sorry to do this to you, gurublue, but i had to break it up into different pieces...this is the last one, i swear!!
The scientific misconduct case of John Darsee is wrong and immoral, based on the moral theory of rule utilitarianism. I will argue why this case of scientific fraud is wrong by presenting the major concerns of rule utilitarianism and how the Darsee case violates the principles of rule utilitarianism. John Darsee has provided false data for about fifty of his published results and abstracts. The rule that would apply in this case is that scientists and researchers should study and report truth of their observations as it forms the basis of other research and experiments, and also, the honesty and the integrity of the entire science community would be questioned. The case of Darsee is wrong based on rule utilitarianism because he has violated this rule. Darsee, as a medical researcher, has not reported the truthful observations from his experiments. This is wrong based on rule utilitarianism because he has violated the rule. By having fake data and publishing the results of it to scientific journals, the falsified results are out in public for other researchers and scientists to base their experiments on. The experiment will most likely not yield good results because it was based on false data, which in the end, makes for wasted time, and resources. The other scientists and researchers did not benefit from Darsee’s scientific fraud. Because of Darsee’s scientific misconduct, there were not benefits or goods for greater good, and disutility was not minimized for most people. Darsee has acted in a way that violates the rule in which maximizes utility for many.
Also, Darsee has violated the rule by fabricating his data the second time. This is wrong because Darsee represents one of millions of researchers and scientists around the world. By him acting dishonestly about his profession in which can produce so much good results, it is shadowed by scientific misconduct cases such as this. As a result, people will start to distrust science and research, which harms the scientific community. Darsee’s fraud is wrong because he did not act according to the rule, and he did not get most benefits and goods for the majority.
John Darsee is one of many researchers and scientists who are accused of scientific fraud. Scientific fraud is wrong based on rule utility, because the rule states that scientists and researchers should study and report truth of their observations as it forms the basis of other research and experiments, and also, the honesty and the integrity of the entire science community would be questioned. Through the explanation of the Darsee case, the moral theory of rule utilitarianism, and applying rule utilitarianism to the Darcee case, I have argued why Darcee’s case of scientific fraud is morally wrong.
This is pretty much a repetition of what you have written before.
My opinion, you need to reorganize.
Introduction...Brief history and definition of rule utilitarianism. Thesis statement - presenting Darcee's case as an example of the positive aspects.
Body - present the Darcee case.
explain why the result of the case fits the need for the rule and why NOT HAVING the rule would be detrimental.
Conclusion....your last paragraph will work nicely.
My instruction to my students is always,
present the history, thesis, proof, conclusion and QUIT. Be complete but be concise. A bunch of words doth not a good essay make. Your thinking is good, just too much repetition
The provided passage discusses the case of John Darsee, who was involved in scientific misconduct by providing false data for his research. The argument presented is that his actions are morally wrong based on the moral theory of rule utilitarianism, which suggests that actions should be judged based on the general rule that maximizes the overall utility or happiness for the majority of people. Here's a breakdown of the main points:
1. Rule utilitarianism and the rule of truthful reporting: According to rule utilitarianism, scientists and researchers should study and report the truth of their observations, as this forms the basis for other research and experiments. It also ensures the honesty and integrity of the scientific community. By fabricating data, Darsee violated this rule.
2. Negative consequences of falsified data: Falsified data has negative implications for other researchers and scientists who may base their experiments on it. This could lead to wasted time and resources, as experiments conducted using false data are unlikely to yield valid results. Therefore, Darsee's misconduct resulted in disutility for others.
3. Distrust in science and research: Darsee's actions, along with other scientific fraud cases, can erode trust in the scientific community. This distrust harms the field of science as a whole by casting doubt on the credibility of research findings.
4. Violation of the rule as a representative of the scientific community: As a researcher, Darsee represents a larger community of scientists and researchers. Therefore, his dishonesty and scientific fraud reflect poorly on the entire scientific community. This violation of the rule fails to maximize benefits and goods for the majority.
In conclusion, the argument posits that John Darsee's scientific fraud is morally wrong according to the principles of rule utilitarianism because it violates the rule of truthful reporting, causes negative consequences for others, and undermines trust in the scientific community.