Kant's Theoretical Analysis

Human experimentation has always been a topic of ethical controversy, recently the draw towards this practice has become increasingly more appealing; due to the expanding medical advancements and progress within the last decade. It is obvious why experimenting on humans is an attractive option, but how far can we push these experiments before it's considered criminal and inhumane? Many medical researchers push for the use of human experimentation because of the general good that these experiments may have on not only the medical community but also the general public. However, there are many ethical questions that need to be addressed before such experiment is conducted.

There is very little question as to what action a strict deontologist would do in the scenario for this assignment he or she would unequivocally adhere to his or her duty. The more pressing question, of course, revolves around just where that duty lies. For a deontologist, that duty would lie with the job at hand and its responsibilities. As one who took an oath to only program software in accordance to the company that he or she works for which is essentially operating as an extension of the government that wishes the programmer to 'push the button' and destroy millions of innocent lives in World War II it would strongly appear that such an individuals would consider it his or her duty to effectively start World War III.

In conclusion, some may say that it is unethical or inhumane to test animals who have no say-so in what is happening to them but if we tested humans and purposely expose them to health risks in order to research a disease, which is what would have to happen if we stopped testing on animals, then that would be just as bad. Animal testing for medical treatments is reasonable because it is the most accurate way to get results, without putting humans at unnecessary health risks, and it is easier to control their environment while monitoring animals because of their shorter life spans. Animal testing has also saved millions of

An Individual's autonomy can be altered or swayed by many different life circumstances, stages of human life, religion or faith and its many practices as well as mental capacity and comprehension. In regards to my own understanding towards the required reading it gives many compare and contrast between similar yet controversial topics one being of faith and religion another being that of an individual that is experiencing the manic phase of bipolar disorder. Compared to one of Jehovah's Witness' whom is making a decision based on a scriptural doctrine. The examples and practices of these two opposite and controversial topics have absolutely nothing to do with each other, however, I understand how an individual uneducated about the faith can be baffled.

Human experimentation has existed for quite some time now. Reasons for it could have either because of a medical research or a non-medical research. In exchange subjects would be bribed with money or some sort of good news as to what the testing would do. Famous experiments on people from the past include Doctors who would experimentation on prisoners, according to (bestpsychologydegrees.com/30-disturbing-human-experiments.) “From 1913 to 1951 a Doctor named Leo Stanley lied and used prisoners as test subjects for treatments of the Spanish flu, however were also performed testicle transplants from other animals and executed prisoners in order

I believe that human experimentation is wrong because people could die from this. We can't test on living beings because they can die if things go atrocious. All of these cause that can make people suffer, that's why they shouldn't be experimented on. Doctors may be helping people but when they are testing it, people were hurt.

Throughout history there are many examples of humans conducting experiments on other humans. Over the years human experimentation has greatly advanced the knowledge of human physiology and psychology, leading to better treatments for ailments both physical and mental as well as a better overall understanding of the human constitution. Despite all of the good which human experimentation has done for the human race there have been times when experimenters have taken human experimentation past the bounds of morality. This unethical human experimentation is most often caused when the experimenters are, in some way, able to justify their experiments.

Prompt: Kant argues that in Groundwork, it is morally wrong to not develop talents: What is his argument and is he correct?

Applying the logic and wisdom of the masters to racial prejudice generally makes it fairly obvious that such prejudice is wrong. Kant, who recognized that all people have a duty, would have most likely argued against such racial prejudice and pointed out that it is the duty of all people to ensure that a neighborhood is policed without prejudice. This would, in some cases, mean standing up against a police force that refused to acknowledge its own racial prejudice. Kant knew that all people deserve a fair and just opportunity and he argued in favor of morality (Souryal, 2014).

Human experimentations have been performed many times by scientist in order to solve medical mysteries in the past. These experimentations can link back to the early 1700s when George I offered free pardon to any inmate who was willing to be injected with smallpox (Wellness Directory of Minnesota). Human experimentation has always been a hot topic as it has been argued that it is both necessary and also morally wrong since it can both hurt and help and individual. People have argued that there is no other subject to be experimented on as there aren’t many other animals or subjects which share the same anatomy as humans. It can also be argued that some of the treatments performed on these individuals can potentially cause the deaths of the person

Human experimentation has gone on for years. People have often gotten medicines and other great medical advances but they are not ethical. Imagine being forced to test how radiation affects humans or try untested medicines than may as well kill you, in hopes that you'll live to get the cash reward, or even be an uninformed hospital patient being used to test a particular disease with no cure. There was nothing ethical about the torture some of these innocent people have endured, yet the people thought they were for the greater good of “science.” Kids were told that they were bad at speech and things like that in order to prove a point,”in the name of science.” Again, there is nothing ethical about these procedures, and there are so many reasons,

Experimentation can be just as cruel. Most of the time, they test medicines meant for humans on animals, like pigs, and the results end up making these poor animals suffer, because the medicine can cause problems if it’s meant for one specific disease. Most of the time, the animals being tested on aren’t going to have that disease, and so it causes other severe complications, that could end up killing

Immanuel Kant was born April 22, 1724 in Konigsberg.Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher best known for his work The Critique of Pure Reason, was one of the first to describe this era with the word “ Enlightenment.” (Ellis 183-184). He attended the collegium Fridericianum at the age of eight, Latin school that taught primarily classicism. (Immanuel Kant - Biography). Immanuel Kant went to the University of Konigsberg, or also know as Albertina. Kant was born into an artisan family. His father was a harness marker and a pietist. Pietism is the stress on the emotional and personal aspects of religion. His mother's father was also a master harness maker, and she was better educated that the other women.

Philosophers Immanuel Kant and Edward Bullough each believe that there is a clear difference between the agreeable and the beautiful. One might note a similarity between these two philosopher’s writings and the works of philosopher David Hume. David Hume formed a standard for the judgment of taste, where these philosophers create a standard for judgment based upon beauty. Kant and Bullough concur that the agreeable is a critic’s personal opinion: an opinion that others are free to disagree with. It gratifies some desire of the senses. Kant believes that it is not up to humans to decide what we find agreeable, but it is up to our psychology. We do not consciously decide what satisfies this, and we cannot change this desire based on will. Beautiful,

Humans are animals, and as such it is morally wrong to use them to test pharmaceuticals intended for use by humans. Those who support animal experimentation believe it is a necessary evil, in part due to the false information put out by the media. The so-called benefits of animal testing have not helped humans for years, yet in many countries the law still requires researchers use animals to test their medications. In fact, although alternatives have been found, few steps have been taken to put an end to animal experimentation. Unfortunately, the way the activists present their argument that is one main reason they are not taken seriously, even though their points are valid. Animal testing is morally wrong and has not benefited humans as the media has claimed, but there are alternatives, such as new technology, if only humans would take the first step.