Panel 1: Life Death and Animality
Animal Ethics, Laws, and Justice for Animals
Tansu Yeşilkır (University: Boğaziçi University in Istanbul, Charles University in Prague)
Email: tansuyesilkir@gmail.com
Our relationships with animals, the way we treat them and shape their lives and deaths are highly influenced by our perceptions about them. In our society, it is normal to love and care for the animals we see as “pets”. They even have higher legal protection when compared to other categories of animals. On the other hand, animals such as “farm animals”, “laboratory animals”, and “working animals” are not seen with the same eyes and are treated without emotions and much care. According to the dominant culture, it is normal to use, abuse and get rid of these animals when we are done with them. Animal studies scholars focus on examining how animals are socially constructed and also challenge the social norms that cause the systemic exploitation of animals. My claim is that social norms have some roots in the epistemic state of people who constitute the society. Public awareness or lack of it deeply affects which norms and practices we adopt. I will focus on milk production as an issue where awareness is greatly lacking among consumers of dairy products. The milk industry employs many methods of industrial exploitation of animals that the general public is not aware of. If people knew about the facts, they would have an opportunity to decide for themselves whether to be supportive of this system or not. At least, the ones who transformed themselves regarding animal consumption are those who learned about the story of their food. In short, I argue that the epistemic gap between people and their food -in this case, emotionally and cognitively capable sentient beings- is resulting in injustice both for these animals and their consumers. To be able to care for them, we need to address the “not-knowing” about these animals who are consumed on a great scale without much reflection.
Suicide: why not?
Jakub Kast Novák (Charles University)
Email: jakub.kast.novak@gmail.com
In my talk I will first present an analysis of the suicidal mind by Jean Améry. I will then translate this analysis into a view of the specific act of suicide - euthanasia. I will make this translation by taking a comparative look at the thinking of two theorists of suicide - the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz and the philosopher Frances Kamm. I will attempt to demonstrate the fact in question: even though the conclusion of two schools of thought may appear identical, the fact that they do not come from opposing schools of thought may mean that two identical conclusions may, at first glance, have different implications. I will conduct a mental experiment in which I apply Frances Kamm's deontological ethics and ethical libertarianism schematically to the problem of euthanasia and observe in argumentum ad extremum the implications of these two models. After demonstrating the argument from the extreme position on the problem of euthanasia, I will apply this argument to the problem of non-euthanasia suicide and trace the different implications of the ethical models presented. In doing so, I will raise the following issues: a) the distinction between the ethical conclusion and the consequences of that conclusion, and b) the fundamental difference between reasoning about euthanasia and suicide outside the domain of euthanasia. In my talk, then, I will touch on the fundamental question of meta-ethics in 'case a' and the fundamental question of the philosophy of suicide in 'case b'.
Human Obligations to society and the positive consequences of their implementation
Inna Vadymivna Zahrebelna (Ukrainian State University, Mykhailo Drahomanov)
Email: zagrebelnainna7@gmail.com
In my report, I want to raise the topic of the rights and responsibilities of each person, as well as discuss the importance of understanding responsibility for their own actions and lives. We humans are quite selfish and usually indifferent to the problems of others and sometimes even cruel. And now this is the reason for the moral degradation of society, which in the future, if nothing changes, can lead to large-scale tragic consequences. Most of us understand or at least guess about this problem, but choose to do nothing and continue to live a normal life, until this indifference or cruelty of society does not concern them personally. We know and talk about our own rights, but we do not pay attention to the other people's rights. But the most important and most terrible thing is that we forget that in addition to rights we also have obligations. This is a problem, so we have to talk about it and do something about it.
That is why I chose the topic: "Human obligations to society and the positive consequences of their implementation" for the report, because even such seemingly insignificant actions in the global sense still have a result. I truly believe that every person is valuable and can change our society for the better if they understand their own importance and can accept the responsibility of their position. The purpose of this report is to prove that idea and show the prospects of a society in which people are trained to take care of each other. Big changes begin with small things and it is important for us to realize this now.
Evolutionary grounded ethics and self-coaching
Filip Halečka (Charles University)
Email: filip.halecka@gmail.com
One way of transhumanism may be to spread a beneficial meme (Popperian World 3) into the minds of and psyches of the recipients (Popperian world 2) in order to enhance the self, the other and the world - that's exactly my point.
What does evolutionary theory, which understands that survival of the fittest is integral to survival of the fittest, offer us? The metatheoretical framework (or assessment tool) produced by synthesis of 1. theories of almost everything (Ch.Darwin, P.Bourdieu, A.Maslow, M.Seligman,...) 2. with the axiom of prosociality (E.O.Wilson, D.S.Wilson, M.Nowak,...) brings new, extremely fruitful properties:
-
The most important one (for psychology) is the enrichment of the individual-centric perspective with the allocentric perspective, i.e. centered to the other person/respectively to other, individual transcending wholes (others people, groups,...).
- With the help of the tool we can discover new niches of prosociality for the benefit of ourselves and the whole world - we - individuals, families, communities, businesses, cities, countries, the world. It helps to make our lives more purposeful individual decision making and empowers the decision maker through the ability to delegate more and more responsibility (which implies more and more greater recognition (hypothesis)).
- Using a metatheoretical framework, we can play with the value hierarchies (reformulate, rehierarchize - e.g., sins ranked in Dante's Divine Comedy), by means of which new ones can appear to us, interesting insights and contexts.
- Or we can play with hierarchies of prosociality, or e.g. hierarchies of prestige of particular professions - the tool can help us understand what the prestige of each job/occupation is.
How did prosociality (P. Kropotkin, M. Nowak,...) recontextualize the understanding of Darwin's "survival of the healthiest, happiest and strongest"? What can an individual infer for himself from the fact of prosociality and how does it relate to Pierre Bourdieu's capital theory, Engel's bio-psycho-social model or, for example, Maslow's hierarchy of needs? How many testable hypotheses can not Ten Commandments, but N-commandments (a law created by evolutionarily relevant aspects) constructed by recontextualizing evolutionary theory with cooperation generate? What can each individual take from this? And will we start competing with each other for the most extensive and effective prosociality?
Panel 2: Public Discourse and Political Culture
Normalization of War
Kateryna Klimok (National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy)
Email : kateryna.klimok@ukma.edu.ua
Humanity’s history can be described as one of wars, and it would not come as a surprise that they drew many victims, including civilians. The way those victims of wars are treated differs from society to society. Although we might expect the unrelated party to feel rather sympathetic towards such victims, there is enough evidence to conclude that the general public and governments can be totally indifferent to the sufferings of other people. In her research, Jutta Lauth Bacas draws attention to the way forced migrants coming from resilient conflict areas are treated in Greece in the area of the Greek-Turkish border (Jutta Lauth Bacas, 2010). She stated that such migrants are treated poorly and often in manners that violate human rights. Daoub Kuttab wrote about the dehumanization of Iraqis following the invasion of the USA in Iraq, notably through media (Kuttab, 2007). I want to explore this phenomenon of lack of empathy toward victims of war conflicts to conclude in which ways the normalization of wars could be harmful to the affected people.
By normalization, I mean the process of accepting war with all its consequences regarding casualties as a social norm. I will focus mostly on indifference to people’s sufferings but will mention the other forms of normalization. Since I am limited in time and resources, the research is limited by a pilot small-scaled research that includes a literature review, a survey of Ukrainian students and the interpretation of its results within a post-colonial framework with the intention to summarize their perception of normalization of wars in the modern world. The hypothesis for my research is that the normalization of war is, in many ways, harmful to the victims. However, there is more to be researched and discussed on the topic of the normalization of war in different societies.
A Case for the Ethics of Corruption
Mauricio Samuel Isrrade Huicochea (Charles University)
Email: mauriciooisrrade@gmail.com
Corruption is one of the most pressing issues globally; it hinders the efforts for justice and development in all societies. A new avenue offers a fresh new way we can understand, talk, and fight corruption—offering an essential opportunity for Normative Science to provide significant, innovative, and integrative solutions. The Quality of Government has shifted the research on corruption, framing it as a collective action problem. Through this new paradigm, I will offer some alternatives from Global Ethics that can help give our efforts to reframe what we “ought to do” to alleviate the pressure that corruption has on an ever-increasing global society.
Emotional Manipulation in Political Discourse: a Balancing Act of Ethics and Persuasion
Zlata Pelykh (National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy)
Email: zlata.pelykh@ukma.edu.ua
Human relationships are often characterized by the interplay of influence and manipulation that shapes people's decisions, beliefs, and behaviour. In politics, emotional manipulation plays a particularly important role, raising complex ethical issues and challenging the foundations of democratic processes. The question I will address in my talk will be the ethical limits of emotional manipulation in political discourse and whether it is ethical at all.
Referring to Niccolo Machiavelli and his work "The Prince", he mentions that a ruler should be able to combine truth and deceit to achieve his own goals. The ruler must be able to act "with the wind," continuing to do good, but, if necessary, resorting to evil. Thus, the "ruler" can use manipulation or persuasion to achieve his own ideas or to achieve the public welfare. Following this, can we then justify the actions of tyrants who resorted to emotional manipulation to keep their audience, such as Adolf Hitler? Of course not. So, the question is not only about the legitimacy of emotional manipulation in political discourse, but also about the ethical boundaries that should be established to uphold democratic principles, protect individual autonomy, and global values.
To provide an example of ethical emotional manipulation by politicians, I will draw attention to Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. His powerful use of imagery, storytelling, and biblical references to address the audience's sense of hope, equality, and justice can be considered as a classic example of ethical emotional manipulation. We are here faced with the question of intention and action. First, we have to assess the intention of the person using emotional manipulation. Let's say that voters are being recruited to the parliament. Voter A corresponds to conditional "European values" and is ready to work for the good of the state, unlike voter B. Then emotional manipulation to increase voter votes A will be justified. So, one of the ways way we can set boundaries is to benefit society.
I believe that while emotional manipulation can be a powerful tool if used ethically, it can also cause long-term harm to individuals, communities, and societies. Ethical issues related to emotional manipulation in political discourse include respecting people's autonomy and dignity, ensuring truthfulness in communication, and avoiding exploitative or manipulative approaches. However, persuasive communication is not always the same as emotional manipulation, and that emotional manipulation should not be confused with using emotions sincerely and responsibly to effectively convey a message. To ensure the ethical use of emotional manipulation, several recommendations can be made. Politicians should provide factual information and evidence to support their claims, rather than relying solely on emotional appeals. They should respect the intelligence and judgment of voters, avoiding attempts to manipulate their emotions in a deceptive or manipulative way.
The political environment as a myth-making space that influences human behavior: its origin and effects.
Liubomyr Vovnianko (National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy)
Email: liubomyr.vovnianko@ukma.edu.ua
Throughout the history of mankind, the field of politics has been an environment of a certain balancing act between Logos, the “light of reason”, and Myth, the mythological worldview, in order to influence both the way of perception and the behavior of potential voters or ordinary citizens. Today, this process covers several needs: the necessity of engaging with a particular audience, the importance of an emotional response, promotion of a show, and maintaining intrigue, keeping people interested and extending your airtime into people's lives.
A politician often takes on the role of a patron, looking at citizens through a kind of Hobbesian prism in which people would always live in danger outside the social contract, justifying it both by human nature and their own intentions. Nevertheless, there should always be a “rationale”, some kind of “science” behind it, a masterful use of the actual realities of the certain topos to have authority and a seed of persuasiveness, a claim to truth.
Politics is, first, a myth-making territory, and every politician, accordingly, is a myth-maker, whether consciously or forcedly, out of good will or self-interest. That is why rhetoric, public speaking, is such an important skill, because communication is both a tool and the core of any form of human organization, where language is an essential component. In addition, symbols are also important in the state, as well as any social movement. Propaganda, for instance, is already a necessary element of whatever government, especially its apparatus. For quite a while, if we recall the tradition of the pre-Socratics, turning to Myth as a source of knowledge was a forced certification of a so-called truth, value of paying attention.
Therefore, we have a dilemma: on the one hand, how to affect people’s souls, and not to abuse them; on the other hand, how not to suffer from evildoers, and define the limits of Myth, which is somehow a part of human nature that cannot be ignored.
Panel 3: Feminism and the Care Ethics Tradition
A care ethic approach to nation healing in radical political environments
Ellen Breen (University of Edinburgh)
Email: S2209532@ed.ac.uk
Within this discussion I will argue that a retributive or consequentialist approach to ethical problems, limits the scope of the ethical thinking in radical political situations, such as post-apartheid South Africa, and does not capture what is really going on. I propose that care ethics, specifically Joan Tronto’s problem-based approach, upon landscapes which pose ethical and political questions are the most effective framework.
I will contextually defend the claim that care ethics provides the most useful moral framework in resolving tensions between opposed groups in radical political landscapes through analysing its use within the environment of post-apartheid South Africa.
I will argue that Mandela’s governments Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was the most successful approach in resolving political tensions between opposed groups and promoting national unity as a result of being synonymous to a care ethical approach. For example, like care ethics, Mandela’s TRC emphasised forgiveness over retributive justice which created an environment where the citizens of South Africa were more likely to make peace with the past and move on.
In addition, I will also comment on how the TRC care ethical approach considers both the victim and the wrongdoer as equally important within the reconciliation process, which result in longer lasting peace. For example, retributive justice, which mainly considers the wellbeing of the victim, according to Desmond Tutu (the president of the TRC) expresses a lack of faith in them which disrespects their dignity, increasing the likelihood they make them again. Forgiveness, care, and reconciliation are therefore the only way to respect both parties and ensure that less injustices occur, both against the wrongdoer and the victim. For example, since 1995 (the year the TRC was introduced) murder has fallen by 26.17 percent.
I will close my argument by inferring that the success of this approach indicates how it should be adopted by more governments who are dealing with divided nations, for example, Israel and Palestine.
The Importance of Gossip in Feminist Care Ethics
Mo Li Liu-Gillman (University of Edinburgh)
Email: m.l.liu-gillman@sms.ed.ac.uk
Feminist care ethics has distanced itself from traditional moral theories by situating morality within the relationships formed between us and our world, instead of isolating the actions of any particular moral agent. These relationships are crucial to the implementing of care and the creation of what Joan Tronto has called a “care-based ecosystem” (1995). Within this ecosystem, Tronto explicates that care concerns people’s lived experiences and that the basis of our care comes from understanding this. Using Tronto’s framework, I will posit that gossip should be reevaluated as a feminist act. The role of gossip is an underdeveloped area of study in the field of ethics and it is my intention to defend its place in moral philosophy by arguing that gossip plays a key role in upholding the ethics of care. I aim to show that engaging in gossip allows us to build up a library of experiences that betters our understanding of other people and how to apply care towards them. I will do this by exploring the way in which gossip creates an environment that requires us to consider other people’s lives in a way that we might not otherwise, both through the content of a particular piece of gossip and the way in which it is discussed. In response to my argument, I will consider a feminist concern that gossip can be disproportionately harmful toward women, focusing particularly on the example of slut shaming. Finally, I will propose a solution of critical engagement with gossip and conclude that whilst it can be misused, gossip remains a useful tool in guiding our moral actions and upholding feminist care ethics. As an activity, gossip is present throughout all members of human society. By drawing attention to this subject and offering a feminist defence, I hope to provide an account of gossip that allows us to engage with it in a meaningful way and continue to care for others to the best of our ability.
A Model of a Female Behavior in Feminism and Its Impact on the Modern Ethics
Pelahiia Antonivna Kurbanova (Ukrainian State University, Mykhailo Drahomanov)
Email: 23nnifop.p.kurbanova@std.udu.edu.ua
Feminism as a component of humanitarian culture is a condition for positioning ethical principles in it. Characteristic features of modern feminism can be considered its academization, radicalization, merger and intersection with other socio-cultural movements.
The ideology of liberal feminists is combined with the science and legal awareness of the «open society», thanks to which liberal feminism is born. Liberal feminism is based on the postulate of the fundamental equality of men and women, from which the demand to improve legislation, science, and morality flows, so as to ensure the equality of the sexes only de jure, but also de facto. For this, it is necessary not only to change the legal system, but also to expose the stereotypes of public consciousness under which the majority of men and women find themselves. Weaknesses of liberal feminism can be recognized as: ignoring the specifics of women's experience and worldview, weak psychologism, lack of deep economic analysis of the participation of both sexes in public production.
Marxist feminism tries to supplement K. Marx's theory of capitalist production by analyzing gender relations. Marxist feminists conclude that there is a conflict between «female productive forces» and «male relations of production».
Radical feminism insists that gender relations are far more fundamental than class relations. Therefore, the sexual and reproductive basis of society is the basis of the entire economic, political and spiritual superstructure. Social control over sexuality and reproductive behavior is carried out through cultural symbols that are often not realized. Sexuality is glorified through the phallus and denigrated through femininity. Symbols force a woman to desire her own enslavement. In the radical approach, however, simplification is noticeable: either biological or ideological components prevail, and moral and existential relations between the sexes are ignored.
Existential feminism shifts attention to the very process of becoming a man or a woman. Becoming a woman, in this case, means a consistent rejection of freedom. The reason for this is that the man, being the creator of culture (language, logic, social norms), recognized his existence as the main one, and defined the woman as «other». A woman, growing up and getting involved in culture, involuntarily assimilates a man's view of herself and begins to define herself as «other». The rational grain of existential feminism consists in emphasizing the responsibility of everyone for their life choices, in the call for «real being.»
Psychoanalytic feminism seeks to critically reformulate the concepts of psychoanalysis. It corrects the ideas of S. Freud regarding the female individual. The role of sociocultural factors in the formation of a woman's inner world is especially emphasized.
«Structuralist feminism, following philosophers of the 20th century such as J. Lacan and M. Foucault, turns to language practice in order to deepen the understanding of gender relations. Within the framework of this direction, a theory of women's ways of marking the world is being created, the central concepts of which are «women's language» and «women's letter».
Care Ethics, Cottagecore and Tradwives: Is Care Ethics Successfully Feminist?
Emmi Wilkinson (University of Edinburgh)
Email: s2158705@ed.ac.uk
This talk will defend ethics of care by preemptively responding to an objection which claims that care ethics defends tradwives and cottagecore-ism as caring while being decided anti-feminist, resulting in a contradiction to care ethic’s feminist aims. However, I will argue that not only are cottagecore and tradwife subcultures importantly different, but also that care ethics provides an explanation of how they differ and why tradwives are indefensible while cottagecore values are morally permissible therefore care ethics remaining inline with its feminist values and saving it from arising contradictions. With the rise of the cottagecare aesthetic, particularly among the queer community with cottagecore lesbians, many are concerned with its potential for being a repackaging of traditional gender roles due to its similar expectations of femininity as tradwives, leading some to question whether cottagecore gives a forth a liberatory model of independence and self-sufficiency or a continuation of oppressive systems of uncaring. I will discuss how care ethics is useful for the feminist movement as it can be used as a methodology for differentiating which subcultures either perpetuate or problematize harmful gender stereotypes by contrasting cottagecore and tradwives subcultures by using care. First I will analyze how care ethics can explain how cottagecore and tradwife subcultures are importantly different in their treatment of women as agents of care and the role of value prescription within each. As cottagecore-ism views itself as an optional way of life and aesthetic, holding certain values which I will argue are not inherently anti-feminist similar to other aesthetic or subcultures as well as giving agency to women who are operative members. While tradwives are often prescriptive in their judgment of others, particularly other women, as defective or sinful if they do not follow the same strict form of femininity. Then I will defend this view from an objection commonly made that the cottagecore aesthetic is simply reformulated tradwive values and continues patriarchal values and how if care ethics defends this, it risks it being contradictory in its feminist goals. This objection can be refuted by using Tronto’s definition of care which requires that care agents are wronged if they are not also receivers of care. Therefore saving care ethics from feminist concerns that it does not support feminist aims and illustrating how care ethics can be used for the feminist movement to ensure that desirable aesthetics and subcultures are not simply re-packaged patriarchy.