Most people believe that those who know most about a situation should be the one making decisions about it. The prescribed title, “The possession of knowledge carries an ethical responsibility” specifically addresses the moral implication of having that knowledge. To thoroughly discuss this prescribed title, four knowledge questions must be answered, the chief amongst them being “Do those in power hold an ethical responsibility to those they can impact?” And, its answer is that yes, based on a utilitarianist viewpoint one in power has a moral obligation to generate the most happiness amongst those impacted by his/her power. Three related knowledge questions are: “How is knowledge related to power”, “To what extent should trends in human behavior
…show more content…
A postmodernist approach which is often characterized by a skeptical and cynical approach to knowledge, to this statement comes from Michael Foucault. Foucault argues that knowledge is simply used as power to influence others thus; people only gain knowledge for the sole purpose of gaining power. He says that “the goals of power and the goals of knowledge cannot be separated: in knowing we control and in controlling we know”. This concept can be illustrated in the biological sciences through the controversial topic of DNA databases, which I wrote a persuasive paper on for a practice SAT test. This DNA database would be a database the government would be in control of which would hold the DNA of everyone in the nation. The DNA of someone could tell you what diseases run in their family, what they prefer to eat, and essentially any intimate detail about them. I argued that this knowledge gives the government too much power over its citizens. Power, here, is defined as the ability to influence others. With this knowledge, governments could potentially manipulate their citizens in whatever way they pleased because the government would possess the knowledge (and its accompanying power) that the DNA database provides. This example from the natural sciences proves the notion that knowledge does equate to power as knowing things gives the knower the ability to influence others. That power …show more content…
The trends in human behavior and knowing what the scientific evidence is is considered the knowledge and therefore power. A key difference between the human sciences and the natural sciences is that the qualifications to produce knowledge in the natural sciences are much more complex which makes the knowledge more valuable and accurate. In the human sciences, there is a higher lack of precision and accuracy allowed due to the standards we hold human sciences to.There is a trade-off between accuracy and simplicity in comparing the human sciences and natural sciences. For example, in the TV Show “The Mentalist”, the main character Patrick Jane uses his analysis of trends in human behavior to help the police solve crimes. By analyzing certain clues in the crime scene of a homicide, Jane points the detectives in the right direction to find the culprit. Jane is given power by the knowledge he possesses to be able to more accurately find the culprit. However, he only has a certain amount of power because of what area of knowledge he is using: human science. He can only predict what kind of person would commit the crime based on psychology and cannot name an individual person. Conversely, if Jane was analyzing the DNA on the
A postmodernist approach which is often characterized by a skeptical and cynical approach to knowledge, to this statement comes from Michael Foucault. Foucault argues that knowledge is simply used as power to influence others thus; people only gain knowledge for the sole purpose of gaining power. He says that “the goals of power and the goals of knowledge cannot be separated: in knowing we control and in controlling we know”. This concept can be illustrated in the biological sciences through the controversial topic of DNA databases, which I wrote a persuasive paper on for a practice SAT test. This DNA database would be a database the government would be in control of which would hold the DNA of everyone in the nation. The DNA of someone could tell you what diseases run in their family, what they prefer to eat, and essentially any intimate detail about them. I argued that this knowledge gives the government too much power over its citizens. Power, here, is defined as the ability to influence others. With this knowledge, governments could potentially manipulate their citizens in whatever way they pleased because the government would possess the knowledge (and its accompanying power) that the DNA database provides. This example from the natural sciences proves the notion that knowledge does equate to power as knowing things gives the knower the ability to influence others. That power …show more content…
The trends in human behavior and knowing what the scientific evidence is is considered the knowledge and therefore power. A key difference between the human sciences and the natural sciences is that the qualifications to produce knowledge in the natural sciences are much more complex which makes the knowledge more valuable and accurate. In the human sciences, there is a higher lack of precision and accuracy allowed due to the standards we hold human sciences to.There is a trade-off between accuracy and simplicity in comparing the human sciences and natural sciences. For example, in the TV Show “The Mentalist”, the main character Patrick Jane uses his analysis of trends in human behavior to help the police solve crimes. By analyzing certain clues in the crime scene of a homicide, Jane points the detectives in the right direction to find the culprit. Jane is given power by the knowledge he possesses to be able to more accurately find the culprit. However, he only has a certain amount of power because of what area of knowledge he is using: human science. He can only predict what kind of person would commit the crime based on psychology and cannot name an individual person. Conversely, if Jane was analyzing the DNA on the