“What is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes rejected tomorrow. » Consider the knowledge issues raised by this statement in two areas of knowledge. Knowledge is constantly changing in the world, so the acceptance of knowledge changes daily. The questions raised by the statement are determined by what determines the acceptance of knowledge. In ethics, people decide to accept right and wrong. People change every day and such change alters the acceptance of what is right and wrong in ethics. Meanwhile, in the natural sciences, evidence supports what constitutes knowledge until new evidence modifies current knowledge, rejecting prior knowledge. Therefore, in ethics and the natural sciences, this continuous change in knowledge raises many knowledge questions. The reason ethics change every day is because of the way people constantly evolve their judgment. For example, what was considered a bad word 50 years ago would no longer be considered 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 and what is not, such as the death penalty. In the United States, 32 out of 50 states apply the death penalty. All 18 states that do not currently have capital punishment did. Therefore, capital punishment was once accepted by these 18 states, but it has now been abandoned by these states. At one point, citizens of the state voted to abolish capital punishment. This would imply that the majority is the one who decides what is accepted as ethical knowledge in this situation. This causes each side, for or against capital punishment, to debate whether or not capital punishment is justified to buy time...... middle of paper...... that's why we have demystified the knowledge and idea of ​​an “edge of the earth” and was replaced by: the earth is round. This change in knowledge strongly influences many of the knowledge problems that arise. 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 our own interests? This is clearly demonstrated in the evidence of domestic surveillance due to fear of terrorism that has allowed countries to violate an ethical code of confidentiality for the collective security of the country. Furthermore, if knowledge is capable of being influenced and modified, how can it be considered knowledge? Because in ethics, if taking one's privacy is wrong but it must be accepted for the safety of the majority, then has privacy always been there?