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.

The title has the underlying assumption that the production and acquisition of knowledge are both governed by certain ethical considerations. Therefore, experts as well as laypersons have to determine how far they can go, to produce or acquire knowledge without infringing on human privacy, human sensibilities or causing harm to animals, leading to their death in the process of pursuit of knowledge. The AOKS which I have chosen are the arts and the natural sciences. The essay wants us to explore the ways and means and methodologies used to determine these boundaries. The expression “acceptable investigation” would mean exactly what is written in the preceding lines, acceptable to individuals, governments, experts, communities of knowers and bodies of authorities who promulgate laws.

 

Ethics defines moral codes for behaviour, hence boundaries determined for the investigation to be considered acceptable, look toward human codes of conduct, and principles for reliable knowledge for the specific AOK. A boundary suggests that there needs to be a method of recognising unethical knowledge and a subsequent framework to stop it from becoming a usable part of the knowledge economies of individuals and cultures.

 

The Arts have a negotiable methodology, with each artist characterized by their idiosyncratic way of producing and representing knowledge. The AOK hence initiates a relative boundary, one which differs across cultures as the ‘truths’ it offers are only applicable to the knowledge economy and perspectives of a particular culture. The Natural Sciences in contrast feature a concrete methodology with specific standards set for the creation of reliable scientific knowledge. The AOK initiates ‘truths’ about the environment as a whole, and extends knowledge that is universal and hence the boundaries of acceptable investigation in most cases absolute and homogeneous.

 

Artistic Knowledge is characterized by autonomy, hence a boundary on acceptable knowledge is best determined by artists themselves. For example, trading card company Topps released its battered portrayal of the Korean band BTS from its 2021 Grammys-themed posters.1 The poster was released at a time when Anti-Asian crimes were spiking in the United States. Here, the prevalent bias in creating knowledge, the methodology of creation, deemed the investigation unacceptable with the artwork receiving widespread backlash as the portrayal of Seven asian men being by a hammer, symbolically an American organization, is memetic of the instigation of violence towards a racial minority.. Following this, the art was pulled from their collection, asseverating how artists violate a code of conduct, by not realizing the effect of art in turbulent political climates and by infringing human sensibilities, hence setting a boundary on investigation not considered acceptable. This example shows the relevance of contextual boundaries in the creation of knowledge, as presumably the artwork would not be considered harmful if it did not feature an Asian band.

 

Similarly, artistic knowledge is filtered in cultures where it is deemed inappropriate, to an extent the boundary on an acceptable investigation is determined by religious doctrine. In emphasis here, the great castration is a great example - Pope Pius IX in 1857, desecrated all the male statues in the Vatican, the castrated genitals were then bandaged with fig leaves to mask the damage 2 . The representation of genitalia is not acceptable in a Christian place of worship such as the Vatican, as it violates the code of conduct set by the religious doctrine. The castration brings in the argument of moral absolutism versus relativism, where an absolute boundary is paved by religion on knowledge based on a relative social law. This violates the sense of freedom alluded in the methodology of the art, yet it can be similarly argued religious cultures have a right to decide the knowledge they decide to pursue. The boundary filters knowledge acquisition by associating the original ideas of the piece with ideas of what is considered acceptable according to practices of the religion, and how religions can determine the distinction between ethical and unethical knowledge.

 

The question of freedom is a tumultuous point of contention within the arts, which makes the determination of an acceptable investigation by use of copyrights very difficult. To exemplify, Anish Kapoor is the only person banned from using the world's pinkest pink, in response to releasing news he is the only person with exclusive rights to artistically use the world's blackest black.3 The ban by Semple is a backlash that states legal copyright on artistic tools is censorship of art. This example poses questions about the methods used by artists to prevent the misuse of their works and their effect on artistic communities. Copyrights are an ethical legal boundary, yet in this situation, copyrights are seen as an unacceptable barrier to the production of knowledge by other artists and are unfair to the artistic community. This presents itself as an ethical dilemma with the use of copyrights as a boundary for the creation of knowledge in the arts.

 

Therefore, in the arts, boundaries are relative, shown by difficulty when considering perspectives of copyrights. The methodology of acceptable investigation in the arts however can be determined by the artist ensuring, or a boundary on the acquisition by rules of cultures in which the artworks exist.

 

The acquisition of scientific knowledge requires rules and regulations to ensure a standard is maintained, hence acceptable boundaries of scientific knowledge are determined by government legislation. To epitomize, in 1984, the New York health department passed the Libby Zion law, limiting the number of hours residents could work to 80 hours per week. Physicians are doctors in training, in the process of acquiring knowledge that would allow them to then create further medical knowledge. The rationale behind the Libby Zion law placed that since residents were overworked, they delivered faulty healthcare leading to Libby’s demise. This boundary ties into the deontological perspective of ethical investigation, where rules are set into place before knowledge can be produced to protect human life.4 Doctors are governed by a no harm policy, and it is unacceptable if they acquire knowledge for scientific investigation, when they are not in fit mental health, hence a boundary on the acceptable investigation can be determined by rules put forward by government legislation.

 

Contradicting, however, scientific knowledge peculiarly when concomitant to monetary value attempts to extend boundaries, even going against existing moral codes of conduct. For instance, Insys therapeutics, a drug company, has been proven to be responsible for the conscious sale of addictive opioids. In markets an expensive drug, that has shown to cause addiction in people, to make long term profits.5 It uses knowledge of the chemical drug makeup to push the boundary of a principled investigation, specifically going against specific safe dosages put forward by experts and is subsequently investigated and fined for it, resulting in the formation of a boundary. In some cases, societies and laws mandate ethically unacceptable conduct. When physicians believe there is a violation of ethical values their opinion should be considered. Applicably here, there are no rules governing the production of addictive drugs marketable to the general public, there are regulations on doctors prescribing unnecessary drugs, yet the question remains should drugs of this kind be allowed to exist in the market. This example brings in the question of safe drugs as a categorical imperative, an ethical responsibility that when violated calls for intervention by experts. Hence sometimes rules and regulations, mandate unethical behaviour, which brings in the need for experts to help determine the boundaries of acceptable investigation.

 

Distinctly, the role of differing biases in a large group can cause conflict, resulting in boundaries that are diminishing. This is seen by the arguments put forward for the use of artificial intelligence technology as a tool for forecasting and profiling.6 On one hand, commercial companies may argue AI technology allows them to pursue knowledge that betters the life of consumers and extension humans, as it is highly efficient in gathering data to predict their behaviour, on the other hand, it also infringes human privacy, moreover, surveillance by private sectors to monitor customer behaviour cannot be monitored closely, posing as a potential threat. Hence existing legislation aimed to define acceptable definitions attempts to utilize an eudaimonia, where ideas serve the highest virtue when combined holistically, seen by companies asking whether consumers are willing to share data.7However, the conflict is characterized by the idea that there can only be one efficient victor, which has resulted in the formation of acceptable investigation to be diminishing as it fails to pick a perspective and rather attempts to combine ideologies that may be irreconcilable.

 

Therefore, in the Natural sciences, boundaries are absolute. In their acquisition and methodology, acceptable investigation can be determined by the government legislation or by taking into account the perspective of government opinions and in extension, the effect of prevalent bias on scientific boundaries can also be argued which is characterized by diminishing limits put forward.

 

In conclusion, this essay puts forward multiple arguments for the determination of boundaries across two different areas of knowledge. The arts see the formation of relative boundaries that may differ according to perspective and culture, and hence boundaries can be determined by artists, governing cultures and legal methods whereas the sciences instigate the need for obsolete boundaries such as those offered by rules and regulations, or the expertise of opinions, and exemplify the failure of diminishing boundaries determined by utopian hopes. Through this approach of setting boundaries on knowledge, we can prevent the production of knowledge that is unethical and harmful, it also provides a sense of autonomy where communities can come together to holistically develop boundaries, and if such boundaries did not exist it would violate human decency and compassion, where for material gain principles are violated.

“Altruism | Ethics | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2022, www.britannica.com/topic/altruism-ethics. Accessed 11 Feb. 2022.

 

Bond, Sarah. “Medieval Censorship, Nudity and the Revealing History of the Fig Leaf.” Forbes, 27 Oct. 2017,www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/10/27/medieval-censorship-nudity-and-the-revealing-history-of-th e-fig-leaf/. Accessed 19 Jan. 2022.

 

“Eudaimonia | Definition & Facts | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2022, www.britannica.com/topic/eudaimonia. Accessed 11 Feb. 2022.

 

Lewis, Danny. “This Artist Is the Only Person Banned from Using the World’s Pinkest Pink.” Smithsonian Magazine, Smithsonian Magazine, 16 Dec. 2016, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/artist-only-person-banned-using-worlds-pinkest-pink-180961464/. Accessed 1 Feb. 2022.

 

Mamo, Heran. “Topps Removes BTS Garbage Pail Kids Card, Apologizes.” Billboard, Billboard, 17 Mar. 2021, www.billboard.com/music/music-news/topps-removes-bts-grammys-garbage-pail-kids-card-9542221/ . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022.

 

Neuman, Scott. “The U.N. Warns That AI Can Pose a Threat to Human Rights.” NPR.org, 16 Sept. 2021, www.npr.org/2021/09/16/1037902314/the-u-n-warns-that-ai-can-pose-a-threat-to-human-rights. Accessed 11 Feb. 2022.