You are all embarking on a mission of discovery. You are teaching yourself about a topic of science that is controversial in nature. So far, you should have 4 resources. After doing some background reading and taking some notes, tell us about your topic and how the science being developed is meeting controversy. Are humans taking the science and using it unethically? Are humans taking a gift from God and using it against what his will and intent for it may have been? Is the science using unethical approaches to develop the discovery? Give us a quick summary of your topic and then discuss some of the facets of applying ethics to topic you chose. This blog post should be AT LEAST 300 words.
Was Jesus in fact God in the flesh? The first thing we have to know is how we humans came to existence. Chapter 1 of Genesis states that God created everything and that God did it all in 7 days. It talks about how men and women were created. People often interpret the Bible literally instead of symbolically. Charles Darwin introduced the Theory of Evolution in 1859 in his book, “On the Origin of Species”. His theory states that it, “is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.” Most people believe that the theory of evolution and the theory that God created everything are not compatible, that you are on one side or on the other side, however they are more connected than people perceive them to be. Humans have no perception of God's time, one day to God can be 10 thousand years to us. There is no denying the fact that Jesus lived on this earth but people have a hard time believing that he was God in the flesh and that there is even a God at all. Mark 10:6 states, “But from the beginning of creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” People look at this quote and interpret it to come to the conclusion that either Jesus was a liar or that evolution is a lie, however, neither are the case and that the theory of evolution coincides with that of God creating everything. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of 6 fragments of writing found in and around the Dead Sea. These scrolls don't say anything about Jesus, per say, but the scrolls do tell us about the Jewish lifestyle in and around Jesus time and that can correlate to what is written about in the Bible to prove the authenticity of the story's told.
ReplyDeleteVery well said Alex. Your topic is very interesting. I look forward to what you are going to do with your topic for the main essay.
DeleteInteresting topic! Many people deny the faith because many believe Jesus never existed, but here you want to challenge that with historical evidence. This has the potential to be a great essay!
DeleteMy topic involves neuroscience and how the video game industry is abusing it. According to Georgetown University, “neuroscience is the study of the brain and its impact on cognitive functions.” Over the years, companies have figured out how to advertise their products so they seem more attractive to the human mind. For example, an advertiser may also say a product is discounted to make the deal sound better, when in reality the discount is just making an overpriced product slightly cheaper. These tactics are used to trick the brain into saying, “I need that!” or “Now is the perfect time to buy!” Neuroscience and advertising manipulates the brain for the best interest of the consumer. A company that produces medicine will use methods to make their medicine look like the best option because they care for the customer’s health. But some think profit is more important, which leads to problems. Of course, businesses need to make a profit to stay alive, but there comes a point when it becomes greed instead of survival.
ReplyDeleteThe video game industry is a prime example of survival gone to greed. Electronic Arts (EA) is the company responsible for the FIFA series of games. Currently, major games like those in the FIFA series are estimated to be produced with 80 million dollars. Despite the production cost, a large profit is made. Making money is not a bad thing, but how it’s done is where the problem lies. In less than a month after the game’s release, ten million copies of FIFA 20 had been sold. FIFA 20 costs 60 dollars, which is 600 hundred million dollars from people just buying the game in one month. But according to EA, that is not enough. The most popular feature: FIFA Ultimate Team; is the real money maker. Essentially, consumers use real money to buy a currency known as “FIFA Points” to purchase packs, which give players, to form a soccer team to beat other people’s teams. These packs give players at random, and as a result some people end up with better players than others. This makes people who lose to someone with better players want to spend more money to get better players. This principle is described by Touro University as “loss aversion,” which is a tactic to get people to spend more money because the consumer would rather feel the satisfaction of winning than the pain of losing. This is one of many tactics used to trick the brain into thinking that a person needs to spend more in order to find enjoyment. EA has a monopoly on soccer video games, so if players want to enjoy digital soccer, they have to deal with whatever EA does.
The CDC says video game addiction is a real problem, and it is even classified as a disease, much similar to an alcohol or drug addiction. The addiction is a player’s enjoyment, and companies essentially make people pay more in order to satisfy their addiction. The fact that video game companies would willingly take advantage of the brain’s mental weaknesses for profit is the exact opposite of what neuroscience is for. Neuroscience was created to understand the brain, and figure out how to improve someone’s quality of life. Video game companies use it to make extra money, while putting the customers well-being as an afterthought.
Very interesting, Tanner! I had no idea that video games could affect someone so much, or that the addiction was so similar to drugs or alcohol. Nice job!
DeleteGreat analysis Tanner! I agree that the video game industry has been the most effective at being greedy. Almost every game requires purchases for items. Gaming systems also take part as the cost for online subscriptions has significantly grown over time.
DeleteGreat job Tanner! I thought your stats helped tie the whole essay together because it helped bring light to the real shocking numbers out there. I never thought that FIFA made that much total! Overall, amazing job!
DeleteGood job Tanner! I like this topic because people don’t think “video games” when it comes to addiction and disease. But this paper shows that there are real issues in the video game industry.
DeleteMy topic is about how the mind, spirit and body are interconnected with each other. The body and the mind are both complicated entities that are hard to understand. Companies can use the knowledge about the different ways mind and body are connected to manipulate people into buying their product and keep buying their products.
ReplyDeleteCompany’s can use the fact that the mind and body are connected and it can even become unethical. A person driving down the highway can see an ad for a hamburger and their mouth starts watering. Even though they know that fast food isn’t good for them, their stomach starts to growl. Since the mind and body are connected, that person is more likely to pull over and get the food, since the body wants it. Advertising companies are using the body’s desire for food, and the desire that it tastes good to get the mind, the person, to get food. This way of advertising is debatably unethical but in moderation, doesn’t hurt the body. In extreme cases, when drug companies and cartels use the body and the mind to start addiction to buy their product is when it starts to become unethical. Once the drug becomes a physical dependency, the mind follows shortly after, causing a serious addiction. An example of this is when a person first tries a drug and the physical effects feel great until they keep using until they believe that they can’t go without it.
God intended for the intertwining of the mind and body is necessary for our survival. When someone is hungry, they eat. That is the intended use. When people start to take advantage of addictive effects it becomes unethical. Manipulating people's body’s to become mentally addicted is used too often, even subconsciously, and most likely won’t stop.
Good work, Lani! I really enjoyed the part where you discuss how the mind and body disagree on what is best for you, even though there is a clear answer. Very thought provoking!
DeleteThis is very interesting, Lani! I think that you used great examples for showing how the mind and body are connected. There was a big contrast between the two examples, because one seemed harmless while the other was more extreme.
DeleteI love the philosophical approach you take with this topic because it deals with some of the biggest components of what makes us human. The tie into the current day with abuse from companies should make this a great paper!
DeleteShould religion affect how animals are treated? Is there a set point in which mistreatment is established as cruelty? Many people believe differently about how animals are treated based on their personal beliefs. Religion is a huge factor. Through the teachings that animals don’t have souls, some are driven to abuse those animals. However, many other groups, such as the indigenous communities, push for respect for the animals. Some organizations, completely unrelated to religion, feel that animals should not be utilized by humans in any way. All of these opinions clash and create controversy.
ReplyDeleteHuman survival relies upon the agricultural industry, and it’s production of meat and produce. As the human population swelled, the need for efficiency in this industry also rose. This caused new techniques of farming such as CAFOs, encouraging overcrowding of land, abuse, and increased use in antibiotics. So with big agriculture seeming dirty and evil, everyone turns to the local farmer. These land plots are ethical and much kinder to the animal. It encourages support for local businesses and promotes a biblical lifestyle.
Religion plays a big role in agriculture. Throughout the bible, this lifestyle is preached about, understood, and used as an example. It’s recognized that the farmer tils God’s land and cares for the animals to keep the human race afloat. Freedom of religion is a basic right in the U.S., allowing everyone to have differing beliefs in how to approach farming and how to treat the animals. Although the bible promotes small, ethical farming, it also shares that animals have no souls. Some religions, such as smaller amish and mennonite communities, treat the animals as property because of this. The animals are abused and not respected in some cases. This invokes the question, does establishing a point of animal cruelty go against the right to freedom of religion? Is there an objective truth of when it becomes cruelty or abuse?
Lovely summary Gina! I was very shocked about the different approaches taken by different religions on the topic of animal treatment while farming. The process of farming has taken place and the introduction of religion within the process is eye opening.
DeleteGina, I really like your topic! I think it will be interesting to find out about how other people view animals and how other cultures differ from our own, especially in an agricultural sense, I also love how logically you approached this idea, and love your biblical ties!
DeleteI like your topic Gina! I love the thought provoking question of wether or not there is objective truth of animals cruelty! The mention of other religions is also a great point.
DeleteI have decided to research the topic of aesthetic or cosmetic surgery and how it has resurrected many issues regarding ethics within the medical profession. The practice of plastic and reconstructive surgery has helped many people with illnesses such as skin cancers and disfiguring congenital abnormalities. Ethical issues come into play as the demand for these procedures has risen. Society has grown overtime to become more and more concerned with visual aesthetics. Celebrities with perfect jawlines and symmetrical faces are put into the spotlight in the entertainment industry. This popularity has led to the rise of many ethical issues such as the respect for autonomy, beneficence, and social considerations.
ReplyDeleteHumans have taken the skills of surgical procedures and they are now being used for pleasure whenever people feel the need to “go under the knife”. This is seen as a disrespect for autonomy by medical professionals. It is seen as a waste of time and skill. These surgeries are being performed as there are citizens whose procedures are due to illness or genetic disorders. These procedures are respected. The purely aesthetic surgeries such as breast augmentations or lip injections can lead to long term adverse effects on the body’s health. Many disagree that years of medical research and testing should not have led to the creation of an industry filled with surgeons whose only goal is to collect money from celebrities and normal citizens in order to “give them confidence”. This shallow definition of confidence can come at a huge price as the future of the patient's health is at risk.
The gift of reconstruction surgery is known to be morally good as it was originally developed as a way to eliminate illness of the skin and to help the body perform necessary functions such as nose jobs helping those with a deviated septum to breathe through their nose. Catholic Answers approached a question of whether it was a sin to receive a surgery to remove stomach fat was a sin. There did not seem to be a straightforward answer for that question. The response included a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for its sake, to idolize physical perfection” (2289). The ethical issue was stated perfectly as the idolization of physical perfection. Sacrificing everything for the sake of perfection puts us at the will of the cult of the body. I believe that the gift of cosmetic surgery and considering it needs to begin with contemplation of the statement that God made us in his own image and likeness. We were made perfectly and wanting to change our image could be seen as disrespectful to God’s creation.
This is very interesting, Hope! I like that you included the quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because it really put your point into perspective.
DeleteThis is an interesting topic choice Hope! I really liked the point when you talked about aesthetic surgeries creating a shallow definition of confidence for society around us.
DeleteAs many know, science is such an important aspect of life; however, some topics can be taken too far, even to the point of “playing God.” Gene editing is a prime example of this. If this is the way that God intended an individual to be, should humans have the ability to change that? The difficult aspect of gene editing is whether God would want a doctor to change the way that an individual will look or reverse conditions like Down’s syndrome. Gene editing is not completely safe yet, because there is a lot that needs to be learned about it before clinical trials regarding certain aspects of it can take place. An example of a gene editing experiment that was wrong in so many ways is one that occurred in China. Scientist, Jiankui He, performed an experiment on two babies, who have a father with HIV, that altered their CCR5 genes.The whole point of this was to ensure that they would not get HIV; however, gene editing is not needed in HIV cases. According to other scientists, he did this without anyone else knowing and it was not only unethical but also scientifically wrong.
ReplyDeleteAn important quote is, “In 1983, he (Pope John Paul II) endorsed therapeutic interventions such as those affecting “chromosomal deficiencies” when the intervention promotes well-being, and does not harm the biological integrity of the human person or cause increased suffering.” This is expressing that it is acceptable to change specific aspects of the human as long as it is being used to help the person, does not hurt them in any way, and protects their human dignity. One of the biggest sources of opposition stemming from gene editing is picking and choosing the physical and mental characteristics of children, such as their gender, color of skin, and their intellectual capabilities. In regards to gender, approximately sixty percent of Americans find this to be troubling, because it makes children no longer seem like a blessing if all people want to do is change and alter them, especially with something so important.
This is great topic choice Melaina! I thought you brought up a good point when you talked about people using gene editing to “play God” in a sense.
DeleteMelaina, I really enjoyed reading your summary! Overall, I think you tackled the topic well. I definitely agree with what you said about gene editing in children! Great job!
DeleteMy topic is all about artificial wombs and whether or not they should be used as an alternative to the mother’s natural body and environment for a baby. Artificial wombs are being seen as a possibility to replace the mother’s body to grow the infant until they are ready for birth. This process is known as gestation. A baby has not yet been grown in an artificial womb, but the technology to do so is being developed right this moment. A team of researchers undertook an experiment with lambs in 2017, that was successful. They claim they are only looking into artificial wombs in order to help babies born prematurely. Many people who write about this scientific topic realize that once the technology is developed, it is likely the motives will change.
ReplyDeleteThe science that is presenting itself is being used unethically in the sense that human babies, or even animal babies, should not be grown in a bag outside of their mother’s womb. At the moment, scientists claim that they are only using this idea to help premature babies survive, but once they create biobags, which is what they are calling the artificial wombs, there is no telling to what lengths some doctors may take it.
I think that when it comes to these biobags, humans are taking a gift given to us from God and using it unethically. God gifted us with our lives, we need to realize the true gift of life all on its own. God then gave women one of the greatest gifts, to create and house life inside of them. By creating these artificial wombs, we are giving God’s gift to us back to him and essentially telling Him that we don’t need it and our science is better. God gave us the ability to help create life so that we can feel connected to Him in many ways, in a sense, this ability can help bring us closer to God. God intended for the mother to build a special relationship or bond with her child through her pregnancy, with the use of biobags, that relationship can disappear. The child could miss out on the opportunity for that immediate connection that a mother and child feel after birth.
When developing artificial wombs, scientists are using information that is not unethical, they are using information that many people have access to. This information entails things such as amniotic fluids, the placenta, making sure the baby gets the necessary nutrients, and other things such as umbilical vessels or blood. However, this does not excuse the fact that this can lead to the creation of something unethical.
Many questions are being raised about the ethics of this scientific development. People are questioning whether it will even work or be safe for a baby. Afterall, how would the scientists know if the bag is safe for a child if they can’t test it. If they were to test it on a living baby, and that baby dies, everyone, even people who supported it, will turn their backs on the experiment. They are also questioning what will happen if parents can’t develop a psychological bond with their child during pregnancy. If artificial wombs were to be created, the babies would be kept in the biobags in the hospital and parents could come and visit as they please. This would also make IVF treatments easier, which presents another issue in itself because IVF treatments are not much more ethical than this.
Audrey, I really like your topic, and I think your argument will be very interesting. I like how thought out and analytical your blog entry is, and I cannot wait to hear what you have to say about this in your paper!
DeleteAudrey, this topic is very intriguing and I am excited to learn more about this. It is really interesting how you talked about the mother and child relationship disappearing. I also liked how you mentioned that using these is like telling God our science is better than Him. Great work!
DeleteMy topic is all about in vitro fertilization, or IVF, and whether or not it is an acceptable option for conceiving a child. IVF involves collecting mature eggs from the ovaries and fertilizing them with a sperm in a lab. After this, the fertilized egg is out in the uterus for the baby to begin to grow. Babies made this way are often called “test tube” babies because they are made in a test tube before entering the uterus.
ReplyDeleteWhile many may argue that IVF should be acceptable as it creates a human life, I disagree as it is not the way that God intended for life to be created. In Psalm 127:3, it says, “behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.” This verse talks about how a child being conceived is meant to be a gift from God at the right time, rather than using IVF to make a child at a time convenient for the couple.
IVF is also considered unethical by the Church because it allows the parents to be able to pick the sex, along with some other traits, of their child and this can be seen as gene editing, which the Church is also against.
Another issue that arises with IVF is that there is a frozen embryo involved which is just ethically incorrect as the embryo is still a human and it has value. Another issue with the frozen embryo is that there is dispute as to who has the rights to it and chooses what happens with them. Is it the father or the mother? Or is it both?
All this considered, IVF has given light to many ethical issues when it comes to the conception of a child in the eyes of the Church.
Jackie this is very interesting and I like how you included the importance of the Church's view on IVF. I thin you made great points and did a good job talking about the topic.
DeleteJackie, I think that this topic is very relevant in today’s world. I think that the Church is a really good main source to use.
DeleteShould humans establish settlements on other planets? This is not a simple question, nor does it have a simple answer. Many different aspects need to be carefully examined in order to see this idea in full light.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, humanity does not quite have the means to explore the galaxy or solar system efficiently, but with the development of new technologies and innovations in fields linked to space are making space colonization a possibility in the future. Earth is a unique planet, in which the only known planet in which life has developed, and the only known planet in which sentient life has evolved. Mars is a planet similar to earth, but has key differences, especially in aspects that deal with the ability to sustain life as we know it. The development of settlements, the restocking of these settlements, and the effects space travel has on the human body are other issues that do not necessarily have a definite answer.
If humanity were to discover life on another planet, how would it be regarded? Would the discovery of native life on a planet stop the terraforming process? Another argument that can be posed is what is stopping anyone from destroying another planet like many people believe we are destroying the earth? Many scientists are pushing for breakthroughs in this aspect, as well as the expansion of humanity in the solar system because of sustainability, population, and environmental issues. They believe that moving populations to other planets increases humanity’s chances for survival.
Other scientific minds, such as Bill Nye meet this issue with skepticism and outline that these planets are harsh environments that human life is not suited to. Bill Nye outlined that there is not any food or air in space or on other planets, making life on other celestial bodies challenging. Other scientists pose the question of what would happen to society on another planet, and how would it interact with current society. Would this settlement be self-sustaining, or would it rely on Earth for materials and supplies?
Therefore, the moral issues about expansion, splitting societies, space travel, and alien life all need to be examined and outlined in order to prevent destruction and disagreement between political powers.
This is Alex Wolfe (Sorry, I forgot blogger was picky about the browser I use)
DeleteGood summary Alex! I like the questions you bring up about life on a different planet. The splitting society is very interesting. Good job!
DeleteI really like your topic and your approach to the subject. The environmental factors of terraforming seem very interesting.
DeleteMy topic is about animal experimentation and whether it is ethical to use them in extreme experiments for research purposes. Animal experimentation can be used to help save human lives without causing harm and even death to the animals. Is it ethical to get an animal addicted to hard drugs like heroin just to see how it would affect a human? Animals are beings made by God just as humans were. They are taken into captivity and have constant tests run on them harming their wellbeing. God’s intention was for animals to live in the wild, not spend their whole lives being experimented on and eventually die in a cage.
ReplyDeleteOne hundred million animals are killed in labs each year due to humans running experiments on them. Cats, dogs, monkeys, cows, mice, rats, rabbits, and primates are being locked up in cages and longing to be free. These animals are constantly in pain and suffering, becoming frustrated and lonely as each experiment drags on. Unnecessary experiments like smoking experiments are still performed on animals even though there is enough human data to draw conclusions from. Pope Francis announced that animal experimentation is only acceptable if it does not cause harm to the animals and has a purpose of saving human lives. Animal experimentation does not guarantee that a human will react the same as the animal did, so it does not even assure success. Animals are living things made by God himself and should not be caused extreme suffering and pain.
Animal experimentation can be acceptable when the animals are not harmed and can return to their home in the wild and continue life as they normally would. Nowadays it is unlikely that an animal con undergo an experiment and experience no suffering because of modern day problems like drugs or sex experiments. Modern day science allows unimaginable things, but is it right to cause an innocent animal pain?
Abby I think that your paper is going to be very interesting. It looks like you researched a lot of useful information about your topic.
DeleteThis is an interesting topic! Animal experimentation is a very controversial topic. I cant wait to see how you handle this subject!
DeleteMy bioethics paper topic is about clinical trials. I want to find out how clinical trials are being picked and whether or not this is the right way to do it. I want to find out how they decide if the trials are ethical to do, or if they are not ethical.
ReplyDeleteClinical trials are defined as research studies that are performed on people to elevate medical, surgical, or behavioral intervention. Many people are trying to perform clinical trials to try and test something new. Who decides whether or not these clinical trials should be done? What are their views on what is wrong and what is right? This is what I am trying to find out and write about.
I am also researching the process of the actual trail. I am trying to find out if the steps that these people are taking are through. So far, I have found out that there are about three to four phases in clinical trials. They all deal with a different amount of people or animals being tested. You have to pass one phase before you move on to the next phase. The FDA is involved in this long process. They are the group that reviews all of the data from the trial. They will then decide to approve the new drug, or whatever is being tested, or they will not approve the drug. They have a long period of time to decide if they will approve it or not. They have six to ten months.
After the drug is put in the market, the FDA is still involved with it. They will go and inspect the drug marketing facilities. If anyone wants to change the drug at all, they would have to ask the FDA. They would then have to review it again.
This is such a cool topic! I’m excited to see where you take it! Good job!
DeleteShould scientific information that does not coincide with prior traditional beliefs be shared with the general public? In the past, a large number of philosophers and scientists have been robbed of their hard work, only to be ridiculed, expelled, or killed. This is an issue that has not figured itself out, and continues to do damage to the human population today. This is only the tip of the iceberg however, for the main flaw in this approach to science and reason is that people are given a false sense of reality. It should be every human being's right to fully understand the world around them, and not be blinded by the truth with foolish beliefs that are unfortunately built in the foundation of our society. Our understanding of the world around us has changed, yet we have the same ignorance and arrogance as our ancestors had hundreds of years ago. Humans are inclined to believe that they are the center of the universe, and anything that goes against those core beliefs threatens the idea of humans having a “purpose.” The bottom line is that there is no exception for hiding the truth from people, and doing so only makes the individual, organization, or government look bad in the future. It is very easy to look back and ridicule the mistakes the church made against “radical” scientists, but yet there is no shift in thought, and people still prioritize ignorance over reality. It is okay to admit ignorance, as long as there is an attempt to learn. However, what has been displayed in science over the past 2000 years has been nothing but people of “reason,” disregarding scientific theories solely based on its indirect attack on the ideas that: 1. humans know everything and 2. that they are the reason everything exists.
ReplyDeleteDo you ever realize how much of your emotions, experiences, and thoughts are dictated by the color you see in the media? It’s true, from the colors used to bring a price of art alive to the colors used to brighten up an advertisement, each color is chosen specifically to cause a reaction in the viewer. Based on principles such as color theory and complementary colors, artists and designers are able to manipulate the way people feel about a certain scene in a show or the amount of excitement for a product. Understanding how to use colors is one of the most important and valuable skills an artist can learn. It is required for background artist to create a price that is worth looking at and examining. Warm colors such as red, yellow, or orange are used to depict soft and calm emotions while darker cooler colors such as green, purple or blue, can be used depict negative emotions such as sadness or fear. By using the correct colors shows are able to do more than provoke emotions but they can begin to start foreshadowing in their series. There are plenty of examples of animated and live action series using this technique although it mainly happens in animated television shows. (Insert ow example). By using little hints like these shows become more enjoyable and the audience can feel more connected to it. While some may see manipulation as an act against God, in the world of art and design this doesn’t apply. The goal is not to cause negative actions to occur in its audience but it is to make a more real and authentic experience. There is nothing wrong with wanting your art to cause the audience to make them feel what you want them to feel, to share experiences, it makes people feel closer.
ReplyDeleteMy topic is about how colors effect the mind. Most companies color to help their company do better with the product and the logo. Ninety percent of first impressions on a company or a product has to do with the color of it and how the colors complement each other. There a lot of false statistics and false facts about how colors effect people because it all has to do with personal preference a personal experiences, it also has a lot to do with the gender and age of the person. It is hard to get accurate statistics and it is hard to do accurate tests about how colors effect people and their mind.
ReplyDeleteDesigners use color theory to communicate to people. They do this by appealing color schemes in a way called visual interfaces. Visual interface gives color a visual meaning, it is the closest way to communicate visually. Issac Newton the guy from science in 5th grade invented the color wheel in 1666 which then lead him to discovering color theory. He discovered there are 3 groups of colors, one is primary colors these are red, yellow, and blue. The second type of colors is secondary colors these are colors that are made from the primary colors. The third group of colors is tertiary colors these colors are mixes of secondary and primary colors. Along with the 3 types of colors there are 3 color properties. The first is hue, hue is how the color appears, the second is chroma, chroma is how pure it is or if has place mixed to make it darker or white to make it lighter, the third property is lighting this is how pure or saturated the color is.
Color theory in my opinion is not being used against Gods meaning for it humans are using color to express themselves, and sell products. There is nothing ethically wrong with color theory or the way it is used in today’s world.