Knowledge itself is actually neutral, it is neither good, nor bad. It can be partially evaluated only after it has been obtained and applied by a person, assessing the means how the knowledge has been obtained and the consequences that have occurred after applying the knowledge. However, even then the evaluation is very subjective, as the criteria of good and bad may vary, depending from the society, which is the judge in most cases, and in fact all the knowledge can be used in both, good and the bad way. As knowledge is neutral, all of it should be sought, but the attention should be paid to the way it is being used.
The first step is obtaining the knowledge. Different knowledge can be acquired in different ways and there are also ways that cause a lot of harm and damage. A serious decision has to be made, if one sees that the output of a particular knowledge brings a lot of impairment. The person has to try to prognosticate whether the knowledge obtained will be worth all the victims and damages, or better the output of the knowledge should be cancelled, because the knowledge will of a smaller value than everything lost in the search of it. I think that an example that would brightly represent such situation is the case of researches made by doctors – researchers aiming to find a new kind of medicine. When the researchers see that their experiments with the new drugs cause more and more harm, for example an increasing amount of people on whom the experiments were made are dieing, they have to make a serious decision. The researchers have to decide, whether the final, improved sort of drugs will save lives of more people than were killed in the study process or maybe there is no point in continuing the experiments as there will be no usage of the medicine anyway.…
