“What is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow.” Let us consider the knowledge issues raised by this statement in two areas of knowledge. Knowledge is constantly evolving in the world, so the acceptance of knowledge changes daily. The issues raised by the statement are determined by what determines the acceptance of knowledge. In ethics, people decide the acceptance of right and wrong. People change every day, and that change alters the acceptance of right and wrong in ethics. Meanwhile, in the natural sciences, evidence supports what is knowledge until new evidence alters current knowledge, discarding previous knowledge. Therefore, in ethics and natural sciences, this continuous change in knowledge raises many knowledge problems. The reason ethics change every day is because of how people constantly evolve judgment. For example, what was considered a bad word 50 years ago would no longer be a bad word today. The justification for why such an event occurs is due to the human judgment of the people as a whole. As a collective group, people judge what is ethical or unethical, such as the death penalty. In the United States, 32 out of 50 states provide capital punishment. The 18 states that currently do not provide for capital punishment do provide it. Therefore, capital punishment was once accepted by these 18 states, but now it has been discarded by those states. At one point, the citizens of the state voted to abolish capital punishment. This would imply that the majority are the ones who decide what is accepted as ethical knowledge in this situation. This causes each side, for or against capital punishment, to argue whether or not capital punishment is justified to gain s…… middle of paper…force has debunked the knowledge and idea of ​​an “edge of the earth” and was replaced with: the earth is round. This change in knowledge heavily influences many knowledge problems that occur. In ethics, a question might be: “Can our values ​​change our perception of things?” (timwoods.org). If values ​​can change what we consider right and wrong, then can't emotions also influence our ethical codes to benefit one's self-interest? This is clearly demonstrated by evidence on domestic surveillance due to fear of terrorism which has allowed countries to break a privacy code of ethics for the collective security of the country. Furthermore, if knowledge is capable of being influenced and altered, how can it be considered knowledge? Because in ethics, if taking care of one's privacy is wrong but must be accepted for the safety of the majority, then privacy is always present?