During an exam, you should focus on the problem at hand rather than being preoccupied
by ethical scrutiny.
Not exact matches
The
ethical issues arising from genetically modified crops, stem cells, or mammalian cloning have received a great deal of
scrutiny by the media, and the resulting debate is far from settled.
Preventing the transmission of inherited genetic diseases, and increasing food production rates in farmed animals are two potential applications of genome editing technologies that require urgent
ethical scrutiny, according to a new report
by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Although different theories of distributive justice would reach different conclusions about what «fairness» requires quantitatively, most of the positions taken
by opponents of climate change policies fail to pass minimum
ethical scrutiny given the huge differences in emissions levels between high and low emitting nations and the enormity of global emissions reductions needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.
In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum
ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target
by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction
by developed countries
by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked
by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.
Therefore, spotting
ethical issues raised
by carbon cap and trade regimes may be practically valuable despite the inability on some issues to determine unambiguously what ethics demands, if spotting the
ethical questions leads to eliminating from consideration some positions on these issues that fail to pass minimum
ethical scrutiny.
Although reasonable disagreements exist about what equity and justice requires of nations in setting their INDCs as demonstrated
by numerous proposed equity frameworks discussed
by the recent IPCC chapter in the 5th Assessment Report on equity (IPCC, 2014, chapter 4), the national commitments that are based upon national economic interests alone clearly fail to pass minimum
ethical scrutiny.
Although different theories of distributive justice would reach different conclusions about what «fairness» requires quantitatively, most of the positions taken
by opponents of climate change policies fail to pass minimum
ethical scrutiny given the huge differences in emissions levels between high and low emitting nations and individuals and the enormity of global emissions reductions needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.
One such common approach to national ghg emissions reductions commitments that fails to satisfy any
ethical scrutiny is the claim that all nations must reduce emissions
by the same amount without regard to whether a nation is a large or small contributor to the climate change problem, an approach often referred to as «grandfathering» or equal reductions from existing emissions levels.
In addition, the positions actually taken
by nations on these issues in the negotiations utterly fail any reasonable
ethical scrutiny.
Also despite the fact that the positions that the United States and several other countries have frequently taken in Internationale climate negotiations have clearly flunked minimum
ethical scrutiny, the US media has largely ignored the
ethical and justice issues raised
by the US response to climate change.
The Smithsonian has opened an investigation into the
ethical conduct of Willie Soon, one of its part time scientists and a climate - change skeptic who is facing
scrutiny for failing to properly disclose his work was funded
by fossil fuel interests.
Although as we have seen what fairness requires is a matter about which different
ethical theories might reach different conclusions, a claim
by almost any nation in the top 80 percent of global per capita emissions that it is already below its fair share of safe global emissions is highly unlikely to pass
scrutiny on the basis of any conceivable ethically theory.
3.11 All research carried out
by family therapists that involves clients must be done in careful consideration of the
ethical implication for all parties, and should be subjected to outside
scrutiny, where possible through local
ethical committees.