The possession of knowledge carries an ethical responsibility. Evaluate this claim.

The quest and acquisition of knowledge is often portrayed as a completely neutral activity, being simply objective, thereby disregarding the potential ethical implications of attaining and retaining knowledge. Furthermore, we do not usually associate ethics with knowledge. However, we can deduce with the examples of nuclear energy, and Social Darwinism that the claim the possession of knowledge carries an ethical responsibility is in fact a legitimate claim. One can assume that the possession of knowledge is bound to ethics, carrying moral implications.

We see with the example of Social Darwinism that knowledge is not a separate entity from ethics; in fact, knowledge and ethics are an amalgamation. Essentially, Social Darwinism is the application of Charles Darwins evolutionary ideology to human society. The theory of Social Darwinism emerged and became prominent in the United States and in Europe. It was often used to promote laissez-faire capitalism, eugenics, racism, imperialism, fascism and Nazism.1 After the atrocities of the Second World War, notably with the examples of Imperialism and the holocaust, the term today has a negative connotation. But more importantly, the theory of Social Darwinism is founded based on the ideas of evolution as outlined by Charles Darwin which seeks to explain the gradual processes in which a species, a population has evolve to better adapt its everchanging environment. Evidently, the possession of Darwins evolutionary

Dickens, Peter. Social Darwinism: Linking Evolutionary Thought to Social Theory. N.p.: Open UP, 2000. Print. 1

theory contains a moral obligation and ethical implications. On one hand the knowledge attained from Darwins theories of evolution can be used to explain the patterns of biodiversity on our planet. On the other hand, that same knowledge can be applicable to human society, which has shown to have farreaching repercussions as seen with Hitlers Nazi Germany. The portrayal of German white/superhuman purity versus the impure races of Semitic, Asian, African, or mongrels to quote historical claims. There has been genocidal acts in Rwanda, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, India, Pakistan, and America over the course of the last two hundred yearsand sadly, in very recent decadesall relating to the structure or structures of Social Darwinism, and the evolutionary ideology as a whole.

On a personal note, having lived in Macau before the handover to China on December 20th, 1999; Macau under the rule of the imperialist Portuguese umbrella, Social Darwinism was also prevalent. Even though, Social Darwinism was not an official social policy it sought to justify the socio-economic disparity between local Macanese and residing Portuguese. The local Chinese population where refrained from going to parks, in terms of education and job placement, those with ethnic Portuguese origin where known to be given priority and an advantage. It was clear to me that given Macaus small population of Portuguese, the only way it could sustain order and have Macau subject to the Portuguese yoke, would be to have an imperialist, Social Darwinist mindset. Having said that, while living in Macau during the Portuguese colonization, some parks and institutions where not open to the regular local Chinese public. As a child I was shocked and questioned this form of racial segregation and discrimination based on the rudiments of Social Darwinism

and the ideology of evolution. As a child, and still today I am shock as this goes against the notion of the fundamental principles of human rights. However, this raises another question: is the possession of knowledge and its ethical implications are based and evaluated on moral reasoning? As a child, I learnt through my education and my culture that all humans are born equal and that it is morally unethical to treat others inferior. This is an example of moral relativism whereby our values are determined by the society we grow up in, and that there are no universal values.2 If that is the case then moral judgments are simply conventional that vary from one culture to the next. Perhaps the prevailing mindset in Portugal at that time believed that imperialism, colonization and the notion of Social Darwinism is a positive thing thus, the possession of knowledge, which in this case is Darwins evolutionary theory carries a limited to no ethical responsibility. Contrastingly, in the eyes of the local population, and being part Chinese myself, the outright colonization and imperialist movement are both morally unethical, thereby reaffirming the statement that the possession of knowledge carries an ethical responsibility.

In relation to the sciences, we must as ourselves the following question: are there any moral responsibilities of scientists? Today, science has revolutionized the world we live in, going from stem research, information technology all the way to nuclear energy. However, do these forms of science and the possession of knowledge to realize these advancements carry an ethical responsibility? Take the example of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest energy sources

Van De Lagemaat, Richard. "12." Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 367-68. Print. 3

regarding emissions, barely emitting any greenhouse gases. Furthermore, nuclear energy has enabled countries such as France to achieve energy independence as the use of nuclear power as a primary energy source would eliminate the need to import fossil fuels from overseas.3 Nuclear energy, along with all of its advantages, is executed through the science or knowledge of nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is a science that deals primarily with physics and chemistry. It is a process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts otherwise known as light nuclei, thereby producing free neutrons, photons and a large amount of energy.4 This very knowledge, or the possession of this knowledge, nuclear fission, can also be used to manufacturer nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons has far-reaching effects and repercussions on civilians, soldiers and the environment. Therefore, we must ask ourselves can this be justified? Is the notion and theory of just war just? According to Kant, one way to approach ethics is to keep our promises. Meaning that we should do everything to refrain from stealing, murder and suicide.5 In this case, the possession of knowledge, nuclear fission, carries an ethical responsibility as it can be used as weapons, which essentially, murder and destroy. On the other hand, the knowledge of nuclear fission can also be used to benefit society ecologically and economically, however, the possession of the knowledge and the way it is employed is up to the scientists and their ethical and moral standpoint.

"Key Issues." Nuclear Energy Institute. Nuclear Energy Institute, n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2012. <http://www.nei.org/Key-Issues/reliableandaffordableenergy>. 4 "Nuclear Fission (physics)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2010. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421629/nuclear-fission>. 5 Van De Lagemaat, Richard. "12." Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 378 - 380. Print. 4

On the other hand, with relation to the self-interest theory, which states that human beings are naturally selfish, and selfishness is the opposite of moral behavior. Therefore, the self-interest theory suggests that humans wont be able to live up to the moral values.6 This theory can also be applied to the possession of knowledge, nuclear fission and the ethical responsibility it is bounded to. If everyone is selfish, if every country is selfish then we could conclude that using the knowledge of nuclear fission for nuclear weapons is ethical based on the self-interest theory. Therefore when we take the example of the recent development and manufacturing of nuclear weapons in most western countries, now even North Korea and Iran want to embark on their own nuclear weapon programs. Such developments risk murder and destruction, therefore according to Kant the possession of nuclear fission for nuclear weapons is unethical, therefore clearly the knowledge of nuclear fission is bounded to ethics. However, according to the self-interest theory, it is acceptable since humans will not be able to live up to moral values. Therefore, the developments of nuclear weapons are not bounded to ethics while this differs from Kants perspective and moral judgment.

Nevertheless, according to this Times article, the United States dropped the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 in order to end the war.7 While according to Kants moral judgment anything that causes murder is simply unethical. However, if we take the utilitarian approach whereby we seek the greatest

Van De Lagemaat, Richard. "12." Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 371 . Print. 7 Lsaacson, Walter. "Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews." Time. Time, n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2012. 5

happiness for the greatest number,8 then atomic bombings on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 is justified. While the utilitarian approach may differ from Kants approach to ethics, they both suggest that the possession of knowledge is bounded to ethical responsibility. The only difference would be that the utilitarian approach is deemed ethical if it pleases the greatest number.

In conclusion, it is evident that the possession of knowledge carries an ethical responsibility. Whether it be using the knowledge of evolution for ethical purposes such as education, or abusing the knowledge of evolution and implementing it to explain and justify racial and socio-economic inequality. The knowledge of nuclear fission can be beneficial for society, namely with nuclear energy, however, that very same knowledge of nuclear fission can be used to create nuclear weapons which based on Kants theory, is deemed unethical. In fact, is how you use the knowledge and the motives behind it what determines whether it is ethical or not, the possession of knowledge is bounded to ethics.

Van De Lagemaat, Richard. "12." Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 385 - 87. Print.

Works Cited

1) Dickens, Peter. Social Darwinism: Linking Evolutionary Thought to Social Theory. N.p.: Open UP, 2000. Print. 2) Van De Lagemaat, Richard. "12." Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 367-68. Print. 3) "Key Issues." Nuclear Energy Institute. Nuclear Energy Institute, n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2012. <http://www.nei.org/Key-Issues/reliableandaffordableenergy>. 4) "Nuclear Fission (physics)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2010. 5) Van De Lagemaat, Richard. "12." Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 378 - 80. Print. 6) Van De Lagemaat, Richard. "12." Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 371 . Print. 7) Lsaacson, Walter. "Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews." Time. Time, n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2012. 8) Van De Lagemaat, Richard. "12." Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 385 - 87. Print.