MISSION STATEMENT
Lodestar is an academic ethics journal that is reviewed, edited, and published by high school students It is dedicated to promoting the application of ethics in everyday life, educating communities about contemporary ethical issues, and encouraging curiosity and discourse surrounding ethical dilemmas. Lodestar provides an avenue through which students can participate in scholarly dialogue Lodestar publishes original submissions, case studies, editorials, essays, reviews, and reflections that meet required standards. It is sponsored by The Ethics Institute at Kent Place School in Summit, New Jersey.
Submission Process
Our publication accepts articles, case studies, artwork, poetry, and essays relating to or commentating on ethical questions, topics, and dilemmas for middle and high school students. Please visit The Ethics Institute’s website at www.ethicsatkentplace.org with any further inquiries.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
Mission Statement
Meet the Team & Letters from Editors-in-Chief
UPPER SCHOOL ARTICLES
Peeling Back the Layers: Exploring Art, Ethics, and the Value of a Duct-Taped Banana [Karanina Asuncion Hoang]
The Duality of Fast Fashion: An Analysis Using Different Ethical Models [Kate Lee]
Genome Engineering: Revolutionary or Ruinous? [Krisana Manglani]
BIOETHICS FEATURE
What is Bioethics?
The Price of Drugs: Longer and Better Lives...But at What Cost? [Olivia Hand]
Xenotransplantation: How do we balance human well-being and animal welfare? [Olivia Zhang]
CASE STUDIES
What are Case Studies?
Tutoring Troubles & Responses [Claire Cherill, Julianna Abrantes]
Project Leadership & Responses [Annabelle Chow, Naina Bhardwaj, Helen Wu]
MIDDLE SCHOOL ARTICLES
Ethics and Emotion [Gitanjali Kameswaran]
Should Responsible Use of Generative AI Be Allowed in Schools? [Zara Sharma]
Balancing Autonomy and Accountability: The Ethical Dilemma of Social Media’s Impact on Student Potential [Aadya Kumar]
CONCLUSION
Meet the Editors
HELEN WU is a senior who has attended Kent Place for four years In her sophomore year, she participated in the Bioethics Project. She examined the ethics of genetic engineering concerning gender in her research paper, questioning the risks of pursuing a biological basis for gender dysphoria, the role of gender in society, and the implications of using science to advance medical standards of care She looks forward to sharing the team’s accomplished work with the rest of the Kent Place community.
NAINA BHARDWAJ is a senior at Kent Place and has attended the school for seven years. She completed the Bioethics Project in her sophomore year, researching the ethicality of intersex surgeries for minors, and she is currently a captain of the 2024-2025 High School Ethics Bowl team. After months of collaboration, she’s excited to see the journal come to life.
OLIVIA PETERS is a junior who has attended Kent Place for 12 years. Though Lodestar is her only ethics commitment, she has participated in a number of ethics courses throughout her Kent Place experience. Along with her commitment to Lodestar, she is vice president of the Student Affairs committee and a member of the Green Key student admissions committee.
L E T T E R F R O M T H E E D I T O R S
Dear Readers,
Welcome to the official first issue of Kent Place’s Ethics Journal, Lodestar! We’re ecstatic for you to view the amazing work completed by our very own middle and high school students, who have been working tirelessly to bring this paper to life.
Within our community at Kent Place, we have a mission of promoting ethical decision-making while empowering girls to be confident and intellectual leaders who advance the world. Through initiatives such as the Bioethics Project in collaboration with Georgetown University, our nationally ranked Ethics Bowl team, and our new Lodestar publication, we strive to encourage ethical thinking and to provide an avenue through which students can share diverse perspectives.
Through The Ethics Institute, Kent Place students learn that ethics is a system of ethical principles and values that govern one’s behavior and conduct By forming a foundation to discern right from wrong, encouraging intellectual curiosity, and engaging in discourse when faced with an ethical dilemma, Kent Place students aim to inspire meaningful change within our community, and one day, the world.
The word “lodestar” is defined as the star that guides a ship through its course; however, the word is also often used to describe someone who serves as a role model or inspiration to others. At Kent Place, ethics is the lodestar that guides everything we do in our academic careers as students – it motivates us to work hard, drives us to treat others with respect, and encourages us to strive to be better people and improve the communities that surround us In keeping with the theme of naming Kent Place publications after ships, we found that Lodestar perfectly encompasses our mission and the importance of ethics not only in our institution but also within our society as a whole. We hope that you find this journal to be your lodestar, your inspirational model as you flip through our pages
Our goal for this first edition of Lodestar is for our pieces to be thought-provoking, and to highlight student works that explore how ethics is applied in our world today. We want this journal to be an outlet for those interested in ethical discussion, and a place for students to engage in this thinking This issue will feature works ranging from reflections, to case studies, to opinion pieces, and with so many different topics from genome engineering to artificial intelligence. All topics are chosen by the student writers themselves based on their interest in analyzing and interpreting real-world problems through ethical lenses, and opening perspectives for dialogue and understanding. We are extremely proud of the works included in this issue, and every student who participated whether by writing or working behind the scenes.
Many thanks, Naina, Helen, and Liv
Leadership Team
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
NAINA BHARDWAJ
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
OLIVIA PETERS
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
HELEN WU
JUNIOR EDITOR
MIRA LALANI
JUNIOR EDITOR
NIA MCDANIEL
HEAD COPY EDITOR
OLIVIA HAND
ART EDITOR
KARA ASUNCION HOANG
SOCIAL MEDIA COORDINATOR
JAHNAVI PONNOLU
PUBLISHER
TESSA CHOW
PEELING BACK THE LAYERS: EXPLORING ART, ETHICS,
AND THE VALUE OF A DUCT-TAPED BANANA
Have you ever seen something in a museum that makes you think, “Seriously, I could have made that!?” You glance at the price tag and boom it is worth millions. Suddenly, you are left with the question: How is this even considered art?
Artwork by: Karanina Asuncion
Hoang ’27
That is exactly how I felt when I saw the news clip about a banana duct-taped to a wall. It was not just any banana it was an art piece called by Maurizio Cattelan, and it sold for a jaw-dropping $120,000 - $150,000 per piece. Recently, the artist Maurizio Cattelan’s duct-taped banana sold for a total of $6.2 million. To make things even crazier, someone actually peeled it off the wall and ate it. I could not believe something so bizarre could hold so much value. It got me thinking: What makes something considered art? More importantly, is there such a thing as “ethical art?”
The more I looked into it, the more questions I had. Some people said the piece was a clever commentary on consumerism, while others called it ridiculous. There were three versions of this piece sold, and one was even donated to the Guggenheim Museum in New York. But this banana has sparked a bigger debate about the ethicality of art. How do we decide what art is worth? What role should the artist play in creating something meaningful? And does a piece like deeply resonate with people or just serve as a headline grabber?
Art has always been subjective; one person’s masterpiece is another person’s nonsense. However, the price tag attached to raises deeper questions. Shouldn't art be a source of inspiration, thought, and meaning? Or can something so simple still hold value in its concept? For example, from a utilitarian perspective – judging things by the happiness or benefits they bring to the many – did the banana taped to the wall really add enough to the world to justify its cost? Probably not, especially since most people will never experience it in person. Art such as seems to benefit a few rather than society as a whole, which makes its overall value questionable. If art is supposed to serve the greatest good for the greatest number of people, failed to do so.
Comedian
By: Karanina Asuncion
Comedian
Comedian
Comedian
Comedian
Comedian
On the other hand, we can consider deontological ethics, which focuses on principle and duties. Artists may have the duty to create arts with meaning or purpose rather than works that exist solely for profit. This makes us wonder: What is the duty of art? Does art always need a deeper meaning? This also raises a question about accessibility of art: Who is art really for? If it is priced so high that only a select few can enjoy it, is it truly fulfilling its purpose to connect, inspire, and represent the human experience? Pieces like lean heavily toward being products rather than universal expressions of creativity, making art feel more like a luxury than a shared cultural experience.
From a virtue ethics lens, which focuses on the character and intentions of the artist, it is fair to wonder: should art prioritize honesty and creativity over spectacle and controversy? While Cattelan’s piece is clever, it risks being seen as shallow and is designed more to grab attention than to spark deep reflection or emotion.
Another issue is the use of perishable materials like the banana itself, which rots and needs replacing. While some might see this as symbolic, it also feels wasteful especially in an age where sustainability is crucial. From a consequentialist perspective, which considers the outcomes of actions, shouldn't artists think about the environmental impact of their work? Couldn't the same statement have been made using sustainable materials? Even the role of the buyer is worth examining. Spending millions on a banana taped to a wall not only influences the art market but also reflects values. It sends a message about what is worth investing in and shapes the type of art that gains prominence. Some see it as a statement on consumerism, while others feel it reinforces the idea that art is just for the wealthy. And with so many urgent global issues, such as hunger and poverty, spending this much on a banana feels oblivious to some.
However, did exactly what art is supposed to do, which is to get people talking. One of art’s greatest purposes is to challenge perspectives and create your own interpretation of the art. Whether you see it as a joke or commentary, it sparked conversations about what we value as art and why. In the end, jkljkljkljklkjis not really about the banana at all. It is about the idea behind it and the way it makes us question our assumptions about creativity, consumerism, and worth. fulfills one of art’s duties which is to engage, to inspire different perspectives, and create a hint of confusion.
Still, from an ethical standpoint, art should do more than provoke; it should connect, inspire, and reflect the best of who we are. While I can respect the creativity behind , it leaves me wondering if art should push boundaries in ways that bring people together, rather than isolating them through exclusivity or shock value. So is really “art”? Maybe, but it is also a reminder that the value of art should go beyond its price tag. If viewers can come away from the piece with inspiration, newfound contemplation, or strong emotions (both positive and negative), then even artwork as seemingly bizarre as has served an important purpose.
Comedian
Comedian
Comedian
Comedian
Comedian
Comedian
Comedian
The Duality of Fast Fashion: An Analysis Using Different Ethical Models
Fast fashion, the rapid production of cheap, trendy clothing, has revolutionized the fashion industry within the last century. However, it thrives off of environmental damage, and worker exploitation, leading us to confront the ethical weight of our shopping bags. Examining this issue through the consumer’s perspective using ethical egoism, the Golden Rule, and virtue ethics provides a framework for understanding how individual choices align with broader ethical principles.
Ethical egoism suggests that the most ethical decision is the one that benefits the decision-maker in this case, the consumer. Looking through the ethical egoist perspective in this scenario, the consumer should be able to purchase clothing that is both affordable and trendy. An ethical egoist wouldn’t take into account the workers who are making the clothes nor the environmental effect, as those factors would not play a part in their decision. Therefore, the ethical egoist would be justified in buying from fast fashion brands (such as SHEIN, Forever 21, or Zara) if it aligns with their personal needs for cost-effectiveness and style.
Reflecting on my own experiences, I’ve purchased clothing from both fast fashion as well as more sustainable brands. While fast fashion items are generally less durable and lower in quality, I don’t always discard them quicker than my other clothes. Instead, I make purchasing decisions by making a conscious effort to evaluate the specific qualities of each item. This emphasizes how personal shopping habits can play a role in extending the use of less durable clothing. Beyond these considerations, adopting a more thoughtful and intentional approach when shopping is crucial.
By: Kate Lee ’26
Applying the Golden Rule in this scenario, where we’re encouraged to treat others as we’d like to be treated, the consumer should not purchase clothing from fast fashion companies. Fast fashion brands are driven by the goal of keeping up with the ever-changing fashion industry, and they tend to exploit their human workers and the environment. Workers in this industry often work grueling hours with little pay in unfavorable conditions. Simultaneously, the fast production process has a significant contribution to environmental harm with the overuse of water, the use of toxic chemicals, and of course, the excess of textile waste. Applying the Golden Rule to fashion should mean fair labor and eco-friendly practices.
Artwork generated by Canva AI
When considering this ethical model, the consumer definitely would not want to be underpaid and overworked, so they should not contribute money to the ever-growing industry that is built on this practice. Instead, the consumer should work towards contributing to an economic style that promotes the longevity of their clothing and sustainability over nearly instant trends.
When applying virtue ethics to this scenario, it is very important to keep in mind that virtue ethics is very contingent on the virtues of each individual. Because virtue ethics is a relatively general term, the virtuous consumer could either be taking actions that are virtuous towards themselves or the greater community.
If the consumer’s virtues are tied to the greater good, they should not purchase clothing from fast fashion companies. The fast fashion industry largely disregards virtues, leaving the consumer to take their own virtues and apply them on a case-to-case basis. Virtuous consumers would apply the virtue of responsibility in managing their consumption. They would make it a point to avoid excessive and impulsive consumption in their everyday lives. They should also take into account the responsibility they have in their role as consumers to make sure that the brands they are supporting promote the virtues that they value.
Applying the values of compassion and empathy, the consumer should be concerned with the wellbeing and working conditions of the workers who are making their clothes. Compassion would drive the consumer to support brands that prioritize their worker’s rights and well-being. Ultimately, the consumer should strive to support brands that align with their virtues, which would likely lead them against purchasing from fast fashion companies.
However, if the consumer’s virtues are solely self-serving, they should purchase fast fashion. One of the most significant selling points of fast fashion items are the affordable prices, and for the consumer, this could align with virtues such as practicality, resourcefulness, or even necessity. For many consumers, their financial situation might leave them with no other choice but to prioritize affordability over any other widespread ethical considerations. Having clothes on one’s back is a basic human necessity, and if someone simply doesn’t have the resources or the means to provide that for themselves, fast fashion can provide that for them at a more feasible price point. In this case, fast fashion acts as a resource that allows the consumer to meet their basic needs without exceeding their financial limitations. While this choice may not align with broader ethical ideals, it is still ethical since it reflects virtuosity towards oneself rather than a disregard for virtues entirely.
When analyzing the issue of fast fashion through different ethical lenses, it is apparent that perspectives on consumer responsibility can vary widely. Together, these frameworks highlight the complexity of ethical consumerism while reinforcing the importance of making choices that align with one’s personal values. However, after considering all of these presented frameworks, I believe that applying the Golden Rule would be the most ethical. Since fast fashion affects a wide range of people on such a large scale, each individual must act with that in mind rather than solely considering its impacts on themselves as they would in the case of egoism. Similarly, virtue ethics works by allowing each individual to come to an ethical decision by exclusively taking their personal virtues in mind. This leads me to conclude that the application of the Golden Rule would be most ethical since it is built almost entirely on the values of compassion and empathy. Imagining that one’s actions directly affect oneself makes it much more difficult to ignore the worldwide implications of fast fashion, making it the most ethical.
By: Kate Lee
GENOME ENGINEERING:
REVOLUTIONARY OR RUINOUS?
Loss–and the grief that comes with it–is arguably the most difficult part of life for all of humanity.
I experienced this firsthand last year, and with it came denial, sorrow, and countless unanswered questions. The same time I was mourning the loss of a family member to cancer, I was learning about cells and genetics in my Biology class. In this part of our curriculum, my teacher mentioned genome engineering, a science that genetically modified cells and their DNA to treat certain diseases. Upon researching this further, I became frustrated: why could all these trials and studies–many being successful–not save who I cared about? However, I realized that this method of genetic editing for cancer cells was still being developed and experimented with. Yet this discovery only cemented my interest in the subject: I ambitiously hoped to contribute to the research and awareness that would take genome engineering from "still being developed" to "expanding the foundations of modern medicine."
My newfound interest in genetic engineering led me to continue researching it. Through these additional studies, I not only realized how nuanced genome engineering is, but also the significance of the role ethics plays in this science. My ethical consideration of this science grew as I progressed with my research, and I began to wonder: if I had the power and influence to make the choice of whether or not to completely implement this research into modern medicine, would I be able to do so? Could I put the ethicality of humanity at risk, but save countless lives in the process? It did not take long for me to determine my subjective answer to these questions, despite my new awareness of a variety of contradicting opinions and research. Although aware of the possible dangers of genome engineering, I realized that, if the decision were in my hands, I would completely implement genome editing into medicinal practice as a treatment for as many patients as is necessary. My personal belief is that the critics of this science, who worry about the possibility of overuse of genetic engineering to the point where unnecessary, excessive, and medicinally unrelated alterations are made to DNA, are correct to be concerned. Nevertheless, I opine that this ethical dilemma consists of a situation that can be considered right versus right. It would be right to attempt to use genetic engineering to save the lives of patients struggling with disease. However, it would also be right to preserve natural integrity by refraining from interfering with DNA, the very composition of ourselves. In spite of this controversy, I feel that I would choose to effectuate genome engineering as a common medical practice.
By: Krisana Manglani ’28
Artwork by: Karanina Asuncion Hoang ’27
This may be partially because of my personal bias from losing a loved one to a disease that may have been treatable with this science. Still, genome engineering is a science with the potential to alleviate suffering, improve public health, and reduce patients of hereditary diseases in the future; and to make these changes, I would be willing to risk any possible dangers.
Genome engineering is irrefutably revolutionary; it creates the opportunity to change lives by altering an organism’s DNA, the very foundation of all living things. But therein lies the complexity and wonder of human life - we have created a new branch of scientific study by messing with the very constituents of life in order to save the lives of those endangered by disease. Despite the incredible and unmatchable changes that genome engineering allows us to make, there is always the risk of going too far: this editing of DNA could eventually be used to make unnecessary changes. A commonly studied example of this is the possibility of parents designing adjustments to and handpicking specific characteristics to pass down to their children in order to enhance certain qualities, including intelligence and athletic ability.
Throughout various studies, we can observe both the positive and negative consequences of the development of genome engineering in medicine. Students at Kent Place, through the school’s thorough and complex ethical programs, are also able to recognize the intricacies of such a science. As an ethical dilemma, genome engineering can be considered a complex science that has the potential to both help and hurt, depending on each person’s subjective perspective.
According to the World Health Organization, the practice of genetic editing has already been implemented into targeted treatment and prevention of cases such as HIV and sickle-cell disease. Statistics demonstrate that this treatment has been effective and revolutionary, allowing for renewed health. To illustrate this further, diseases such as cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy are a result of damaging–and sometimes fatal–genetic mutations that can become hereditary. Genetic engineering prevents these mutations from being passed down, improving the quality of life for people who, without this science, may have been patients affected by these diseases. However, the truth of the matter is this: our understanding of the natural course of life is founded on the basis that we have minimal power when it comes to changing nature. Yet this research allows us to alter the genetic code of preexisting cells, a science that could alleviate illness or corrupt natural life.
Ultimately, based on the aforementioned facts, opinions, and claims, it is palpable that the growth of this research creates the possibility that genome editing could be implemented as a primary preventive measure and treatment against genetic disorders. As students of a school that prioritizes consideration of the ethicality of certain practices, it is important for us to personally evaluate the nuances of complex and impactful topics such as genetic editing. Conclusively, as our true application of this research into medical practice lies in the complex inquiries we must learn to ask, I pose the same questions to readers that I have answered myself. When it comes to genome engineering, where do we draw the line? Is it morally right to manipulate the natural course of living things if its entire purpose is just to help people?
BIOETHICS
E T H I C S ?
H A T I S B I
Note from the Editors:
The Bioethics Project is a year-long program offered at Kent Place School’s Ethics Institute which takes students through the process of choosing, researching, and presenting a Bioethics-related topic to the Kent Place community and the world beyond it. Throughout the course, students learn the basics of bioethical principles and concepts, discuss real-life medical cases and complex ethical dilemmas, and write their own papers that delve into the ethical nuances of their selected topic In the first trimester of the course, students are exposed to a myriad of different potential topics ranging from in vitro fertilization to human trafficking, all through presentations from various speakers both within and outside of the Kent Place community.
In collaboration with the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, students work one-on-one with a mentor who provides guidance throughout the researching and writing process. Each cohort is designated a specific theme of the year, under which they craft an individual research paper. Past themes range from “Gender and Bioethics” to “Reimagining Healthcare: The Medical Industrial Complex.” Their work culminates in a school-wide symposium at the end of the year, where students share their ethical studies and findings with the broader Kent Place community.
Lodestar features several articles that were written as a part of the Bioethics Project, as they present important insights and comments on the practice of medical ethics in a variety of fields and contexts
Patent: A patent grants exclusive rights to the inventor of the product as an incentive or reward for their invention. A patent is only for new, useful, and novel inventions. For phramactiecal companies, a drug patent lasts for around 20 years and during this time period a patent allows that company to exclusively sell their drug. This is important in recovering from the financial costs in developing that drug as 80% of pharamectical companies revenue comes from patents.
An Ethical Analysis of the United States Pharmaceutical Industry and Drug Pricing
“The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease.”
Sir William Osler believed that American healthcare should focus on the patient and not simply on the disease (National Institutes of Health).
In today’s day and age, prescription drugs have become too expensive, with pharmaceutical manufacturers blamed for the high prices. This sentiment is shared almost universally and trumpeted by both sides of the political spectrum. But the seemingly simple idea that pharmaceutical companies should charge less for medicines they have developed is much more complicated when the complexities of drug pricing are more fully examined. Indeed, there could be serious consequences if major drug pricing reforms and guaranteed access for all to all medicines were enacted. Viewing drugs and drug pricing as one piece of the overall healthcare system that operates within a capitalistic framework is helpful to understanding this broad and complex topic further. The reason for the controversies around drug pricing relate to how certain drugs are viewed, for example, as a product, a service, a fundamental right, or a luxury.
The pharmaceutical industry in the United States is driven by a capitalistic system and supported by our understanding of legal rights. In simple terms, a capitalistic society has or includes a certain type of economic system in which private sectors own and control their own property in alignment with their own interests and can demand and set prices in the way that best produces profit for them.
By: Olivia Hand
This is aligned with the American notion that property rights belong to the person and that corporations are viewed as persons in the eyes of the law. The capitalist system incentivizes more innovation as pharmaceutical companies are essentially in competition with one another to produce new drugs and make more profit. Pharma and Profits summarized how, “The United States believes that investments in research were important for the public good- for our defense, for our health, and for our economic prosperity” (Pharma and Profits). This is proven by the annual average of how 50% of new drugs are developed in the United States (BioNJ).
Additionally, investing in pharmaceutical research and development is expensive and risky. Companies spend millions of dollars on clinical trials to develop new compounds, and most of those clinical trials fail. In fact, fewer than 10% of therapies that enter clinical trials actually succeed and make it to the market. This means that nearly 90% of the drugs pharmaceutical companies invest in, fail (National Library of Medicine). It also takes on average at least 13 years and $2.6 billion dollars to research, develop and bring a new drug to market (Policy and Medicine). Consider for a moment that a pharmaceutical company could spend $2 billion dollars trying to develop a drug and it could fail and never reach the marketplace, and that a company has to be able to withstand a financial loss of that size- potentially over and over againand still stay in business and pay its suppliers, employees, taxes, etc. Thus, patents act as a reward for the successful products that the pharmaceutical company is able to turn out (Pharma and Profits).
When exploring and considering the ethical implications of the function of prescription drugs in America, regardless of one's beliefs on the price or distribution of drugs, it is important to take into consideration the value drugs have provided for people in society. As Americans, our society has chosen to value medicine and we have continued to advance and manufacture new drugs. With this in mind, it is important that we consider the effects of not incentivizing pharmaceutical companies, as it could negatively affect which drugs we have access to and new drug advancements as a result. Viewing this stance under the lens of consequentialism, one would argue the need to consider outcomes of drug pricing on patient access and the overall public health. Additionally, using deontological ethics in this scenario, would emphasize the duty of pharmaceutical companies to ensure their innovations are available to those in need, while also recognizing the moral complexities of sustaining a profitable business capable of ongoing research. Nonetheless, trends in history have proven that pharmaceutical drugs have indeed led to a longer lifespan and quality of life for many individuals (PhRMA).
Even more specifically, many prescription drug advances have been made in the last 100 years, proving how innovative our society has become. Just to highlight a few, the discovery of penicillin in 1928 was the first antibiotic medication and helped change the way bacterial infections and diseases were treated. Phenytoin was developed in 1939 to help treat and manage epilepsy. In 2006 Revlimid(R) was developed as a chemotherapy drug for blood cancer. And most recently, the creation of the COVID-19 vaccine in 2020 helped reduce the burden and outbreak of the pandemic. Regardless of how familiar you are with these products, all of this goes to show just how important medical innovation is to our society, whether we realize it or not.
Considering how prevalent prescription drugs are in society today, as reported by Mayo Clinic that 70% of Americans take at least one prescription drug a day (Science Daily), it is important for people to recognize just how much American society depends on prescriptions. While the value of prescription is only one area in the overall pharmaceutical industry and how that influences drug pricing, it is something I believe holds a lot of weight in our society. Every individual should ask themselves questions such as, “Do I rely on a daily prescription medication?” or “How would my life be different without the COVID-19 vaccine,” or even thinking about if you had a life threatening disease, with no drug on the market nor companies even working to find a cure. These are all questions that are taken for granted in the United States considering how invested American society is in advancing the healthcare industry and continually producing new innovation drug developments.
To conclude, it is true that there are many issues inside our healthcare system in regard to the drug industry and pricing of drugs, yet American society has chosen to value drug developments in order to have more cures for incurable diseases, help people maintain healthy lifestyles, and to protect quality of life. Using the ethical frameworks: consequentialism and utilitarianism to examine the value of drugs, we would in fact justify the need for patent protection and incentization of pharmaceutical companies in order to priortize drug advancements. Moreover, the first step in creating change lies in being educated. With the many issues and universal complaints on how expensive drugs are and how corrupt the pharmaceutical industry is, it is just as concerning the lack of knowledge on this topic. Just as people should understand how their car works because it’s a tool that supports their daily life, people should understand how the health system works because it’s a tool that supports their health and well-being. My hope for society is that everyone becomes the driver of their own health.
How do we balance human well-being and animal welfare?
In 2003, my aunt received a diagnosis of nephrotic syndrome, a kidney disorder that excretes excess protein in the urine. For decades, she fought to keep it at bay with medication, but over the last four years, her condition worsened at an alarming rate. Eventually, her medications no longer sufficed, leaving dialysis and a transplant as her only options.
However, waiting for a kidney while on dialysis took an immense toll on her body. It caused debilitating fatigue, painful cramping, and constant swelling that made even the simplest movements a struggle. As I watched this device drain the color from her face and the vibrancy of her personality, I became determined to find a way to improve her quality of life – one where she would no longer be trapped in the relentless cycle of four-hour treatments that stripped her of her vitality.
In the United States alone, there are currently over 100,000 individuals like my aunt, awaiting organ transplants. Approximately 17 of them die each day while on the waiting list. For this reason, many researchers and transplant surgeons have been looking towards the development of xenotransplantation, the donation of tissues and organs from an animal to a human recipient. However, though this breakthrough holds the potential to expand the organ pool and save lives, it also raises serious ethical concerns.
Currently, for human donors, an established system for organ allocation has been developed by NOTA (National Organ Transplant Act) and is in place to minimize the inequalities in organ distribution and allocation. This system relies on the value of fairness, where voluntary actions and compliance of the transplant community ensure that organs are allocated based on need rather than arbitrary factors. In addition, NOTA mandates that organ donation be based on informed consent. Hence, treatment decisions are made with full knowledge of the risks. However, this framework is challenged in the context of xenotransplantation, where pigs serve as organ donors without the capacity for voluntary decisionmaking. Does the inability of pigs to provide informed consent fundamentally alter our understanding of fairness in organ allocation?
The debate on fairness in xenotransplantation is shaped by two contrasting perspectives. The biocentric view argues that both animal donors and human recipients should receive “equal benefits,” measured by quality of life. This aligns with the principle of equal consideration of interests, which calls for fair, though not necessarily identical, treatment of all beings. In contrast, the anthropocentric perspective, rooted in religious and philosophical traditions, holds that human life carries greater moral significance. This view justifies the use of animals for human benefit, aligning with Kantian deontology, which grants full moral status only to rational, autonomous beings. These perspectives highlight a fundamental ethical tension: consequentialism for animals, where harm is permissible for the greater good, versus deontology for humans, where individuals are seen as inviolable.
By: Olivia Zhang ’26
Another important consideration is the bioethical principle of nonmaleficence, which emphasizes the obligation to “do no harm.” In the case of xenotransplantation, it is undeniable that animals are intentionally harmed for human benefit. As sentient beings, pigs may experience significant mental and physical distress, and large-scale breeding practices could further compromise their welfare. Critics argue that killing pigs for organ transplantation not only inflicts harm but also disregards the intrinsic value of their lives. However, some counter that nonmaleficence applies strictly to human patients, not animals, and that harm requires self-awareness and a desire for continued existence – qualities that are difficult to measure in animals. In addition, proponents emphasize the medical benefits, including shorter wait times, expanded access to transplants, and advancements in research.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that porcine organs cannot be equivalent to human organs. Although pigs intended for xenotransplantation are rigorously screened to be clinically and medically pathogen-free, recent research findings indicate that there is a prevalent misguided perception of pigs as “dirty” – also regarded as the “ick factor.” This shows that xenotransplantation has the potential to create a hierarchy among organ donors, where some individuals might receive highly sought-after human organs while others may end up with less desired porcine organs.
Ultimately, while the ethical complexities of xenotransplantation continue to spark debate, its potential to save lives cannot be ignored. My aunt’s successful kidney transplant last summer was only possible because of a viable donor – something thousands of patients still desperately await.
By: Olivia Zhang
Case Studies
Note fromthe editors
WHAT ARE CASESTUDIES?
At Kent Place, case studies are regularly used as a part of our ethics curriculum to encourage students to apply ethical theories and principles to real-life, relevant scenarios. A case study, as we define it, is an investigation or work that explores real-world ethical dilemmas through different lenses and frameworks, allowing for discussion and encouraging responses from others. Whether students are analyzing case studies before competing in the National High School Ethics Bowl or creating case studies in classroom settings to learn about new frameworks, their analysis of case studies is an essential part of putting ethics to use in a practical and comprehensible way. To respond to these case studies, The Ethics Institute has developed the following Ethical Decision-Making Method for students:
1. Study and understand the situation.
2. Identify the values that are involved on all sides.
3. Identify the ethical dilemma– right vs right
4. Identify the values that influence your position.
5. Communicate effectively and respectfully a decision that demonstrates the ability to: Apply the facts
Identify values that inform your position
Refer to other sources to build the argument
Some values we explore while going through the ethical decision-making method range from honesty, service, authenticity, respect, and other values that might be applied to a case to assess the position one may take on it. We also use a variety of frameworks to guide our thinking when analyzing case studies: from utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number; to deontology, which considers a person’s duty
Case Study:
“Tutoring Troubles”
Lisa has a math test coming up, but is struggling with several concepts. When she goes to her teacher for help, he is busy with another student and doesn’t have time to assist Lisa with the test, which is scheduled for the next day. Lisa feels this is unfair since she knows the other student already works
with a private tutor outside of school, while Lisa does not have similar resources. She does her best to study independently but ultimately feels unprepared. Lisa gets an average grade on the test; while she is satisfied with her performance, she feels she still could have done better with additional support.
Lisa’s family had considered getting her a tutor to work with in the past but never did. They reasoned that since Lisa’s grades were average and she was not especially struggling, it was not worth the financial sacrifice for the family. Additionally, Lisa hadn’t been particularly academically focused before; she prioritized sports and often became frustrated with challenging material. Since the school’s resources had been sufficient to keep her on track, and Lisa did not feel a desire to push herself, her family saw no need to change what they were doing.
Now that Lisa is in high school, grades have become more important to her, and she knows they will start to have a greater impact on her future. Lisa is beginning to notice a gap growing between herself and classmates who have access to private tutoring, as they seem to gain an edge in both academic performance and confidence. To maintain her average grades, Lisa must spend significantly more time studying and sacrifice activities she enjoys. With important standardized tests approaching, and no inschool resources to help prepare for those tests, Lisa worries about how her scores will compare to those of her peers who can afford additional assistance with preparation.
Questions to Consider
Is there an ethical difference between tutoring for enrichment or remediation?
Should schools prioritize extra help for students who cannot receive outside tutoring?
Do schools have an ethical obligation to provide remedial tutoring? Where do we draw the line between remediation and enrichment (passing vs. improving)?
By: Claire Cherril
Photograph by: Jahnavi Ponnolu ’27
Ethical Anaylsis:
“Tutoring Troubles”: Equality vs. Equity
The case of “Tutoring Troubles” raises attention to problems that consistently arise across many schools, the issue of equality versus equity. Lisa’s situation, in which she is seeing herself at a disadvantage compared to peers who can access private tutoring, makes us realize that there is a large problem that schools face: how do you ensure fair access to learning support for all students who are coming from different backgrounds, and have access to varying resources. Equality in this context would mean all students receive the same access to teacher time or other resources, whereas equity considers students’ different circumstances and would be trying to level the playing field. Lisa’s feelings of frustration and concern over falling behind her peers are valid, and show that there are real socioeconomic disparities in education. Her other classmate’s access to private tutoring emphasizes how external resources can create advantages for some students, making it harder for others to compete on equal terms.
Private tutoring within educational settings is a very controversial issue. On one hand, those who can afford it look at it more as an investment, similar to after-school sports or music lessons. It is regarded that if the family can afford the service, they should be free to pursue it. It is usually stressed that schools cannot physically give each student the attention needed, so private tutoring becomes an ideal opportunity for students who do need the extra help. On the other hand, private tutoring expands already existing inequalities since it tends to be used more by wealthy families.
By: Julianna
One's success depends more on the availability of resources rather than on effort or merit. Lisa's case further depicts this problem; classmates are gaining academic privileges which are hard to parallel by herself without a similar socioeconomic background. On the other hand, it is hard to solely put this responsibility on the school, especially if it is a public education. The limitations of these schools support the idea that students who need external support may need additional help through tutors. While families who can afford tutoring are using their autonomy, the broader issue is whether this autonomy is actually unintentionally hurting other students such as Lisa.
To address these inequalities, schools need to work towards equity and inclusion. One proposal is the school-based tutoring system, which can be achieved with free or low-cost after-school programs so that every student can be provided an opportunity for one-on-one support. One of the other more equitable options for schools includes peer tutoring programs in which high-achieving students are used to support their classmates. However, the distribution of even more concrete resources, such as teacher time for individual help, generates problems of its own. Deciding on a fair approach to distributing those resources includes consideration not only of academic need but also of the extent to which students have independent sources of support. For example, those students, such as Lisa, who do not have private tutors, could potentially receive preferential help by teachers.
However, this approach requires careful implementation to avoid stigmatizing students like Lisa. If schools frame these programs as opportunities for all students to receive targeted help, they can prevent students from feeling singled out or labeled. From a utilitarian lens, by implementing these school or peer tutoring programs you can potentially increase the overall well-being of the students, since you are benefiting the greatest number of students. These programs could negatively impact the teachers, so it needs to be considered whether or not the needs of the students outweigh the emotional toll these programs could potentially cause for the teacher. Also considering what duty the teachers have to their students from a deontological framework. Do teachers have a duty to make sure that all of their students are receiving an equal education, and therefore is it necessary for teachers to prioritize students who don’t receive aid outside of school?
The stakeholders in this case extend beyond Lisa and her teacher to include families, school administrators, and broader societal systems. Families have to make the hard decision between the financial sacrifices that would be involved in hiring a tutor for their child and the academic gain their child would receive. For administrators, there is the need to craft policies that distribute limited resources as equitably as possible. Teachers also have to balance dividing time equitably among students at all levels. In many ways, education is just another aspect of society's inequalities, and private tutoring is the stereotype of the privileges that may be extended to families of higher income classes. This has just become even more of a thorn in the skin of the government, given the recent ruling on affirmative action policies, putting greater
By: Julianna Abrantes
pressure on schools to correct inequalities at the K-12 levels once colleges start focusing on individual accomplishments rather than the system's support.
If schools fail to address disparities in access to resources, students like Lisa may face widening gaps in academic performance and opportunities, reinforcing socioeconomic divides. Focusing solely on equality, where resources are given without consideration for the individual student's circumstance, will not resolve these inequities. On the other hand, schools that adopt equity-focused programs, such as expanding access to tutoring or restructuring teacher availability, could create a more inclusive learning environment. Such measures would ensure that every student, regardless of their background, has the tools they need to succeed. Overall, the case of “Tutoring Troubles” shows the importance of balancing equality and equity in education. While private tutoring is a personal choice, schools bear the responsibility of providing resources to all students to ensure a fair chance at success. Programs that prioritize equity, such as free tutoring and teacher support for students without external resources, can address some of the systemic disparities without stigmatizing students. Looking forward, addressing these inequities is necessary for creating a more inclusive educational system that truly attempts to serve the needs of all students.
“Project Leadership” Case Study:
Rosetta is a corporate accountant who has been working at Moonpoint Bank for five years. The work environment is friendly, she feels respected in her position, and she is very content with her job overall. What’s more, is that in the near future, she is expecting an opportunity for a promotion, which will substantially boost her income. One day, she arrives at work early, and overhears a discreet discussion between two people in the hallway. She cannot believe her ears as she hears the offer to sabotage another bank. As she listens further, she realizes that someone is offering the other a deal in
The “Portraits of Empowerment” course at Kent Place School is designed to connect ethics with economics to build strong leadership skills in students. Members of the class analyze real world situations, like the one presented in this case study, through ethical lenses while learning important pieces of economics. They learn to synthesize economics with ethics through group discussions throughout the trimester course.
exchange for meddling in the business of Moonpoint’s rival bank: Northshore Bank. This would give Moonpoint a significant advantage and be highly detrimental to Northshore in the long-term. As an accountant, she has various connections and access to tax information, financial statements, and capital expenditures. Though not explicitly said in the conversation, Rosetta knows that there are many ways that someone could sabotage the other bank such as forging records, false reporting, market exploitation, and leaking confidential information to the media.
One of the voices sounds strikingly similar to her boss, Mack’s, voice. Her suspicions become confirmed when she catches a glimpse of Mack as he walks out of the small hallway they were just speaking in. Now, she wonders: should she whistleblow or not?
On one hand, she cannot brush off the fact that Mack is asking another employee to commit fraud, a both unethical and illegal act. Not to mention, if she did choose to report her boss, she would most likely lose her job and promotion altogether, especially since she recalls workplace speculation of Mack, having a lot of power, acting in retribution regarding insubordinate employees.
Questions to Consider
What are the trade-offs and opportunity costs of Rosetta’s decision? Does it matter if the consequences are short term or long term?
By: Annabelle Chow ’26
How does the value of loyalty play into this case?
If you were Rosetta, what would you do?
On the other hand, Rosetta’s grandfather has been given a “Notice to Quit” for eviction from his home a few months ago. He has not been able to consistently pay his rent, and the landlord has finally put his foot down. He now has three days left on his notice before the city marshal comes to officially evict him. Some of the money gained from her upcoming chance for a promotion could be used to financially support her grandfather, who she loves dearly and wishes to help him keep his home.
As awful as it is, a part of her starts to consider if it would really be that bad then to look the other way and keep silent. She would be helping her family by maintaining her job, something that she does not think should be looked down upon, and the long-term economic damage to Northshore could not possibly outweigh the harm in her grandfather’s situation, could it?
If she doesn’t whistleblow, many people who she personally knows who use Northshore Bank would also be negatively affected should she carry out this offer. Additionally, younger employees under her authority could be influenced by her dishonorable decision, which could damage her reputation, erode the trust they have in her, and complicate her responsibility to be a role model in the workplace.
Rosetta is torn.
What should she do?
Economic Facts About the Case:
In 2023, ransomware attacks on financial services increased to 64%, which is almost double the 34% reported in 2021. In 2021, the total value of ransomware-related incidents reported in BSA (Bank Secrecy Act) filings was nearly $1.2 billion.
According to a 2023 report from the Ponemon Institute, around 55% of financial institutions experienced some form of insider-related incident in the past two years. Insiders often engage in sabotage, fraud, or intellectual property theft. Studies indicate that 37% of respondents say insider attacks are more difficult to detect and prevent than external cyber threats.
Up to one-third of insider-related digital or operational bank sabotage incidents remain unsolved or undetected due to the inherent complexity of tracking digital footprints and the trusted positions of many insiders.
Nearly one-third (31%) of cybersecurity breaches go undetected by IT and security professionals, only becoming apparent when behavior such as dark web activity, file inaccessibility, or performance slowdowns arise.
The Greater Good: The Ethics of Whistleblowing
In the case of “Project Leadership,” Rosetta is conflicted with a difficult decision: should she tell the truth or should she keep quiet? Working as a corporate accountant, she understands the tradeoffs and opportunities of both scenarios. Not only does she desire a promotion for herself and her grandfather, but she also wishes to follow her conscience and expose the unethical and illegal act committed by her boss. It is important to consider that there are several stakeholders involved who will be impacted by her decision. For her, the sacrifice would be her job and promotion; for her grandfather, it would be his living situation. The other employees at Moonpoint Bank and Northshore Bank will likewise be negatively affected if she does not tell the truth, as will the users of the afflicted bank. From the value of responsibility and the framework of utilitarianism, I consider that it is not ethically permissible for Rosetta to keep quiet about Mack’s plan to commit fraud.
Rosetta bears the responsibility to uphold the standard of the workplace, not only as an employee of Moonpoint Bank, but also as a moral individual to report the wrongdoing of others. With access to sensitive tax information, financial statements, and capital expenditures, she holds a position of trust and is charged with maintaining the integrity of her organization. If she chooses to not whistleblow, she would become complicit in the act of fraud even if she herself is not directly engaging in sabotage. By withholding the truth, Rosetta would be undermining the responsibility and confidence given to her by her employers. Complexity arises when it is her own boss who is violating the professional code of ethics. Mack holds a position of power over her, and this power imbalance instills a fear of the potential consequences to her own career. Rosetta considers that it may be reasonable to stay loyal and silent, especially with Mack’s tendency to lash out at insubordination. However, if she fails to act against his ploy to cause harm to another bank, Rosetta would be failing to uphold her duty to do the right thing, despite personal costs.
By: Helen Wu ’25
One may argue that Rosetta also has a responsibility to her own grandfather, who could be evicted if she does not financially support him. To this, I believe that there are other ways Rosetta could help her grandfather that would not be at the expense of numerous stakeholders. Such option include providing him a temporary place to stay at her own residence, aiding him financially through her savings, helping him apply for government aid, or borrowing some money from family members and friends.
We can also look at this situation from the perspective of utilitarianism. Rosetta would be creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people if she reported her boss. Although her promotion would provide temporary financial relief for her grandfather, the long-term consequences of keeping quiet would be detrimental, far outweighing this short-term personal benefit. Sabotaging Northshore could harm thousands of customers who depend on the bank for financial security, lead to loss of employment for Northshore workers, and create economic instability in their community. In addition, Rosetta would be permitting a toxic workplace culture where unethical behavior is tolerated if she allows Mack’s plan to go unchecked. Although she may suffer a personal setback, exposing Mack to higher-ups would protect innocent parties and prevent a major financial crime. Under utilitarianism, the collective benefit of exposing Mack’s plan would justify the personal sacrifice Rosetta would have to make.
Ultimately, Rosetta’s dilemma demonstrates a conflict between personal loyalty and moral duty. While she hopes to support her grandfather, choosing silence would compromise her ethical principles, harm countless others, and allow injustice to continue unchecked. By looking at this case through the lens of responsibility and consequentialism, I conclude that Rosetta should whistleblow for the greater good. Although this comes at a personal cost, this ethical decision reflects the importance of doing what is right, rather than what is easy.
It’s Okay to Be Selfish: Ethics in a Corporate Environment
This case, “Project Leadership”, poses a complex dilemma questioning the validity and ethicality of acting in one’s own self-interest versus prioritizing the wellbeing of a larger group of people, or in this case, a major bank servicing thousands of people. While “whistleblowers” have played essential roles in all fields throughout history, ensuring that major corporations and departments adhere to an ethical code of conduct and avoid unlawful exploitation or sabotage, such benefits have not come without risk to these “whistleblowers” and those closest to them, such as relatives and friends. While in the context of this case, it may seem easiest to claim that the duty to be honest and protect the financial security of others trumps all, two stakeholders and the potential threat to their future add a crucial layer of complexity to this situation: Rosetta and her grandfather. After analyzing these two main stakeholders utilizing the frameworks of ethical egoism and deontology, along with the key ethical values of responsibility and security, I ultimately came to the conclusion that Rosetta should not report her boss’ actions.
As mentioned before, the stakeholder I found most compelling and essential to achieving a fuller understanding of this case is Rosetta. The case states that Rosetta is not only content with her job performance but is also anticipating an opportunity for an important promotion, which is significant for two reasons: first, the promotion would allow for Rosetta to substantially increase her income, not only improving her quality of life but also serving as a “reward” or accomplishment earned through her own hard work and commitment to her career. Furthermore, such promotions are essential in order for Rosetta to eventually climb the corporate ladder, meaning that with this promotion, Rosetta could theoretically be set up to continue achieving higher positions, earning more money, and gaining more respect within the corporation, leading to further career advancements.
When thinking about the impacts of “whistleblowing” on the stakeholder of Rosetta, I specifically considered the values of security and stability. Rosetta’s choice to leak this information about her boss could easily lead to her not only losing this promotion but her job as a whole, as her actions could be viewed by Mack as a form of insubordination.
Within a financial context, such a termination would pose a serious risk to Rosetta’s financial stability and wellbeing, as she is a financially independent individual who would then have to search for a new job while simultaneously attempting to provide for herself; further, a record including claims of insubordination could jeopardize her ability to secure another high-paying job in the future. In this manner, “whistleblowing” would not only deny Rosetta the opportunities posed by the promotion but would threaten her primary source of income and future career as a whole.
The second stakeholder I chose to analyze is Rosetta’s grandfather, an individual who is on the brink of being evicted from his home with no way to pay his rent. Not only is the value of stability clearly in question, with Rosetta’s grandfather at risk of ending up without housing or income, the value of responsibility also becomes relevant in analyzing Rosetta’s role in her grandfather’s life. As the case states, Rosetta loves her grandfather dearly and does not want to see him end up in an unfortunate situation; as such, she plans on using the bonus she would receive from her promotion to help support her grandfather and allow him to get back on his feet. Considering the relationship between the two and the love Rosetta clearly holds for her grandfather, Rosetta feels that she possesses a certain level of responsibility towards her grandfather to help him regain financial stability. Not only would keeping her boss’ secret at work allow her to boost her own status if she acquires the promotion, it would also provide her with an easy avenue to support her grandfather, as he is a major priority in his life.
Due to this, Rosetta’s decision to “whistleblow”, if chosen, would not just impact herself– rather, it would threaten the entire livelihood, health, and safety of her own close relative; in this manner, Rosetta must consider the implications her actions have on others for whom she is technically responsible, and thus, should not jeopardize her grandfather’s basic wellbeing in order to simply alleviate a guilty conscience.
When specifically considering Rosetta’s situation, I chose to view the case through the lens of ethical egoism, a framework which argues that the most ethical course of action for an individual to take is that which benefits themselves; in other words, it claims that individuals should act in their own selfinterest. In this case, the action that would generate the greatest benefit for Rosetta would be to not report her boss, for a variety of reasons: Rosetta would have a fair opportunity to achieve the promotion, boosting her income and giving her more validity as an employee in a corporate environment, and she would fulfill her own desire to care for her grandfather and provide him with a stable lifestyle. As ethical egoism claims that “selfish” actions are still morally and ethically justifiable, I argue that Rosetta would be acting ethically if she chose to keep her findings to herself and do what is presumably best for her own future.
Someone who disagrees with this stance may utilize the framework of deontology – which determines ethicality based on an individual’s set of duties and obligations – to say that Rosetta has a duty to fidelity (to tell the truth) and a duty to care for others. If Rosetta were to lie by omission by failing to report her boss, she would be violating her duty to tell the truth and would therefore be acting dishonestly. Furthermore, Rosetta’s duty to care for others and “do good” means that if she can prevent or mitigate harm done to others, she would have an obligation to do so. In this case, Rosetta knows that the sabotage of Northshore could have major financial impacts on Northshore’s clients, therefore “harming” them. As Rosetta possesses the universal duty to “do good”, she would have to report the incident in order to uphold this duty.
However, when considering the duties that are central to deontology, I also came to understand that there are several duties that Rosetta would be upholding in keeping quiet, while utilizing the same framework. One such duty, the “duty to self”, emphasizes the responsibility one has to care for one’s self and be true to one’s own values despite external pressures.
As Rosetta values the safety of her grandfather as well as her own career (which she has worked hard to advance), in choosing to not “whistleblow” she would be successfully fulfilling this duty to self. Further, in taking the course of action that would allow her to provide her grandfather with a comfortable life, she is upholding her duty to care for others. One must also question: is a lie by omission truly a lie? What defines “fidelity” in the context of a corporate environment? In this manner, as we consider the different interpretations of “duty”, the line between ethical and unethical in a deontological interpretation begins to blur.
“Project Leadership” is an exploration of selfishness, questioning whether acting selfishly is truly always wrong. While societal expectations deem it wholly unethical to act with selfish intentions, in a modern world where individuals face modern problems –paying rent, providing for a family, and advancing a career in increasingly competitive and sophisticated environments – it becomes clear that prioritizing one's own needs isn't always a sign of moral failure, but rather a necessary strategy for survival and selfpreservation. Ultimately, using the framework of ethical egoism while considering the stakeholders of Rosetta and her grandfather, I conclude that Rosetta should not report her boss.
By: Naina
MIDDLE SCHOOL SUBMISSIONS
Ethics and Emotions
“Our emotions do affect our decision making skills, but does it work the other way around too?
In short, what is the connection between emotions and ethics?”
By: Gitanjali
It’s normal to feel sad, joyful, angry, disgusted, or the array of emotions in between. And it’s obvious that these emotions will have some effect, whether negative or positive, on our moral compass and ethical decision-making. But are the effects what we really think they are? Will a negative emotion always result in an unethical decision? Or is the connection between emotions and ethical decisions more complex than we imagine? Our emotions do affect our decision-making skills, but does it work the other way around too? In short, what is the connection between emotions and ethics?
According to the University of Texas at Austin (2025), it is impossible to make any decision without our emotions playing a role in the decision-making process. In the 2025 article “Moral Emotions,” UT Austin researchers explore the differences between outer and innerdirected human emotions and how negative inner-directed emotions (those directed towards ourselves), may actually help us make ethical decisions. According to the article, by feeling shame, embarrassment, or even guilt, one can be motivated to make the ethical choice in our daily interactions. Furthermore, the article argues that outer-directed emotions (those directed towards others), specifically negative ones, that are generally meant to punish others indeed have the tendency to “nudge” others to act in a more ethical way; and our outer-directed positive emotions are almost always a recipe for ethical decision-making. This implies that human emotions can be both a cause and a consequence of ethical decisionmaking.
Ethics and emotion are both present, relevant, and intertwined in our daily life. They influence one another in small, discreet ways that we don’t often notice. However, we might not realize the effect of emotions on our decision-making, big or small. In “How Large Is the Role of Emotion in Judgments of Moral Dilemmas?” by Zachary Horne and Derek Powell for the National Library of Medicine (2016), the authors explain how our emotions are affected by the moral dilemmas we face. Horne and Powell (2016) conducted an experiment with 266 participants where each participant took a pre-test capturing their current emotional state. Afterwards, participants were assigned one moral dilemma each, either personal or impersonal to them, and then took the same test as they did in the beginning to assess their emotions. Participants who were assigned impersonal dilemmas felt emotions less intensely than those who were assigned personal dilemmas. Out of all the participants, study results indicated that very few of them felt positive emotions in reaction to the dilemma. The study results indicated that a participant’s decision-making process while presented with a moral dilemma significantly affected their final emotional state, and not the other way around, i.e. the participant’s initial emotional state did not interfere with their impending decision making on the moral dilemma.
Altogether, it can be said that emotions and ethical decision-making are deeply intertwined, with one almost always influencing the other. While the intensity of emotional responses may vary across people, human emotions and ethical decision-making have always been and will continue to be interdependent. Through acknowledging this interdependence and recognizing our emotional state and how it affects (or is affected by) the decisions we make, we can work towards retaining our moral values and continue to make the ethical choice.
“Through acknowledging this interdependence and recognizing our emotional state and how it affects (or is affected by) the decisions we make, we can work towards retaining our moral values and continue to make the ethical choice.”
By:
SHOULD RESPONSIBLE USE OF BE ALLOWED IN SCHOOLS?
GENERATIVE AI
What is Generative AI?
According to TechTarget.com, ”Generative AI (GenAI) is a type of artificial intelligence technology that can produce various types of content, including text, imagery, audio and synthetic data.”
Why should responsible use of Generative AI in schools should be encouraged?
More often than not, schools and parents have believed that using GenAI in school is wrong; however, some opinions are starting to change. People believe that AI is changing the world for the better and as adults start adapting to it, children should, too. Five reasons that adoption of GenAI is considered to be a useful thing in schools are:
By:
In the past year, the use of Generative AI in schools has been widely debated and highly controversial. One person may argue that Generative AI represents the future for students and that they should start taking advantage of these resources sooner rather than later, believing that it will make them future-ready. On the other hand, relying on Generative AI in schools may negatively impact student learning and overall the education system itself, leaving the future generation behind in society.
1. It can promote creativity in students.
Many people claim that GenAI prevents creativity in students, but the argument can be turned either way. One way that GenAI can promote creativity in students is that it can display new ideas and perspectives to them that they might not have thought of before. It can prove to be a useful tool of inspiration and prompting and help students when their minds have hit a dead end.
2. Generative AI will prepare students for the future.
In today’s world, GenAI is proving to be more useful now than ever before. Many adults have been using the help of GenAI in many instances in their daily lives and some are beginning to think that making it a part of a student’s daily life will prepare them for the future, and it is better to do so sooner rather than later. One major part of school is preparing students for their future and it seems like GenAI is going to become a big part of it, which is all the more reason to encourage responsible GenAI usage in school.
Artwork AI Generated by Canva
3. It could prove to be a valuable method of teaching, in addition to teachers.
All students learn differently and GenAI has many different types of teaching methods that could help each student on a more individualized and personalized level. Some students can find it hard to keep up with lessons whereas others may want to go ahead. GenAI can provide learning support to students who need it and challenge students who are comfortable with the material. If teachers were to teach alongside GenAI, they would be able to offer more time and help to students who need it.
4. It would enhance aspects of the school such as social events, finance, etc.
GenAI wouldn’t just enhance the learning experience in schools, it would also enhance other parts of the school such as social events, finance, and technology. GenAI would easily be able to plan an entire social event, from sending invites out to providing budgeting assistance. GenAI would also be able to predict and manage finances, as well as set up a financial plan for the school.
5. It would allow teachers to offer extra time to students who have more complex questions and need additional help.
Many times when students have questions for a teacher, it can be basic and easily answered by GenAI, the same way a teacher would answer it. Students may spend a significant amount of time emailing a teacher about a simple question and waiting for a response. Other times, students find themselves raising their hands in class, waiting for their teacher to call on them. Some teachers might find that during a free period, they have a long line of students waiting for their help, some with complex questions and in need of extra assistance, and others with simpler questions. If GenAI was allowed in school, students would be able to easily get the answer to a question without wasting time, and they could continue smoothly with their assignments. In addition, AI-generated responses might prove to be clearer and easier to follow compared to a teacher's response. If GenAI was allowed to answer student’s questions, teachers wouldn’t find a long line of students in need of help and would be able to offer more time to those in need of more assistance.
In the end, GenAI may prove to be extremely useful in schools, providing assistance to not only students, but also teachers and the school as a whole itself. For students, it could promote creativity and prepare them for the future. For teachers, it could be a valuable teaching tool and help answer student questions. For the school, it could promote its image and help it refine its aspects such as social events and technology.
Why usage of Generative AI in schools should be strictly prohibited
Many schools have always discouraged Generative AI, and rightfully so. Though GenAI in schools has its benefits, the risks seem to outweigh them. Some negative impacts that Generative AI is believed to have on students, teachers, and schools include misusage, overreliance, and replacement. Here are five reasons why Generative AI should not be allowed in schools:
1. Students should not be allowed to use Generative AI in schools because it can easily be used in an irresponsible way.
A main worry for parents, teachers, and schools alike is that Generative AI will be used in an irresponsible way by students. Things such as plagiarizing a fullywritten essay, or gaining easy answers to questions that are supposed to be thoughtful, could seem far too appealing to students, especially those at an age when the brain isn’t fully developed and some might not know right from wrong. The risk of irresponsible use of GenAI is too high, particularly for adolescents.
2. Overreliance on generative AI for teachers will impact their ability to teach.
Students aren’t the only ones impacted by Generative AI, teachers are too. If encouraged to rely on GenAI, students may start to neglect teachers. Not to mention that adults can also fall into the trap of overusing GenAI. If teachers start relying on GenAI to plan and create lessons or explain topics to students, it can impact their own ability to teach their subject.
3. Generative AI can sometimes provide false information.
One of the most common worries is that GenAI can provide false information to students. Studies show that a small number of GenAI answers have proven to be inaccurate. *Many studies also note that GenAI has a way of seeming confident when presenting information (whether accurate or not) to the recipient, which can make it difficult to tell if the facts are true. If the knowledge a student is receiving from GenAI is wrong, it will have a dire impact on their grades & learning, which is something that schools want to avoid.
4. Generative AI could affect the school’s reputation.
Generative AI will not only negatively affect students and teachers alone, but also the school itself. Some factors that colleges take into consideration are the critical and creative thinking skills of an applicant. If colleges realized that skills such as these were coming from technology rather than the applicant itself, it would look bad for both the student and the school. In addition, parents of the students expect that guidance is coming from teachers and that the students are learning to think for themselves. They might not appreciate the fact that their child is gaining all their knowledge and ideas from GenAI.
5. Overreliance on Generative AI may negatively student’s thinking and learning ability.
Overreliance on GenAI can easily become unhealthy for a student if they continuously (are encouraged to) depend on it. If a student keeps gaining answers or ideas from GenAI, their ability to think and learn for themselves will become weak. This will not only affect their lives in school, but out of school as well. One point of going to school is to develop thinking and learning skills, but relying on GenAI will do the opposite.
In my own experience, GenAI has been strongly discouraged in school. I have used it outside of school though, and I confirm that it is extremely helpful and has given many perspectives and ideas that I would have never thought about before. Though it is useful, I can also see how it would be very easy to misuse, causing more issues than it was thought to be able to solve. In the end, GenAI has its pros and cons when it comes to its role in a school, but the question is: which one outweighs the other? Will GenAI offer specialized tools for students while preparing them for the future, and provide extra teaching resources to teachers? Or will it ruin a school’s reputation, create more problems than it solves for students, and slowly replace teachers in their jobs? No one knows what the outcome will be, but should we try and use GenAI in schools, regardless?
Balancing Autonomy and Accountability:
The Ethical Dilemma of Social Media’s Impact on Student Potential
In today’s digital age, students spend an increasing amount of time on social media, with studies showing that the average teenager spends approximately three hours a day on these platforms. As social media becomes an increasingly prominent part of their daily lives, concerns have emerged about how it may affect their academic potential. The impact on mental health, concentration, and cognitive development is raising important questions about whether educators and parents should intervene to regulate its use. Ultimately, I believe it is essential for students to learn how to navigate social media responsibly and with accountability.
A key ethical issue is the balance between personal freedom and academic responsibility. I believe that we, as students, should have the autonomy to manage many aspects of our life as we grow into more independent individuals throughout our time in school. However, problems arise when this freedom and behavior negatively impacts our academic performance. This brings us to the question of whether students should have full control over their social media usage, or if it is the responsibility of parents and teachers to intervene to protect the student’s success. Additionally, while some might argue that limiting social media use hinders a student’s ability to develop social skills, others believe that intervention is a necessary step to prevent distractions that can impact success in the long run. I feel that there is a point at which personal autonomy must be balanced with responsibility, particularly when a student’s future is at risk.
A concerning aspect of social media is its impact on cognitive and emotional development. Constant use can impair attention span, critical thinking, creativity, and patience, to name a few. Studies have shown that addiction to social media can contribute to mental health issues such as depression and anxiety. Moreover, social media addiction conditions the brain to seek quick rewards and instant gratification, while also weakening the ability to retain information for long periods of time.
The dopamine-driven algorithms on social media platforms encourage and reinforce mindless scrolling, which is a significant cause of procrastination among adolescents. From my own experience, I can attest to the impact this can have. Given these clear consequences, I think it seems reasonable to limit social media exposure. It’s important to recognize that students may not always be aware of how social media harms their academic performance and wellbeing. If it is significantly affecting their ability to focus or manage stress, limiting exposure becomes an ethical responsibility in order to protect their overall development.
The societal influence of social media also cannot be ignored. Social media is not merely a distraction–it has become a cultural norm that shapes how students interact with the world and construct their personal identities. I don’t think it’s ethical to expect students to fully disengage from social media, especially given its role in their social lives and future careers. Social media platforms are essential for networking, learning, and exposing people to new ideas. Therefore, the ethical question is not about banning social media, but rather finding the right way to balance engagement with commitment.
I also acknowledge that social media has positive aspects when used appropriately. For many students, it serves as a valuable educational tool, offering access to a wealth of resources and opportunities to connect with peers and experts. It fosters collaboration and creativity in ways that traditional classroom settings may not. However, I think it’s vital to recognize both the benefits and the risks associated with social media use. Instead of imposing outright bans, a more effective solution may lie in simply promoting responsible use.
Educators and parents play a crucial role in guiding students towards behaviors that support and benefit their well-being and academic success. When social media becomes a significant distraction, I believe it is ethically justifiable for adults to step in. In fact, I see it as their duty to help students understand the potential harms of excessive screen time, particularly its effect on focus and mental health. While respecting a student’s autonomy is important, there are times when intervention is essential–not to control aspects of a student’s life, but to help them make choices that lead to long term-success.
“BY PROMOTING HEALTHY HABITS AND SETTING BOUNDARIES, WE CAN ENSURE THAT SOCIAL MEDIA BECOMES A TOOL FOR SUCCESS RATHER THAN A BARRIER TO IT.”
In conclusion, while social media undeniably presents clear challenges to students’ academic success, it also offers valuable opportunities for learning and personal growth. The ethical dilemma lies in determining the appropriate level of intervention and balancing students’ autonomy with their responsibility to succeed academically. In my view, educators and parents should not restrict social media use entirely, but instead, should guide students in making responsible choices. By promoting healthy habits and setting boundaries, we can ensure that social media becomes a tool for success, rather than an obstacle to it.
Artwork secured from Unsplash
WORKS CITED
Peeling Back the Layers: Exploring Art, Ethics, and the Value of a Duct-Taped Banana
Katz, Brigit, and Tina Brown. “The Infamous Art Basel Banana Is Headed to the Guggenheim.” Smithsonian Magazine, 10 December 2019, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/peeling-back-banana-drama-art-basel-miami-beach-180973733/. Accessed 25 November 2024.
Kuta, Sarah. “That Viral Banana Duct-Taped to a Wall? It Just Sold for $6.2 Million.”
Smithsonian Magazine, 21 November 2024, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/thatviral-banana-duct-taped-to-a-wall-it-just-sold-for-6-2-million-180985523/. Accessed 25 November 2024.
Small, Zachary. “Who's Laughing Now? Banana-as-Art Sells for $6.2 Million at Sotheby's.” The New York Times, 21 November 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/arts/design/cattelanbanana-sothebys-auction.html. Accessed 25 November 2024.
Genome Engineering: Revolutionary or Ruinous?
"Human genome editing." World Health Organization, www.who.int/health-topics/humangenome-editing. Accessed 26 Nov. 2024.
"Human Genome Editing: As we explore options for global governance, caution must be our watchword." World Health Organization, www.who.int/news/item/08-11-2019-human-genomeediting-as-we-explore-options-for-global-governance-caution-must-be-our-watchword. Accessed 26 Nov. 2024.
"WHO issues new recommendations on human genome editing for the advancement of public health." World Health Organization, www.who.int/news/item/12-07-2021-who-issues-newrecommendations-on-human-genome-editing-for-the-advancement-of-public-health. Accessed 26 Nov. 2024.
The Price of Drugs: Longer and Better Lives … But at What Cost? An Ethical Analysis of the United States Pharmaceutical Industry and Drug Pricing
BioNJ. bionj.org/bionj-statements/. Accessed 29 May 2024.
LaMattina, John L. Pharma and Profits Balancing Innovation, Medicine, and Drug Prices. Newark, John Wiley and Sons, 2022.
"Nearly 7 in 10 Americans Are on Prescription Drugs." Science Daily, 19 June 2013, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130619132352.htm. Accessed 29 May 2024.
"Study Finds Biopharmaceutical Innovation Is Responsible for 35% of the Increase in Life Expectancy from 1990 to 2015." PhRMA, edited by Gabby Migliara, 21 Oct. 2020, https://phrma.org/blog/study-finds-biopharmaceutical-innovation-is-responsible-for-35-of-theincrease-in-life-expectancy-from-1990-to-2015. Accessed 29 May 2024.
Case Study: Project Leadership
Cybersecurity Insiders. "Insider Threat Report – New Data Shows Spike in Insider Attacks in 2024." Cybersecurity Insiders, https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/2024-insider-threatreport/. Accessed Apr. 2025.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. "FinCEN Analysis Reveals Ransomware Reporting in BSA Filings Increased Significantly During the Second Half of 2021." FinCEN News, 1 Nov. 2022, www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-analysis-reveals-ransomware-reporting-bsafilings-increased-significantly. Accessed Apr. 2025.
Mahendru, Puja. "The State of Ransomware in Financial Services 2023." Sophos News, 13 July 2023, news.sophos.com/en-us/2023/07/13/the-state-of-ransomware-in-financial-services-2023. Accessed Apr. 2025.
Security Solutions Magazine. "Survey reveals nearly one-third of security breaches are undetected by IT and security professionals." Security Solutions Media, 30 June 2023, www.securitysolutionsmedia.com/2023/06/30/survey-reveals-nearly-one-third-of-securitybreaches-are-undetected-by-it-and-security-professionals. Accessed Apr. 2025.
Sullivan, Bob. "Cost Of Insider Risks Global Report — 2023." Ponemon Sullivan Report, 14 Oct. 2023, ponemonsullivanreport.com/2023/10/. Accessed Apr. 2025.
Ethics and Emotions
"Moral Emotions." Ethics Unwrapped, University of Texas at Austin, 2025, https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-emotions. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.
Horne Z, Powell D. How Large Is the Role of Emotion in Judgments of Moral Dilemmas? PLoS One. 2016 Jul 6;11(7):e0154780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154780. PMID: 27385365; PMCID: PMC4934695.
Should Responsible Use of Generative AI be Allowed in Schools?
"How (In) Accurate Is Generative AI?" TechBetter, 16 June 2024, https://www.techbetter.ai/post/how-in-accurate-is-generative-ai. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.
Lawton, George. "What Is Gen AI? Generative AI Explained." TechTarget, Oct. 2024, www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/generative-AI. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.
Balancing Autonomy and Accountability: The Ethical Dilemma of Social Media’s Impact on Student Potential
French, David. "Florida Has Barred Kids' Using Social Media, but It Won't Be That Simple." The New York Times, New York Times Company, 28 Mar. 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/opinion/social-media-government-jonathan-haidt.html.
Accessed 08 January 2025.
Ahmed, Kamran. "From TikTok to Reels: How Short-Form Media Is Getting Children Hooked." Stage Music Center, 19 Sept. 2023, https://stagemusiccenter.com/music-school-blog-winchesteracton-ma/2023/9/15/from-tiktok-to-reels-how-short-form-media-is-getting-children-hooked Accessed 09 January 2025.
Mandal, Ananya. "What Is Dopamine?" Edited by April Cashin-Garbutt. News Medical Life Sciences, AZoNetwork,https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Dopamine.aspx. Accessed 09 January 2025.
“Woman in dress holding sword figurine photo – Free Law Image on Unsplash.” Unsplash, 20 May 2020, https://unsplash.com/photos/woman-in-dress-holding-sword-figurine-yCdPU73kGSc.
SPECIAL THANKS TO THE KENT PLACE ETHICS INSTITUTE, MRS CONTI, AND DR REZACH FOR GUIDING LODESTAR IN ITS INAUGURAL EDITION
