Upon reading Michael Crichton's famous Jurassic Park, there were things that sparked me that the movie didn't. This paper, though, is not to compare the movie from the book, but to analyze the ethics behind the making of Jurassic Park. Was it right or wrong for Hammond to make this dangerous "amusement" park? Was he going too far in bringing back the past into the present? Questions like these help us see the true meaning of this book-responsibility of using one's power to do incredible things and even doing the impossible, while knowing what consequences one's action's might bring.
             Looking at the ethics of the book, we need to look at the theme incorporated-total responsibility for one's actions and accepting the consequences for any decisions made by the party. By defining ethics as standards of conduct that indicate how one should behave based on moral duties and virtues, which involves the ability to discern from right and wrong, one can see that from reading Jurassic Park, Hammond and his associates are the ones to look at. The people behind the making of the amusement park should not be blamed, but should be looked at because of their decisions. Their ability to not discern from right and wrong and not evaluating the consequences of their action, led the park to a disaster-to the newly made animals and to the humans as well. And by answering one basic question, the ethics of Hammond and his associates can be looked at more extensively.
             The question dealt with is: "Was it right or wrong for Hammond to make this dangerous amusement park?" For this question, two views need to be looked at, of course-right or wrong. Through the eyes of Hammond, he wanted to make a mark in humanity, bring back the past, and wanted people to enjoy what they missed by reliving what happened back in the "Jurassic" era. To him, building this for the people would
             ...