Similarly in the same field of expressionist art, Guillermo Habacuc Vargas a famous artist tied a malnourished street dog to a museum door with the sign “you are what you are reading” to convey the message to the entire population of the implications their actions have on such animals. For him it was an attempt to create an impression on majority of the population leaving behind an example for the future generations.
Society in those regions objected towards this on the basis of ethics, the banning of this work of art that is supposed to be an objective for future generations deprives others of this opportunity to gain knowledge. This piece of work was not taken with the same intention that the artist intended it to be, Society has prefixed notions of what lies within the ethical category. What exactly is acceptable, posing in the nude to gain awareness for animals or to starve one dog to save lives of numerous others?
Stem cell research has caused an immense amount of progress in the field of regenerative medicine recently. With every medicinal procedure there are ethical limitations to consider, in this case the use of human embryos has been a cause of concern for most of the population. These advancements can often have a negative impact as well; BBC reports revealed that organs from healthy babies have been taken to illegally sell in the market possibly for stem cell research. The negative impact of this research caused raised such ethical issues worldwide, however can scientists be held responsible for the application of their innovation?
The question of whether the chicken came first or the egg is a perfectly epitomizes the relationship between ethical judgments and knowledge. What we need to ask ourselves is what the greater importance should be given to, to the production of knowledge or to adhere to ethics? It is in fact Ethics and knowledge that affect each other, the very basis of this argument is to determine whether ethics control the amount of knowledge produced. Ultimately human beings create these terms and with every person that applies this ethical code to his/her situation the personal boundaries change, once again leaving it back to the ambiguity that it started with before. Peter Singer states that “the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration.”
As variable as the interpretation of ethical judgments may be there is still a basis on which we evaluate our choices, segregate them from right and wrong, categorize them into black and white. When Art is studied in depth the ethical aspect of it never comes to mind initially, all great artists have a different mindset, each artist may have completely contrasting views on many aspects. The term ‘tortured artist’ has been used end number of times where there is this predefined list of expectations and pressure for being that much superior.
This comes from experience and struggle, forms of Art like music and literature convey the individual’s innermost emotions and those with over complicated lives or restrictions by the society help in the enhancement of their work, ethical judgments act as a positive here. So when an artist or poet or writer is judged by the society or limited by what may be considered morally wrong it only makes the work that much stronger. Instead of saying what actions are good say what does it mean for an action to be good? Is there a fixed category for an action to be assessed as good? This is yet another human invented criterion, thus can we reconcile with good? Even if it means settling for ambiguity