Chemical and biological weapons
Throughout the long years of the cold war, nuclear weapons and, to a lesser extent, chemical and biological weapons were in fact the subject of moral analysis. The cold war debates pitted the consequentiality arguments of realists and others who defended U.S. and NATO strategic doctrine against critics drawn from various ethical perspectives, including natural law deontologists and liberal social contract theorists and utilitarian's influenced by just war criteria. These positions in turn were subjected to more fundamental criticism of the "war system," first by pacifists influenced by secular as well as Christian or Jewish ethics and second, during the 1970s and 1980s, by feminists. None of these ethical perspectives offered a single view on the difficult moral issues raised by nuclear deterrence, as evinced, for example, by the disagreements among Christian proponents of outright disarmament and Christian defenders of deterrence.And almost always, even those who argued for evaluating WMD according to the familiar categories of just grounds and just means did so guardedly and with appeals to the coercive power of necessity.
The end of the cold war shifted public discussion in the United States and Western Europe away from the morality of superpower nuclear strategy to the dilemmas of controlling WMD proliferation. Some developments during the 1990s provided hope that the non-proliferation regime might be gaining strength: Both China and France acceded to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1992 and the treaty was renewed indefinitely in 1995 following its twenty-five-year review; several important nuclear-threshold states renounced their nuclear weapon option, including Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa; the Chemical Weapons Convention entered into force in 1997 following its ratification by the requisite sixty-five states. Yet there have also been a number of developments in the opposite direction, most importantly the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May 1998 and the subsequent testing by both countries of ballistic missiles that have progressively increased the range and reduced the time required to deliver nuclear payloads to their targets. Two other states, Iran and North Korea, are known to have active research programs that could lead to the production of nuclear weapons.
All of these developments underscore the truly global nature of WMD proliferation and the need for global responses if we are to deal effectively with it. The cold war ethical discourse seems in light of today's concerns to be too circumscribed in terms of its participants (limited largely to American and West European policy makers and ethicists) and its scope (limited largely to nuclear deterrence). This is a step toward broadening the parameters of the cold war debates.
The Moral and ethical issues regarding nuclear energy is that it has good uses, and bad effects as global warming whether it could be harm to the environment while it causes global warming, in order to have nuclear energy which is a help to people all around the world because it produces electricity, but have we looked at how it could be so immoral? First of all nuclear energy caused global warming which in effect could harm the environment and maybe even cause hurricanes to occur and our world will undergo a string of catastrophes including more and stronger storms like hurricane Katrina in both the Atlantic and the pacific.
We are also melting the north polar ice cap and virtually all of the mountain glaciers in the world, the massive amount of ice on Greenland and the equally enormous mass of ice propped up on top islands in west Antarctica, threatening a worldwide increase in sea levels of as much as 20 feet.
Experimenting on animals.
The moral and ethical issues of experimenting on animals can be viewed from a religious prospective for example Judaism; they are forbidden to cause physical pain as well as mental anguish to animals. Keeping animals in cramped conditions, or feeding them with substances that cause pain or distress, are a violation of Jewish moral principle. When scientists are experimenting on animals they are causing pain to it, one real scenario is when they test eye-shadow by blinding rabbits; this is harmful and causes pain to the animal therefore Jewish people have their own moral way of approaching this as it is immoral from their view points of doing this therefore they can only test animals if there was no other methods available and would take care in doing it.
DNA sampling at crime scenes
Collected DNA samples are stored and many state laws do not require the destruction of a DNA record or sample after a conviction has been overturned. So there is a chance that a person's entire genome may be available —regardless of whether they were convicted or not. Although the DNA used is considered "junk DNA", single tandem repeated DNA bases (STRs), which are not known to code for proteins, in the future this information may be found to reveal personal information such as susceptibilities to disease and certain behaviours.
Practicality is a concern for DNA sampling and storage. An enormous backlog of over half a million DNA samples waits to be entered into the CODIS system. The statute of limitations has expired in many cases in which the evidence would have been useful for conviction.
The primary concern is privacy. DNA profiles are different from fingerprints, which are useful only for identification. DNA can provide insights into many intimate aspects of people and their families including susceptibility to particular diseases, legitimacy of birth, and perhaps predispositions to certain behaviours and sexual orientation. This information increases the potential for genetic discrimination by government, insurers, employers, schools, banks and others however Many people believe that keeping the DNA samples to the people who are innocent i.e. not convicted of any crime but just under suspicion is unethical because they have not committed any crime.
DNA and DNA fingerprinting was discovered recently by
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal: