The ethical concern of the proposed study is the “generalized victimization.” In social sciences, the ethical codes requires that an individual be held for the crimes committed on a unilateral basis and not the perception of considering the race that the person who has committed crime is affiliated as a criminal group. The plan to prove that there is a positive and direct correlation between an entire racial group and crime is wrong because it is practically impossible for all the members of a given race to be involved in criminal activities. Hypothetically, even if the highest number of individuals from a particular race, let’s say, 90%, were involved in crime, there will still remain about 10% of them who are law-abiding. Therefore, the generalization of linking race to the incidence of committing crime is unjustifiable as it promotes distributive injustice, which is socially unethical.
Response to Sample Proposal 2
The aim of the study to determine the effectiveness of using of electroshock therapy to resolve disciplinary issues in adolescents and preteens raises the ethical concern is the “associated side effects on human health.” Electroshock induces seizures in psychiatric treatment electrically to provide relief from several mental disorders. Though the ultimate goal of the therapy is a positive one, the involved processes cause severe effects on the users. The adolescents and preteens whose abnormal and delinquent behaviors may be contributed by major depressive disorders such as Catatonia, Mania, and Schizophrenia may benefit from the electroshock. However, the negative effects likely to be experienced cannot be ignored as they can be severe to an extent of requiring medication. The therapy is, therefore, linked with unethical situations because those involved often experience jaw pain, muscle ache, nausea, and headache when subjected to its treatment.
Response to Sample Proposal 3
The ethical concern for the proposed objective of the study is that it is “more theoretical-oriented than practically-based.” It aims to explain relationship between health problems and socioeconomic status based on the proposal that those with lower incomes mostly encounter such fatal diseases as heart diseases, obesity, and diabetes due to the inability to afford to quality foods. However, what raises the concern is the lack practical applicability and evidence in the real life situations because the proposal is contrary to prevalent truth. Currently, those with higher incomes suffer the most from these diseases than those with lower incomes despite eating the foods deemed as “high-quality diet.”
