That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow.

This 'famous' quote can be described as the embodiment of modern-day science. With the rapidly changing advances in technology in the twenty-first century, it is hard to state anything as an indisputable fact. Although this quote clearly falls under the category of 'natural sciences,' I think it also applies to areas such as ethics and history.
Although the definition of ethics remains the same, the situations applied to it change constantly. It was once acceptable to treat African Americans as if they were less than a person. Whether or not people in the 19th century considered slavery ethical, the public opinion and popular belief has greatly shifted since then.  This highlights the shift of knowledge (a justified true belief).  The belief that white people were superior was 'accepted' as knowledge, just as the modern-day belief that global warming exists as a major problem in the 21st century.  In a few years, advanced technology or just a shift in public opinion may convince people that it is not actually a great threat.
Another aspect of this topic that the quote leaves out is the ethics of sharing knowledge.  If someone is a genius, do they have the obligation to share their knowledge to the rest of the world, therefore changing some fundamental aspects of knowledge forever? Although the answer to this question is not black and white, it highlights how the shift in knowledge is also not black and white.  The 'answer' to a problem or the solution to a scientific method may be perfectly clear, but it may not be the right time to find it.

Culture in Ethics

To what extent does culture influence ethical decision making? Does ethics fall more in the domain of shared knowledge or personal knowledge?

Culture plays a huge role in ethical decision making.  Among the things that people consider when confronted with an ethical dilemma are their surroundings and what they believe is 'right.'  Although there is somewhat a standard definition of good vs evil and right vs wrong in the world, culture brings upon different variations of that, which would skew someone's ethical decision making.  Someone I know (sounds sketchy its not) was once telling me how she hates driving in Mexico because they generally believe in a "whatever happens happens" attitude because they believe things are meant to be. I have no idea if this is true because I've never been to Mexico but it illustrates a cultural difference about ethics.  One might believe there is no problem with driving like that but others from a different culture might argue that that is ethically wrong because it injures others.  Ethics is under the domain of personal knowledge because it is relatively individual and can depend on experiences. There can also be ties with the other areas of knowledge, such as emotion which can influence ethics. Someone might react differently to the trolley dilemma if they have experiences or read something

University Education Debate: Abstract perspective

Emotion, Reason, Language

The question of free university education could be approached three different ways: through emotion, reason or sense perception. A common emotional response to this question is that free school would help those in need.  It is emotionally satisfying for someone to believe they are helping those in need and that they have compassion for those that have less. It is also easy to only look at the emotional side of wanting to help others and to overlook practicality. ‘Free’ college would have to be funded through taxes, and would likely be a disincentive for some to work as hard as they would if it was their own money.  A student who is barely paying their tuition might work even harder because of the emotional duty they feel to not waste their money. While emotion contrasts with reason in this situation, both ways of knowledge can co-exist. The aspect of reason would dictate that although free college could be nice, it would be the beginning of a slew of other problems such as higher taxes that would gradually lessen the amount of people in high and respected positions.  The government would take so much tax money that people with hopes to become a doctor will not bother going through all the school and investing years of their lives in a profession where their salary will cancel out with those with a bachelor's or less. Human nature dictates that if there is no incentive to work harder, no one will.  Some people will do it anyway because they love being in medicine, but that would not be enough people to sustain the field. Tragedy of the commons also shows that people will act in their own self-interest, which also shows they will want to earn money along with or over emotional reward.  Sense-perception relates to this topic because many people are accustomed to or have the ‘gut-reaction’ of saying that college should be more affordable.  Although almost anyone can agree that tuition is too high across the board, free college will not fix this.  The way emotion, reason and sense perception can work together is with lower tuition, but still with a public/ private system that is in place today.  And then, there is also the ongoing problem of lack of motivation which is a whole different story regarding public schools.