of a murder. But if no action was taken and the patient die (and certainly
would), the death would be perceived as completely normal set of events.
On the other hand, if the doctors have more freedom and impunity, they would be
tempted to infringe basic human rights by, for instance, conducting operations on patients
without their (the patients) consent or full awareness of the consequences. Even though
medical freedom may contribute to greater knowledge acquired through direct experience, we
should evaluate whether the means of making the progress does value less than the results of
the conduct. For some people, it may seem reasonable to sacrifice several lives to save
millions more; especially, if we consider the fact that the humanity would benefit from such
experiments in the long run. However, taking as an example Stanford Prison Experiment
which involved outrageous psychological experimentation on prisoners, our emotions tell us
that although the output may drastically outperform the input, we should always treat
everyone with equal respect and never put the good of commonalty over the good of
individuals as even murderers and thieves have inherent value. In such cases, the end does
not justify the means.

Candidate number: 002196 0013

Another example of an ethics that stifles the progress of knowledge is the case of
stem cells. Scientific breakthroughs provide new possibilities. Every discovery empowers
humans in knowledge that rises the quality of life. Stem cells are one of the most promising
source for research that can allow the medicine to take a big step in developing. In most
countries, however, the research on stem cells is illegal. Although by reason we know that
stem cells would create many new opportunities that may cure numerous lethal diseases,
emotions tell us that taking the living cells from the body and developing them in laboratory
is unethical. So it poses a question: should we use or limit these scientific discoveries? Many
people belief that there is nothing wrong with taking stem cells from embryos as they are not
developed enough to feel the pain.
It is sometimes hard to tell to what extent ethical judgements are subjective. Even
though the embryo does not feel the pain, there is still a matter of soul, which is closely
related to religion. Ethics therefore is dependent on our beliefs. Consequently, the beliefs
depend mostly on a culture in which a person was brought up. The beliefs of a community are
reflected by the law; it may be included in, for example, the political law of a country or the
religious rules, such as Ten Commandments. However, if there were no general ethical
standards, then who could have said that killing is wrong? We see that despite many
controversial issues, the basic ethical matters are usually common to the majority of people.
The arguments above shows that the ethical judgement indeed limits the methods
available in production of knowledge in both the arts and the natural sciences. However, it is
often a controversial issue whether humans benefit from those restrictions or not. Ethics
undoubtedly slows down the process of development, but on the other hand it makes the
world more humanitarian. It serves as a form of protection for us, giving the feeling of safety
and reassurance that our right to privacy and freedom of choice will not be infringed. The Dr.
Edelman case showed us that our perception often takes dominance of reason and the ethical
4

Candidate number: 002196 0013

judgement may sometimes become a source of ludicrous situation. What is more, ethical
judgements differ between cultures; what one culture may regard as unacceptable behaviour,
in another culture it may be a regular everyday operation. Nevertheless, I believe that ethics
helps us to distinguish between what we should do and what we are able to do. It is therefore
important to remember that, as Richard Clarke Cabot (1936) said, ethics and science need
to shake hands. I strongly believe that the same may be applied to the arts. We should
always place ethics as a principal issue, no matter how high the price.

World count: 1506

Candidate number: 002196 0013

References:

Books:
1. Cabot, R. C. (1936) The meaning of right and wrong. New York: The Macmillan
Company.
2. Fulton, M. (1991) Mary Ellen Mark : 25 Years. Boston: Bulfinch Press Book - Little,
Brown and Company.
3. Krall, H. (1999) To outwit God. Pozna: Poznaska Drukarnia Naukowa.
4. Van de Lagemaat, R. (2011) Theory of knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge:
Cambridge Press University.

Web sites:
1. Bock, T. (2001) Ethical judgement. [Online] Available from:
http://cee.nd.edu/curriculum/documents/actblkt2.pdf [Accessed: 03.02.2014].
2. Hennessy, E. (n.d.) [Online] Available from: http://izquotes.com/quote/344129
[Accessed: 03.02.2014].
3. Kim, E. (2011) Are There Any Ethics in Street Photography?[Online] Available from:
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2011/01/26/are-there-any-ethics-in-streetphotography/ [Accessed: 03.01.2014].