Georgia Philosophical Society: Online Workshop on Ethical Issues in Today’s Turbulent World
In recent years, the Georgia Philosophical Society has met only once a year for a full-day conference. In light of current events, we thought that philosophers might like a chance to share some ideas and reflections this fall. So, in association with Global Ethics Day, we decided to try something new: an online workshop to take place on the afternoons of Thursday 10/22 and Friday 10/23. (Global Ethics Day is actually Wednesday, 10/21, but it is observed all week.) Each speaker will present for ten minutes, followed by ten minutes of questions and discussion.
See below the fold for the schedule.
Thursday, October 22: 12 pm-2 pm
12:00 Session 1, Chair: Rosalind Simson (Mercer University)
12:05 Kathryn Norlock (Trent University) “Moral Regress, or, If a president violates the Hatch Act and “no one cares outside of the Beltway,” does it make a sound?”
In this presentation, I define moral regress (rather narrowly) as a retreat from normative commitments to make moral progress. I appeal to Paul Morrow’s (2020) account of normative transformations in order to explain that moral regress is a negative normative transformation. I apply this analysis to the U.S. presidency, an institution that is not reducible to individual holders. Ethically, it matters how any individual president exerts normative powers to an extent that changes what we take the presidency to be. If representatives of an institution such as the U.S. presidency commit to violating, say, the Hatch Act, that counts as an instance (or serious risk) of moral regress on the part of an institution; whether or not any particular U.S. president previously held a clear commitment to observing the rule of law, the institution of the U.S. presidency is an institution that, as Frank Hindriks (2012) says, is a collection of normative powers which will entail the presence of some person to carry out those powers, but which is characterized as an institution by its deontic powers, that is, its rights and obligations.
12:25 Yi Deng (University of North Georgia) “qin min (亲民), relatedness, and civic learning”
In this paper, I propose that qin min (亲民) in the Great Learning 《大学》 embraces a type of relational citizenship that could be derived from a sense of relatedness rather than from comprehensive Confucian moral doctrines. Specifically, I start with a textual analysis of the debate between Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming about whether qin (亲) should be explained as “renewing.” In the Song Dynasty scholar Zhu Xi’s Annotations to the Great Learning, he explained “loving” (亲 qin) as “new/renovate/innovate” (新 xin). Later, Wang Yang Ming in his Questions on the Great Learning insisted qin was “loving the people.” In this paper, I interpret qin as the synthesis of “loving” and “renewing.” Then, qin min (亲民) could embrace a certain type of relational citizenship derived from a sense of relatedness that an individual should recognize and feel within various relationships. As students living with and in relation to others, they should be able to recognize and have concern for others, engage in various affiliations and develop a sense of relatedness to others. Correspondingly, cultivating a thin conception of Confucian good, such as a sense of relatedness, might embrace cultural diversity and reconcile the tension between liberal education and moral neutrality. In the remainder of the paper, I develop the practical implications and importance of a type of Confucian civic learning described above in liberal education especially during the Covid-19 pandemic.
12:45 Brian Armstrong (Augusta University) “Curricular Ethics in a Time of Transition”
Many of us have, for years now, participated in workshops focused on curricular design. Those who’d never attended such things likely found them impossible to avoid over the summer, as circumstances – not choice – forced nearly everyone to engage in substantive curricular (re)design. One concept that we might have encountered is “transparency,” which is at the heart of a curricular design approach known as TILT, for Transparency in Learning and Teaching. According to its creator, Mary-Ann Winkelmes, transparency is a matter of engaging “teachers and students in focusing together on how college students learn what they learn and why teachers structure learning experiences in particular ways.” However, whereas I take the concept of transparency to be a primarily ethical concept, Winkelmes does not generally present TILT in explicitly ethical terms; rather, she speaks in the technocratic terms of outcomes and best practices. Nonetheless, I believe that Winkelmes offers an initial sense of what an ethical approach to curricular design entails. In my presentation, then, I will aim to articulate this nascent curricular ethics and some of its problematic tensions.
1:15 Session 2, Chair: Eric Dickman (University of the Ozarks)
1:20 Betty Jean Stoneman (Emory University) “Navigating the Ambiguity of Existing as an Individual and as a Member of Society: Simone de Beauvoir and Civil Disobedience”
In The Ethics of Ambiguity, Simone de Beauvoir argues to be free does not mean to be able to do whatever one would like. This is so because human existence is necessarily ambiguous. Humans exist as both sovereign individuals who alone must determine and take responsibility for their own actions, as well as members of a society of which they are unable to entirely control but yet they depend on for their continued existence. Beauvoir’s tripartite conception of freedom as ontological, situational, and relational offers us a mean for navigating between our individual projects and our social obligations. In this paper, I apply Beauvoir’s conception of freedom to the practice of civil disobedience in order to argue this point. Beauvoir’s conception of freedom limits acts of civil disobedience to only those acts which promote freedom for everyone with whom one shares a socio-political situation. I offer two case studies, Kim Davis in regard to same-sex marriage and Bree Newsome Bass in regard to the removal of a confederate flag, as a demonstration of Beauvoir’s ethics in action.
1:40 Pascal Brixel (Clemson University) “Why We Work”
In capitalist societies, people generally work for the sake of a monetary incentive, which is extrinsic to the work they are performing. As a result, there is a disconnect between the value of work—that which makes work good, as the kind of work it is—and its motive—that which motivates the individual worker to perform it.
The disconnect has been dramatized by the social and economic fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic. “Essential workers” have been widely lauded for putting their lives on the line to make a valuable social contribution—but our economic system generally presumes that it is not this valuable social contribution but an extrinsic monetary incentive which motivates the individual worker.
I argue that extrinsically motivated work is not done fully voluntarily, and that to incentivize others’ work in this way is objectionably to use them as a mere means. This moral problem rises to the level of an intolerable wrong when—as in the case of much “essential” labor in these times—the work in question involves significant burdens and risks, and the incentive in question is access to basic necessities.
Friday October 23: 3 pm-6 pm
3:00 Session 3, Chair: Aaron Meskin (University of Georgia)
3:05 Rosalind Simson (Mercer University) “The Ethics of Masks and Mask Mandates”
My project is to identify and briefly comment on several interesting philosophical issues raised by the current debates about masks. I begin by suggesting that wearing masks to protect others is best characterized as a negative duty to avoid harming others rather than as a positive duty to remove others from harm’s way. After noting that we have negative duties to avoid not only behaviors certain to cause harm but also ones that pose significant risks of harm, I compare failing to wear a mask to protect against Covid-19 to two other behaviors that are potentially injurious to others: driving a car, and not wearing a mask to protect against transmitting the seasonal flu. I then turn to the issue of governmentally imposed mask mandates and address the common objection that mask mandates unduly interfere with personal autonomy. I suggest that it can be instructive to compare mask mandates in this respect to laws prohibiting smoking in public places and to laws requiring seat belts in vehicles.
3:25 Jonathan Spelman (Ohio Northern University) “Mask-Less Shopping Is Like Drunk Driving. We Should Outlaw It.”
In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, many states, local governments, and businesses across the U.S. have prohibited people from shopping without face coverings. But some states, including Georgia, have not. In this paper, I argue that this is a mistake. Those states that have not outlawed mask-less shopping should do so. Although this view is the consensus view among public health officials and philosophers, arguing for it is more difficult than it has been made out to be. After describing what I call the public health argument for outlawing mask-less shopping and explaining why it fails, I give a better argument for outlawing mask-less shopping. That argument depends on the claim that mask-less shopping is analogous to drunk driving. After considering and responding to several objections to my argument, I present a couple of reasons to think that mask-less shopping is even worse than drunk driving. It follows that every state should outlaw mask-less shopping.
3:45 Justin Simpson (University of Georgia) “Episodic Memory, Material Culture, and Retrospective Epistemic Violence”
The recent controversy surrounding Confederate monuments brings together issues of material culture, memory, and personal identity. This paper develops an account to address the intersection of these three issues. This account draws upon recent neurological research that problematizes the storage model of memory and demonstrates how remembering involves an active construction, which can modify the content of episodic memory. By connecting this research with the concept of technological mediation, I argue that material culture can modify episodic memory during the act of remembering. Consequently, material culture can retroactively reconstitute a person’s identity. This account introduces new dimensions to ongoing moral debates. In particular, I contend that material culture in the form of Confederate monuments can instigate retrospective forms of epistemic violence.
4:15 Session 4, Chair: Robert Scott (University of North Georgia)
4:20 William A.B. Parkhurst (University of South Florida) “Monuments to Erasing History: Confronting the History of Erasing Minority Monuments in Archives”
Recently the US has been debating the politics of removing confederate monuments. One way some advocates have argued we can bypass disagreements about erasing history is to place these monuments in museums and situate them within their historical contexts.
However, one of the systemic problems not addressed is that museum curation itself is deeply entangled with legacy of white supremacy. The space for physical objects in archives and museums is a finite resource. Historically, this finite resource has been dedicated to white historical monuments, to the exclusion of African American history. When space was needed to curate of histories seen as "important" (e.g. white histories), those collections based within the lived experience of African Americans were discarded.
Preserving anachronistic monuments to white supremacy would again strain the limited capacity of museums and archives. The preservation of these anachronistic monuments to racial hatred simply continues, and perhaps even tacitly celebrates, the archival reinscription of white supremacy and erases, yet again, African American history.
4:40 Nathan Nobis (Morehouse College) “Promoting Ethics for and with People Like Us”
The world, at present, appears to be in an ethical crisis. There has been some significant moral progress, but it seems like we are witnessing an ethical decline: actions and views that used to be seen as “beyond the pale” of decency are now common views: what used to be acceptable is now often accepted, with enthusiasm.
Given this, Global Ethics Day might appear to be an absurd event since we are collectively just so far from any widespread concern about ethics. But what can we do? Give up in seeking a more ethical world? That would be unethical.
So, what should we do? My discussion relates to what can be done about this by people interested in ethics and who have some training in getting people to better think about ethics. My suggestions largely relate to (a) acknowledging our own errors, (b) keeping things simple, (c) finding agreements and (d) continuing conversations.
While I am honestly unsure if this can lead to enough ethical goods, individually and collectively, it seems clear that we must try harder to finally figure out the “ethics” of, or what we should about, promoting ethics.
5:00 philosophy cocktails/socializing
6:00 end
“Promoting Ethics for and with People Like Us”
Global Ethics Day - a discussion on seeking more and better ethical thinking!
An argument:
If ethicists and philosophically-minded and motivated people can help people* become more ethical, then they are obligated to do so. (*Enough people? A critical mass of people? The right people?)
Ethicists and philosophically-minded and motivated people can help people become more ethical especially in how they think about issues.
Therefore, they are obligated to help people become more ethical.
My focus is on (2). What can be done, given (1) the need to do so? What do YOU think could be done?
Some initial observations:
In the big picture, there has been substantial moral progress.
How much worse are things these days? How to measure decline? Many things that seem worse have been going on a long time: more people are just aware of them. Yet, some things are worse . . even with “putting on the appearance” of trying to be ethical (?).
That many people are outraged is a sign of some moral progress: it’s a sign that more people are able to recognize wrong behavior and attitudes and respond accordingly. How to get more and better of this?
Admittedly, this is a hard problem! How can we - ethicists - try to make the world a much better place?!
So, maybe there’s really nothing we can do that would be effective enough? Maybe not enough peope would want an improved world? So we should just do our own things and not bother? Pessimism :( .
WE: What “we” could do, as groups or organizations: what’s the organization? How could this be created? How could it work?.
An organization should admit cultural errors; concede fallibility; admit not knowing everything: defuse defensiveness.
Promote the idea that past progress - overcoming mistakes - has resulted, in part, from ethical thinking. Promote the idea that we need more of that!
An immediate concern: even “experts” disagree about ethical issues! So how could an organization attempt to improving ethical thinking?
Response: focus on improving understanding of issues, and less advocating for conclusions or advocating for what are argued to be sound arguments (at least on certain types of issues)?
So, the suggestion is to increase awareness of complexity. Would that be good?
Keep things simple:
for many people, the idea of having a reason for their views is uncommon. Focus on something as simple as that, and obstacles to that.
They have very bad and very simple arguments.
Inform them of better but also simple arguments?
Inform them of obvious objections? Some kind of super-simple “anti-common bad argument” campaign? “Liking something doesn’t make it right.” “We’ve been wrong before; we could be wrong now.” “No culture is perfect; we can do better.” ??
There should be ethics education in schools. Philosophy for children. People should be accustomed to the idea of listening to other people; finding reasons; comparing arguments.
What else? This document will allow for comments, more ideas.
“We” as individuals, YOU and ME:
Admit errors; concede fallibility; admit not knowing everything. This can defuse defensiveness, and it can lead to focussing on yourself and your own improvement, which is good: “philosophy as a way of life” does this? (idea from Valerie Williams)
Don't try to persuade, in the sense of convince people of conclusions; try to inform: here's something new that you may not know about.
Low, small, realistic expectations: don’t expect to immediately change anyone’s mind, and so don’t be disappointed if you don’t. Don’t forget that most people really have never encountered the idea of trying to carefully and systematically think about an ethical issue.
Put a smiley face at the end of posts? :) This can change the tone of things, suggesting that we are having a good-faith conversation?
A primary cause of the world’s problems is people not doing this; a primary response to these problems is people doing this. Urge people who are upset with the world to study ethics, critical thinking and philosophy, so that they might better engage other people and help make the change they seek: And what’s the better alternative to better reasoning and more effective communication? Violence? Manipulation? Domination? (ideas here from Christopher Haugen).
Simplify, but recognize incompleteness and complexity. Do not manipulate people or make false claims.
What else? This document will allow for comments, more ideas.
4:40 Nathan Nobis (Morehouse College) “Promoting Ethics for and with People Like Us”
The world, at present, appears to be in an ethical crisis. There has been some significant moral progress, but it seems like we are witnessing an ethical decline: actions and views that used to be seen as “beyond the pale” of decency are now common views: what used to be acceptable is now often accepted, with enthusiasm.
Given this, Global Ethics Day might appear to be an absurd event since we are collectively just so far from any widespread concern about ethics. But what can we do? Give up in seeking a more ethical world? That would be unethical.
So, what should we do? My discussion relates to what can be done about this by people interested in ethics and who have some training in getting people to better think about ethics. My suggestions largely relate to (a) acknowledging our own errors, (b) keeping things simple, (c) finding agreements and (d) continuing conversations.
While I am honestly unsure if this can lead to enough ethical goods, individually and collectively, it seems clear that we must try harder to finally figure out the “ethics” of, or what we should about, promoting ethics. |
No comments:
Post a Comment