scholarly journals El Otro No-Humano y el Coronavirus

Sincronía ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol XXV (79) ◽  
pp. 3-21
Author(s):  
Fabián de la Parra Rodríguez ◽  

The global Coronavirus pandemic originated out of a wet market in Wuhan, China. Thus, this virus is the product of the market conditions that lacked any sort of ethical considerations. Among the most ingrained dogmas in most human beings throughout history is the idea that mankind has non-human beings at their disposal to do with them whatever humanity’s will might dictate. The ethical relation is suspended during the interaction with animals and thus humans are allowed to torture, harm, imprison, and kill animals for scientific experiments, entertainment, or to satisfy hunger or a craving. Through the levinasian concept of transcendence, this article will propose Otherness as a category of Peter Singer’s utilitarian critique of factory farming. The current virus is proposed to be the result of a system that subsumes the non-human Other as matter to be manipulated and ignores any sort of ethical responsibility.

Sincronía ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol XXV (79) ◽  
pp. 3-21
Author(s):  
Fabián de la Parra Rodríguez ◽  

The global Coronavirus pandemic originated out of a wet market in Wuhan, China. Thus, this virus is the product of the market conditions that lacked any sort of ethical considerations.Among the most ingrained dogmas in most human beings throughout history is the idea that mankind has non-human beings at their disposal to do with them whatever humanity’s will might dictate. The ethical relation is suspended during the interaction with animals and thus humans are allowed to torture, harm, imprison, and kill animals for scientific experiments, entertainment, or to satisfy hunger or a craving. Through the levinasian concept of transcendence, this article will propose Otherness as a category of Peter Singer’s utilitarian critique of factory farming. The current virus is proposed to be the result of a system that subsumes the non-human Other as matter to be manipulated and ignores any sort of ethical responsibility.


2021 ◽  
pp. 53-72
Author(s):  
Claire Hall

The majority of this chapter focuses on Greek philosophical approaches to fate and foreknowledge. To understand the background of Origen’s thought on these topics, we must distinguish between three distinct types of problem: a) logical problems that concern the possibility of making true statements about the contingent future, b) the problem of how human beings can be held morally responsible for their actions if their actions are fated, and c) the problem of how human beings can choose freely between courses of action if God (or the gods) can have foreknowledge of the future. This chapter shows where and why these conceptions of fate, prophecy, and human autonomy differ, and why these distinctions matter. First, it examines the puzzles set and answered by Aristotle concerning the logical problem of future contingent statements. Then it explores some of the terminological difficulty in talking about ‘free will’ in the Greek context. Next it examines Stoic and Platonist discussions about choice and autonomy, which focus primarily on ethical considerations. Finally, it argues that Origen’s framing of these issues was heavily influenced by his pagan near-contemporary Alexander of Aphrodisias. The chapter ends with a survey of some other early Christian texts on autonomy and moral responsibility that show the Christian context in which Origen was arguing and sets the stage for the argument that Origen deviates significantly from his Christian contemporaries.


1987 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan O. Via

My purpose in this article will not be to deal with the tradition history behind Matt 25:31–46 or with the actual eschatological identity of the nations, the sheep and the goats, and Jesus' least brothers, although some attention will need to be given to the latter. My primary purpose will rather be to inquire about the nature and quality of the stance or posture or self-understanding that constitutes the responses of the sheep and goats—which responses Matthew is implicitly calling his readers respectively to actualize and to reject. And what is required of human beings has implications for the possibilities and nature of human beings. The first order of business, however, will be to locate the text generically and in the context of Matthew 23–25.


2005 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Golser

Storicamente si può affermare che la Santa Sede è stata all’avanguardia nell’attenzione posta ai problemi ecologici, perché le sue prime prese di posizione risalgono all’inizio degli anni ‘70. Un’etica teologica cattolica si è sviluppata dalla metà degli anni ’80, dopo che le scienze bibliche hanno dovuto confutare l’accusa che l’antropocentrismo della Bibbia sia stata una delle cause dello sfruttamento della terra. Le ragioni storiche di un atteggiamento sbagliato verso la natura sono da vedere piuttosto nel pensiero filosofico moderno che si è sviluppato spesso in contrapposizione al cristianesimo, mentre la Bibbia e la teologia hanno in verità una visione teocentrica della creazione. I tentativi filosofici, che al posto dell’uomo vogliono mettere al centro della riflessione etica la natura stessa o la vita o anche la possibilità di soffrire, non hanno consistenza perché soltanto la persona umana come essere consapevole e libero può assumersi una responsabilità etica. Bisogna però tener conto di tutte le altre creature che in quanto create hanno una loro dignità propria. Essere creati significa essere relazionati a Dio; la fede in Dio Creatore comporta così un l’antropocentrismo relazionale. Da questi presupposti può essere sviluppata un’etica ecologica teologica che ha due percorsi, uno che insiste sul cambiamento necessario degli atteggiamenti di fondo verso la natura (le virtù ecologiche), ed uno che da determinati principi e da esperienze consolidate formula delle norme concrete per l’agire ecologico responsabile. ---------- Historically, one can say that the Holy See has been a pioneer for the attention paid to ecological issues, as it started taking a stance on the topic already in the early ‘70s of XX century. A catholic theological ethics was developed in the mid-‘80s, after the biblical sciences had to refuse the accusation that made biblical anthropocentrism one of the main causes of the exploitation of the earth. The historical reasons for a wrong attitude toward nature are to be found instead in the contemporary philosophical thinking that often developed against Christianity, while theology and the Bible promote a theocentric vision of creation. The philosophical attempts that place nature or life, or even the chance to suffer in lieu of man at the center of the ethical way of thinking, have no grounds because only human beings, self-aware and free, can take ethical responsibility. One needs to consider all creatures that, being created, have a dignity of their own. Being created means having a relation with God. Hence, the faith in the Creator involves a relational anthropocentrism. Departing from such assumptions, a theological environmental ethics can be developed along two paths, one insisting on the necessary change of the basic stance toward nature (i.e. ecological virtues), the other starting from recognized principles and experiences and postulating actual rules for responsible ecological behavior.


2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 238-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leyla Dinç

Advances in cloning technology and successful cloning experiments in animals have raised concerns about the possibility of human cloning in recent years. Despite many objections, this is not only a possibility but also a reality. Human cloning is a scientific revolution. However, it also introduces the potential for physical and psychosocial harm to human beings. From this point of view, it raises profound ethical, social and health related concerns. Human cloning would have an impact on the practice of nursing because it could result in the creation of new physiological and psychosocial conditions that would require nursing care. The nursing profession must therefore evaluate the ethics of human cloning, in particular the potential role of nurses. This article reviews the ethical considerations of reproductive human cloning, discusses the main reasons for concern, and reflects a nursing perspective regarding this issue.


2021 ◽  
pp. 146144482199870
Author(s):  
Henrik Rydenfelt

The algorithmic automation of media processes has produced machines that perform in roles that were previously occupied by human beings. Recent research has probed various theoretical approaches to the agency and ethical responsibility of machines and algorithms. However, there is no theoretical consensus concerning many key issues. Rather than setting out with fixed conceptions, this research calls for a closer look at the considerations and attitudes that motivate actual attributions of agency and responsibility. The empirical context of this study is legacy media where the introduction of automation, together with topical considerations of journalistic ethics and responsibility, has given rise to substantial reflection on received conceptions and practices. The results show a continuing resistance to attributions of agency and responsibility to machines. Three lines of thinking that motivate this stance are distinguished, and their potential shortcomings and theoretical implications are considered.


In this chapter, many ethical considerations are discussed when it comes to technical writing. One of the things that discussed is the moral and social responsibilities of scientists. That section describes the moral responsibilities of being honest in research and why it is a grave ethical violation to forge results. Regarding social responsibility, the chapter examines the issue of speaking out when one believes an ethical violation has been committed, such as when results reported are untrue or dangerous. The author included a section on the responsibility of authors to their coauthors. While working together, authors must have a way to communicate effectively and express their ideas. Once a project is agreed to and commitments are made, coauthors have a moral and ethical responsibility to follow through on such commitments.


Religions ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Losada-Sierra

Grappling with the marginalization of the marginal in Western thinking, this paper sets up a dialogue between Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy and Johann Baptist Metz’s political theology in order to learn from their thoughts on the suffering of victims. For both Levinas and Metz, the idea of theodicy as an explanation of suffering is linked to the ontological conception of time and history, and therefore useless and unjustifiable by nature. The essential question of this research is how to give meaning to the concrete suffering of humanity in order to redeem history from the concept of an evolutionary progress which limits the possibility of hearing the cries of the victims of history. This article will show how Levinas’s and Metz´s rejection of traditional theodicy is closely related to the concepts of memory and history and, therefore, the paper will demonstrate how traditional theodicy becomes for both thinkers an ethical theodicy. Consequently, the ethical account of theodicy replaces the attempt to negotiate the goodness and power of God with the pain of human beings. From this perspective, ethics is shaped by a response to the cry of victims which summons the subject to understand freedom as limited and subordinated to ethical responsibility. In responding to suffering, philosophy and theology can meet beyond idealism and dogmatism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document