2 Questions (11 January 2010)

Mr Perkins threw out a couple of questions near the end of the period that I find myself hoping to answer somewhat as a means to counter my presence onstage today.

The questions (paraphrased greatly)

1: How do you deal with a situation in which two parties involved in a contractual relationship are bound by different ethics?
--> In such a situation, where two different sets of ethics have produced tension upon two parties who had previously agreed upon a contractual relationship, I would consider the involvement of a third party to be the most desirable solution. This third party would have to be objective to both sides equally and would serve as arbitrator. Preferably, the new party would be familiar with the ethics of both parties in disagreement while the arbitrator itself would follow neither of these (for that might pose problems for the third party to objectively consider each issue separately and equally; reviewing one side with the supporting ethics while comparing it to the other side with the same ethics might create unnecessary dilemmas.


2: To what degree of experience does personal testimony make any account more worthy than any other?
--> Personal experience adds an emotional level to any account. I would consider a personal testimony more "worthy" in the sense that it addresses most acutely the issue of adding emotion with the testimony; the effects of emotion can be seen. This is rather important a distinction, for then the testimonies emotionally charged (through personal experience) can be compared to those to which no emotional connection was made.
For example, by addressing the stem cell issue raised in class, the controversy over cloning arises. The fine line of ethical morals and justifications is already paper-thin, considering that the cells are used to make food, animals, and (not yet, but possibly later in time) other humans.
Gregory Pence, professor at University of Alabama (Birmingham) supports the use of stem cells to make genetically altered foods. His research argues that eating genetically altered foods poses much less risk than consuming a hamburger.
A year or so ago (I can't remember when, exactly), a woman had her deceased dog cloned. Having previously acquired the necessary cells from her dog, she cloned the animal which resulted, basically to her, in a second life for her dog. Her emotionally charged testimony, affirming that cloning is well worth the expense and procedure, is an interesting argument when laid beside those individuals that consider cloning unethical.