This is truly the era of AI.
Until now, we have been pondering how to utilize science and technology to enrich human life, and as a result, we live in a world where the limits of technology are being updated every day.
But what is the world like now?
Now, humans have reached a point where they cannot survive even a single day without the help of AI and science and technology.
The world of the future will be the same.
Those who fail to adapt to new technologies will become increasingly marginalized, and people will become insensitive to AI and technology in controlling their environment and life.
'Applied Ethics' gives us food for thought in modern society where this tendency is becoming increasingly severe.

Applied ethics, which emerged in the 1960s amidst environmental movements and criticism of science and technology, is now divided into life, environment, information, AI robots, neurology, and technology/research ethics, intervening in our daily lives and decisions.
From a consent form in a hospital room, to a lab worksheet, to a line of code from a developer, to a single sentence in a policy, every decision we make invokes ethics.
This book does not lightly touch on the formation of applied ethics and current issues, but rather addresses key questions in each dilemma, leading readers to develop their own criteria for judgment.
In a world of evolving technology and shifting values, what criteria should we use to make decisions? This book offers a clue and aims to help members of society make responsible decisions.

Ethics that deals with practical issues is called applied ethics or practical ethics, in distinction from classical normative ethics.
In particular, the development of science and technology has had a great influence on the birth and activation of applied ethics.
That is, new ethical issues implied by the development of science and technology have brought about a revival of applied ethics.
--- From "Introduction: Is Science Free from Ethics"

To put it more bluntly, the rights discourse contains a 'moral sneer' or 'moral ridicule' that attempts to label women who demand the right to choose abortion as 'bad egoists'.
However, both women who have abortions and women who do not have abortions respect the fetus.
“The fetus is not a rights contestant facing the mother.
“The fetus and the mother are connected and more interdependent than anyone else…”
--- From Chapter 1, The Ethics of Abortion: Does the Right to Abortion Help Liberate Women?

However, the lack of an ethical consensus does not mean that agreement at the policy, legal, or institutional level is impossible.
Or, more precisely, we need to reach a social consensus on laws and systems regarding some ethical questions surrounding assisted reproductive medicine between non-spouses.
--- From “Chapter 2, Ethics of Surrogacy: What are the ethical issues of surrogacy?”

So, even though the embryo has no moral status and is not currently a party to the conflict, it has a 'future interest' in its future self.
And because we have a moral obligation to the future interests of others, it is morally wrong to harm a developing fetus, even if the mother has the right to terminate a pregnancy.
--- From "Chapter 3, Ethics of Embryo Adoption: Is Embryo Adoption Ethically Permissible?"

No one knows whether this will be a boon or a bane to humanity.
Because nature and God are omnipotent, but humans are not.
God knows not only yesterday and today, but also tomorrow.
(Omitted) Compared to God and nature, which are infinite beings, humans are finite, so it is questionable whether humans have the wisdom to lead the entire universe beautifully as the main characters of evolution.
Even if the universe were to do so, would it be able to make choices that would benefit us, even humanity? I can't guarantee it.
But doesn't that mean we can't experiment on humans? Who will take responsibility?
--- From “Chapter 4, Ethics of Gene Editing: Can Genetic Scissors Be Used Ethically?”

Therefore, we must ask how IVF and human cloning differ in terms of outcomes rather than processes.
A human being born through in vitro fertilization has no ontological difference from a human being born naturally.
So what about cloned humans? Their genes are identical to those of the "original human" who provided the nucleus.
It is no exaggeration to say that the debate over human cloning is a difference in interpretation of the meaning of this biological fact.
The representative philosophical problems raised by genetic identity are the questions of personal identity and individuality.
--- From "Chapter 5, Ethics of Human Cloning: Is it Possible to Have Children Using Somatic Cell Cloning?"

Euthanasia must be distinguished from natural death, from accidental death, and from suicide or homicide.
Of course, it is difficult to generalize, but euthanasia usually has an element of suicide in the sense that the patient himself wants to die, but it also has an element of homicide in the sense that the doctor actually carries out the death without killing himself.
Even if suicide is ethically acceptable, euthanasia is ethically problematic precisely because a third party is involved.
--- From “Chapter 6, The Ethics of Euthanasia: Do Humans Have the Right to Die”

But today, the question of who is the subject of environmental justice is entering a new phase.
It is precisely the extension of the scope of justice.
That is, some scholars argue that because animals also have the qualifications of subjects of justice, environmental goods should be distributed fairly to animals as well.
We call this ecological justice.
In this case, there are four subjects of justice.
First is the individual, second is the nation, third is future generations, and finally fourth is animals.
--- From “Chapter 7, Environmental Ethics: Why and How Should We Protect the Environment”

The fundamental question of cyberethics—“Should ethics apply to cyberspace?”—has two philosophical implications.
One is a critical question: “Does the current application of ethics to cyberspace truly have a philosophical foundation?” The other is an ethical question: “Is it truly ethically desirable to apply ethics to cyberspace?”
Ethics arise from the real interactions between people. Cyberspace is literally nothing more than a "virtual space," so why should such ethics apply? This raises ontological questions about cyberspace.
Nevertheless, most everyday people, without considering these philosophical questions, apply the ethics applied in real space to cyberspace and create various ethical rules.
--- From Chapter 8, Cyber ​​Ethics: Should We Be Ethical in Cyberspace?

There is concern that acknowledging the ethical decisions of machines is itself a deviation from humanity, and that this deviation will lead to the 'deskilling' of moral faculties, that is, the decline of human moral judgment.
Since most people no longer think ethically about ethical dilemmas, the problem of moral decision paralysis may arise.
Of course, if 'we all' blindly trust robots' ethical decisions, these concerns seem valid.
But this is nothing more than a slippery slope argument. These concerns about the future of AI robots are a kind of suicidal prophecy.
Looking at human history, we can see that humans have progressed and developed through each crisis.
--- From Chapter 9, Robot Ethics: Can AI Robots Make Ethical Decisions?

Genetics and genomics have provided fertile ground for various ethical reflections on human nature.
However, the relationship between the brain and the self is much more direct than the relationship between genes and the individual.
Although the distinct characteristics of behavior are determined by genes, the areas that are integrated with behavior are located in the brain.
If we can infer behavior through images or manipulate it through the implantation of neural tissue or devices, neurotechnology will fundamentally alter the dynamics between individual subjectivity, responsibility, and free will in ways that genetics has never attempted.
Indeed, neurotechnology as a whole is challenging our sense of humanity and providing society with new tools for judging it.
--- From "Chapter 10, Neuroethics: Does Free Will Really Exist?"

More than any other technology, AI robots possess multiple identities, requiring practical wisdom from humans to use them in an ethically good way.
The so-called "five major problems of AI ethics"—AI bias, AI errors and safety, AI misuse, privacy, and killer robots—clearly demonstrate that AI robots can lead to ethical good, but can also lead to ethical evil.
53 Above all, Bareback's mediation theory clearly demonstrates the importance of design ethics for AI robots.
--- From “Chapter 11, Technological Ethics: Is Technology Just a Tool for Ethics Implementation?”

Adhering to research ethics and exploring research ethics are separate questions.
Of course, scientists can also explore research ethics, and it is clear that they are better suited to explore research ethics than anyone else.
However, to ensure objectivity and fairness in research ethics, an open attitude is needed in which scientists and social scientists in the humanities and social sciences seek to conduct interdisciplinary research together.
In other words, scientists must humbly acknowledge that they are experts in science, not in ethics, and, as "reflective scientists," they must discuss scientific ethics and research ethics with social scientists and the general public, thereby achieving the "democratization of science."
If research ethics are not secured through this deliberation process, the question of the legitimacy of "dirty hands," a hot topic in political philosophy, may be raised among scientists, and scientific research activities themselves may be damaged.

--- From Chapter 12, Research Ethics: Why Research Needs Ethics