1.

Ethical judgments limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in both the
arts and the natural sciences. Discuss.
The world seems like an endless world that encompasses mysteries in all realms, waiting
to be solved. The knowledge gained or produced from our world can be expressed through
artistic means, such as statues, paintings, poems, and song, or explained through scientific
discoveries. However, there are always factors that hamper with methods available in producing
said knowledge, one being ethical considerations. These ethical considerations are moral
considerations of right and wrong that can be based on my own or third party interpretations. As
a result of these limitations, some people were forced to take alternate paths to produce
knowledge while others broke these ethical boundaries. The arguments in this essay will explore
situations in which scientists and artists have been hampered or encouraged by ethical judgments
and reach the conclusion that ethical judgments are necessary to make sure wellness of
individuals is not compromised.
The central assumption to the prescribed quote is that ethical judgments are limiting in
nature. It is assumed that because of ethical considerations, some methods for the production of
knowledge are unavailable. Ethical considerations do not need to be limiting although they can
be, and many other factors can limit the methods available other than ethics. Another assumption
is that ethics comes into consideration when knowledge is being produced in the arts and natural
sciences. However, we know that is not completely true. The content I learned in my physics
class about the development of the atom through repeated conjecture and falsification did not
impede on ethics. Similarly, drawing a picture of a flower is not affected by ethics. Therefore,
ethical judgments do not limit production of knowledge in the arts and natural sciences if the
topic being explored does not relate to morals, or is seen as ethical.

There are many circumstances when ethical considerations are in effect, especially when
dealing with the subject of biology in the natural sciences. A knowledge question that arises from
this assumption would be To what extent do ethical considerations limit or promote areas of
natural science experimentation and research? Experimentation is one of the most important
ways for producing knowledge. In biology class at school, we dissect fetal pigs as opposed to
human fetus because emotion tells us it is unethical to cut up a human fetus, even it is for
educational purposes. Therefore, we are limited to looking at diagrams of human bodies and
dissecting fetal pigs when gaining knowledge about human anatomy.
A method of gaining knowledge that is affected by ethical judgments is cloning. Cloning
has been a controversial issue since the first clone was produced in 1952 (Cohen, 1998). Cloning
has been able to increase plant yields, produce rare plants, and let us gain more knowledge about
genes and cells. However, when cloning is applied to humans and mammals, ethics play a role.
Although there are many ways cloning is expected to benefit mankind, including curing diseases
and destroying unwanted genes, there are many risks associated with cloning, such as
abnormalities and deformations in the cloned species (Ibid.). Emotion is a way of knowing that
influences how cloning is perceived. The fear of the consequences associated with cloning and
sympathy for the animals suffering abnormalities as a result of failed cloning attempts lets people
believe that cloning is unethical. Therefore, ethical considerations Faith tells us that God creates
each person so that they are unique. By genetically engineering human beings to have certain
personalities and traits is defying the natural process. These ways of knowing influence us to
believe that the consequences of cloning far outweigh the benefits, making us abandon cloning
as a method for the extraction of knowledge in mammals.

On the other hand, there were many scientists that carried on experimentation despite the
fact that what they did was ethically controversial. Scientist Edward Jenner was able to discover
a cure to smallpox by inserting puss taken from a cowpox pustule and inserting it into the arm of
a person who has been affected by smallpox (Levine, 1960). Faith tells us that it is ungodly to
inoculate someone with material from a diseased animal. Intuition lets us believe inserting an
infectious disease into a person is morally wrong. Jenner, on the other hand, reasoned that his
patient will die of smallpox eventually, and so he needed to save his patient in any way possible,
even if that included inserting a contagious disease into a human. In Jenners opinion, his
practice is not unethical because it was for the greater good.
The way in which we view whether something is ethical or unethical can vary. I was able
to go to the science center and view their exhibition of preserved human bodies. Reason told me
that although that it is not morally wrong to display parts of humans bodies if it is for
educational purposes. However, when I went to a museum of art and saw preserved human
bodies as works of art, reason told me it is unethical that human bodies were cut up as a form of
entertainment. How do ethical considerations differ between the arts and natural sciences?
The arts seem to differ from the natural sciences. In the natural sciences, especially
biology, we seem to have the understanding that knowledge acquired is for the purpose of
benefitting humans and other organisms, whereas the arts is seen as a means to expressing
knowledge and influencing emotion. Many times, the restrictions on the methods for producing
knowledge in art is set by an organization as oppose to an individual.
There is less consensus of whether a piece of art is considered morally wrong or right
because different areas of knowledge influence different people when examining art. An example

of this would be baroque artist Georg Engelhard Schrders painting Juno. This painting shows a
half-nude woman with her hands outstretched towards the sky (Commentator, 2013). To artist
Schrder, reason lets him believe his art would not be unethical because the nudity is used to
express emotion and elegance. And during his time, this type of art would not be considered to
be unethical. However this piece of art was removed from the Swedish parliament in December
2013 as it offended many people (Ibid.). It is evident that ethical judgment is subjective and
alters over the course of time. Because some people were offended and embarrassed, they
believe it is morally wrong to have paintings of naked women as it can resemble pornography.
Others, using faith, decided that it is unethical because their religion bans the display of nudity in
public. These differing interpretations of Juno ultimately resulted in the conclusion that the piece
of art was unethical. Ethical judgments may not limit the production of knowledge, but limits the
distribution of that knowledge if that knowledge is later seen as unethical.
We see that ethical considerations can be limiting in the arts, but it can also influence
artists to create pieces of art. The novel Uncle Toms Cabin was written in response to ethical
issues during the American Civil War of the way in which African-American slaves were treated.
Author and abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe created this piece of art in order to question the
morality of slave-owning in southern United States (Rosenthal, 2004). When the novel was
published, many people responded with anger towards the southerners and sympathy for the
slaves as they believed that the way the slaves were treated was morally wrong. Ethical judgment
did not limit, but prompted her to create knowledge through writing Uncle Toms Cabin.
Although the novel was well received in the north, it was banned from the south by the
government. Why? The government believed the novel was ethically wrong, as the novel
exaggerated the realities of the condition of slaves. Many southerners were offended by the way

they were depicted in the novel. The Confederate Government was also fearful that the novel
would create conflict and violence in the Southern States, making the novel morally
unacceptable as it has the potential to encourage violence. Another reason is that the beliefs in
the novel conflict with beliefs of the government. We can see that the initial production of
knowledge was not restricted, but rather encouraged, by ethical considerations. The distribution
of that knowledge, on the other hand, is limited by others not only because they believe it the
novel is unethical, but also politically, the views represented in the novel conflict with those of
the government.
We can see that ethical considerations are not the only type of consideration that limits
the available methods. Social, economic, and political considerations also limit the methods
available for the production of knowledge. Some political cartoons are banned in some countries
because the messages in them are harmful to their way of rule. Similarly, some methods for
acquiring knowledge are unavailable because there is insufficient funding for research and
experimentation.
Upon the end of this paper, we can see that ethical considerations, as well as other
considerations, can both limit and encourage the production of knowledge in the arts and natural
sciences. Ethical judgments affect arts and the natural sciences differently. Based on this
investigation, it can be concluded that ethical limitations are needed in the natural sciences to
prevent experimentation that may have a catastrophic impact. Artists seem to be less restricted to
ethical considerations when producing art as what is considered ethical or not is judged more
subjectively. I believe ethical judgments should be used as a guideline to secure the wellbeing of
the majority rather than used as a limitation in the creation of knowledge.

Word count: 1590

References
Cohen, Daniel. Cloning. Brookfield, Conn.: Millbrook Press, 1998. Print.
Levine, Israel E.. Conqueror of smallpox: Dr. Edward Jenner.. New York: Messner, 1960. Print.
Rosenthal, Debra J.. Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's cabin: a sourcebook. London:
Routledge, 2004. Print.
The commentator. "Swedish parliament removes Baroque artist's bare breasted painting for
offending feminists and Muslims." The Commentator. SMAR s.r.o, 19 Dec. 2013. Web. 13 Mar.
2014.<http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4481/swedish_parliament_removes_baroque_arti
st_s_bare_breasted_painting_for_offending_feminists_and_muslims>