Is There A Place For Ethics?

In his writing, A Practical Companion to Ethics, Anthony Weston explains people are more judgmental and it causes a lot more problems than solutions. Anthony Weston feels Ethics requires us to be mindful thinkers, because it helps fight unjust prejudgment. I personally feel this could help fix court systems, federal, and state wide corruption. Most importantly being a mindful thinker could help businesses. There are so many reasons that could fall under Anthony’s theory. Getting to know the author and his work. I feel his mindful thinking is to reach out to others and interact with more people in an expressive way. Weston believes this will help our community progress in a positive manner towards others. I think he feels ethics requires us

Nuclear fission can be used to power the world, or it can be used to destroy it. That scientific knowledge of the process of fission is neither good nor bad ethically, but the way it is applied can have ethical and moral consequences. The scientists who developed the fission process are not responsible for the devastation caused by the atomic bombs; the people who chose to use the science in that manner are the ones responsible.

What exactly does the term “ethics” mean? When asking this question among several different groups of people, I’m sure all of their answers would be different in many ways, but would all draw the general theme that ethics is somewhat of a study of what is right and what is wrong. This is a mostly correct conclusion, except for the fact that it encompasses not only determining what is right and wrong, but attempting to systemize and defend those ethical positions which one holds. Almost all of the controversial headlines you see in the media today involve some sort of question of ethics. Abortion. Healthcare. (“Should we take money from the rich and give to the poor to pay for medical expenses?”) Gun laws. Euthanasia, etc. The topic I want

Although from an economic lens shows the positive impact of the atomic war and the technological advancements that came fourth due to further study of the atomic capabilities it fails to show how a political lens plays a role in this as well. If a historian were to read this article from a political perspective it would be known that “The US government had an obvious interest in perpetuating the bright atomic future narrative, and supplied the media with officially vetted images and information, but only to a certain point” The question here is that in actual the government wants to shield the media from the actual capabilities and the destructive power the atomic mechanics could withhold. In order to avoid conflicting perceptions a historian must analyze both primary and secondary sources to seek patterns, explanations, causes and effects to come to a

September 1, 1939, marked the beginning of World War II. The war was long fought involving the three axis powers and several allied powers. Among those were Japan and the United States following Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 (Praino, 2015). Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost amongst the battles from each side of the war. In 1939, Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi fled to America and informed the elected officials that Germany had discovered new outbreaks in splitting atoms, which was one step closer to the creation of destructive weapons for the Axis power. With that news, American facilities launched a program that would later be codenamed “The Manhattan Project” which was the birthplace of the first nuclear atomic reactions. After the first reaction was created, it was a vicious cycle from there that continued to escalate. With the war reaching an all-time high in casualties, Truman was faced with a big decision as the programs had finally experienced breakthroughs to the atomic bomb. He could choose to remain in conventional war tactics and continue to prolong the war until Japan was ready to surrender, or attempt to save the lives of many American soldiers and citizens by dropping the atomic bombs onto two major cities in Japan (Praino, 2015). By choosing the latter, an estimated 225,000 Japanese lives were lost (Perkins, 2016) and the ethical merits of Truman’s decision are still questioned today while some views remain confident in the choice.

The atomic bomb was deemed one of America’s greatest weapons, giving us victory in World War II against the anti-sematic Hitler and his expanding empire and the ruthless Japanese. The Atomic bomb has become a controversial topic in history, debates have arisen on whether or not the dropping of the bomb was necessary in winning the war or strategic weapon in the power struggle between the US and the Soviet Union. By analyzing primary documents and the history leading up to the dropping of the bomb, the use of the bomb was deemed unavoidable. The theory and production of the atomic bomb was developed over time by a number of Jewish scientist, who fled from their home countries to America due to fear of Hitler’s conquering power and his Anti-sematic

World War II was one of the defining moments of the 20th century. Numerous events during that period are viewed and interpreted with differing opinions; but none have been as fiercely debated as the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of the more intriguing differing of opinions came from the people behind the bombs themselves: the key scientists who created the bombs and the politicians and military personnel who were active in dropping the bomb. The scientists involved through the various stages of the project (such as Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard) expressed remorse that they created such a weapon and did not believe the use of it was justified. However he people who dropped the bomb - President Harry Truman and

Over the years, there has been a dispute on whether or not it was a dire necessity to bomb Hiroshima August 6, 1945. The general aspect of morality, corresponding to following the mode of ethics in experimentation, may not justify proceeding to bomb the Japanese city. Paul Fussell, however in “Thank God For Atom The Bomb” desires to put an end to the dispute of the morality of nuclear weapon evolvement in World War Two.

At the time no one could have seen the devastating effects of radiation and destruction it caused. In the article, the scientist focuses on the decision to drop the atomic bomb and how unethical it was. According to Frisch (1970), “The unrest among scientists over the decision to use the bomb without warning or demonstration was

Over 192,000 people in Hiroshima were killed by the atomic bomb (Hall). If the technology of the atomic bomb ended up in Hitler’s hands many more than two atomic bombs could have been dropped. Hitler attempting to obtain the atomic bomb was a big deal throughout world war two because nobody knew what he would do with the bomb. The lead scientist in Hitler’s atomic bomb project was Dr.Werner Heisenberg. Many articles have been read through and dissected in order to make sure that the paper is historically accurate and well rounded. The articles read have given me the ability to provided an educated opinion on the topic of, if it was an ethical decision by Werner Heisenberg to become the head of the German atomic bomb project. Dr. Werner Heisenberg was the lead scientist in the German war effort to create the atomic bomb. Dr.Werner Heisenberg’s decision to join the German atomic bomb program is ethically acceptable. Here are a few reasons why it is ethically acceptable for Heisenberg to create the atomic bomb. Heisenberg is from Germany so helping out the Nazi's would be staying loyal to his country.

Barnes, Michael. The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb: Arguments Against. 13 1 2013. 17 11 2015. .

The nature of the Atomic Bomb created a global and theoretical set of stakeholders that few other ethical dilemmas reach. In many ways this use of nuclear technology created the Cold War and the global fear of a nuclear Armageddon. At that time every citizen of the globe feared how the use of nuclear weapons would harm them and their world. The future is also a stakeholder in this conversation. The effects of nuclear fallout were not well understood at the time. Nuclear aftermath could last for decades and even longer, effecting the health and livelihood of all living things for generations to come. The information that could be collected and research opportunities created after a nuclear weapon detonation would be studied for centuries and will change medicine and research forever. Future citizens and scientists were also stakeholders in this decision.

Since my journey here at Bryant began in September, I have changed so much. Coming here, I expected certain things such as my study habits, daily routine and friend group to be altered. One change I was not anticipating making was my approach to ethics. Over the course of the past fifteen weeks, my knowledge of ethics as well as my approach to ethics has changed. I have become more knowledgeable about the different approaches to ethics and have gained insight as to where I stand in my approach to ethics.

Driving down the road, Louis Szilard and Eugene Vignat were Hungarian scientists on a mission to convince one of the top scientists to join their cause. It was this conversation that lead to the end of the war in the Pacific and the death of over 100,000 people. This trip was the eve of World War II in the summer of 1939 and they were searching for Albert Einstein. A prominent figure in the science community, Einstein held a platform that other physics did not; one that allowed him access to political leaders. The Hungarian scientists believed that the Nazi’s were working on their potential weapon so they proposed that they develop a bomb for the American.

“Brad is a production engineer at a bicycle company and part of his job includes inspecting broken bikes and drafting the design repairs for their repair” (Bartlett). Brad is considering replacing a broken brake cable with a more durable material, even though the customer did not request it in their order and specifically requested that “No aesthetic changes be made to the bike” (Bartlett). Brad’s manager suggests that his considered actions would go against the company’s policy of “The customer is always right.” Should Brad disobey the manager and the customer to possibly lose his job or go along with