Browsing by Subject "ethics"

In his 1951 essay on Auschwitz, “Cultural Criticism and Society,” Theodor Adorno wrote: “To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.” In his 1989 article, “Art and the Holocaust: Trivializing Memory,” Elie Wiesel argues that art should be silent about the Holocaust for Auschwitz defeated both culture and art and only those who lived through it can transform it into knowledge. About art Wiesel says bluntly: “stop insulting the dead.” These views expressed by both Adorno and Wiesel mark an uneasy ethical attitude towards genocide, which is often seen as a constant cause of ethical anxiety. They both understood genocide as untranslatable and unspeakable. To them, therefore, art or imaginative literature should embrace silence. This thesis interrogates these ethical concerns in relation to the Rwandan genocide as an event and writing about the genocide as art. Using a comparative ethical approach, this thesis examines two narratives about Rwandan genocide, namely Philip Gourevitch’s We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will be Killed with Our Families (1998), a factual report, and Boubacar Boris Diop’s Murambi, the Book of Bones: A Novel (2000), to explore various ethical dimensions concerning genocidal writings as well as to engage criticisms against imaginative literature as being capable of bearing witness to genocide. This thesis raises three fundamental questions that concern ethics and writing about genocide: should or can genocide be the subject of literary enquiry? Can literature bear witness to genocide and at the same time preserve the memory of the victims? Why should literature speak if genocide is considered unspeakable? This thesis argues that art has the psychological and ethical capabilities of capturing the horrors of genocide and must, therefore, bear witness to it. The study reveals that the literary response of the novel to the Rwandan genocide may take the reader closer to the heart of the tragedy than a factual report. The point of writing about genocide is clear: it is to increase our empathy for those affected, to see where we failed in our collective humanity and to say “never again”. Good literature has the creative and psychological power to bear witness to genocide, and at its best, it can confront and express the inexpressible.

While the subject of harm is a large topic in philosophy, often our intuitions seem to be quite well versed in determining when harm is caused and who is responsible. If I can’t be bothered to vaccinate my child and as a consequence, my child gets sick, it’s rather clear that I harmed my child. Even though I didn’t necessarily mean for my child to be infected, if I knowingly refuse a vaccine meant to prevent said illness, I have failed in my parental duties. The situation becomes more troublesome, however, if the child hasn’t been born yet. If a prospective mother is not yet pregnant, but intends to have a child. Do they have a duty to make sure that they don’t have any curable hereditary diseases, before having a child? In other words, would they act immorally if they had such a disease, but nevertheless decided to have a child? This question is at the heart of what is called the non-identity problem, since while intuitively we’d answer yes, there seems to be a good case for claiming the opposite. In the first chapter, I present the non-identity problem, its central claim and some attempts at solving it. Failing to find a suitable one, I move on to anti-natalism – a view claiming that procreation is immoral – which seems to solve the problem rather easily. Considering the extreme nature of the view however, in the second chapter I respond to some common objections the view is often met with. Among these are those which attempt to reject anti-natalism by appealing to the rights of those already existing and those that mistakenly claim the view to be misanthropic. Having responded to these arguments, I move on to discussing anti-natalism more thoroughly in the third chapter. I evaluate the main arguments for the view made by David Benatar, one of the biggest contemporary defenders of anti-natalism, though ultimately I champion Seana Shiffrin’s argument about consent as the most plausible way forward. In the fourth chapter the actual solution is revealed: if procreation with a reasonable expectation of harm is immoral, it’s immoral to reproduce knowing that one has a curable inheritable disease. On the whole, I find that while anti-natalism indeed solves the non-identity problem, it does so with considerable expense. This is due to the fact that even if we are unable to defeat anti-natalism, the view is simply far too demanding to ever be adopted – it would lead to human extinction after all. As such, it solving the non-identity problem is hardly a perk big enough to convince us.

The thesis assesses ethical problems pertaining to a scenario of a mandatory vaccination program against SARS-CoV-2 (“Covid-19”) in Finland, as the epidemic situation stood in the early 2022. The initial research question is whether this kind of a program would be ethically justifiable. The conclusion to this question is reached by describing the epidemic situation, presenting basic ethical norms of public healthcare, and making a synthetizing ethical analysis on their basis. The concluding answer no comes as the result of analyzing the Finnish scenario from the perspectives of eight criteria of ethical justification that would need to be adequately met in order for a mandatory vaccination program to be an ethically sound public health measure. The eight criteria are formed by examining literature of public health ethics and vaccination ethics as well as strong ethical arguments in favor and against mandatory vaccinations, and by combining a ground of shared prerequisites guiding ethical considerations on the topic. The analysis reveals numerous ethical problems present in the Finnish scenario. The mere existence of so many unsolved issues makes the potential mandatory Covid-19 vaccination program an unethical option. The thesis calls for better public discussion on public health ethics, so that the ethical imperatives of protecting public health security and protecting individual bodily autonomy are realized also in emergency situations.

In Finland the elderly residents of long-term care facilities are often prescribed a lot of medications, especially psychotropic drugs. It also happens that a patient or a resident has to be physically or chemically restrained. Chemical restraining can be defined in many ways, for example as using a drug - usually an antipsychotic - to restrict the freedom or movement of a patient and to control his or her behavior. In nursing homes the staff is in a key position when it comes to deciding on the use of chemical restraining or PRN medication. A legislation to guarantee the self-determination of a patient and to define how physical restraining can be used is now being prepared in Finland. Only a few studies on chemical restraining from a nurses' point of view have been made so far. Thus, the aim of this study is to provide more information on the level of knowledge, the attitudes and perceptions of nurses regarding chemical restraining and the effect of those on deciding whether to use chemical restraints or not. Three focus groups with nurses were conducted in Hyvinkää nursing homes (n=13). The groups were recruited both by e-mail and directly from the wards. The focus group discussions were digitally audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The content of the transcripts was then analyzed using a constant comparative method. According to the study most of the antipsychotics used in long-term care were used daily. However, it is not uncommon for the nurses to be unsure about their knowledge on the use of medicines. It is thus important to help the nursing staff to increase their knowledge and skills in pharmacology. The nurses also wished to get extra training for treating people with dementia. The concept of chemical restraining is quite ambiguous, and the use of chemical restraints is a complex ethical issue because the reasons for and effects of administering it vary depending on the situation. The study shows that the chemical restraining is most often considered justified when it is used to ensure the safety of a patient, relieve anxiety or to keep the working conditions of the staff tolerable. Also a shortage of manpower and a request by the family can influence the decision on using chemical restraints. The lack of proper common guidelines causes confusion and wide variation in the use of chemical restraints. Many interviewees were hoping for more open discussion and cooperation on using chemical restraining. The nurses also mentioned many alternatives to rely on instead of using chemical restraints, such as soothing, comforting and creating a safe feeling for the patients, daily routines and stimulus. One of the key factors for taking to these instead of chemical restraints are the manpower resources in the facilities. Educating the staff can also help them to find more options for chemical restraining and make staff members recognize new or remember forgotten routines for caring for the patients without using psychotropic drugs.

Tutkielma käsittelee ilmiötä jota kutsutaan filantrokapitalismiksi. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on selvittää filantrokapitalistisen toiminnan taustalla olevaa etiikkaa ja tutkia filantrokapitalistista toimintaa nykymaailmassa. Tutkimusmetodina on systemaattinen käsiteanalyysi. Filantrokapitalismi -käsitettä puretaan sen funktionaalisen muodon sekä eettisen ulottuvuuden keinoin. Eettistä ulottuvuutta valotetaan tutustumalla hieman etiikan keskeisiin käsitteisiin kuten utilitarismi, deontologia sekä oikeudenmukaisuus. Tutkimuksen lähteinä ovat pääasiassa Bill Gatesin vuosittain julkaisemat kirjeet (Annual Letters 2009-2017), jotka ovat kaikkien luettavissa Gates Foundationin verkkosivuilla, sekä filantrokapitalismia käsittelevää kirjallisuutta; joista keskeisimpinä Linsey McGoey:n 2015 julkaisema No Such Thing as a Free Gift sekä Bishop & Greenin 2008 julkaistu Philanthrocapitalism. Tutkielmassa pyritään selvittämään minkälainen eettinen käsitteistö vaikuttaa Bill Gatesin ja muiden filantrokapitalistien toiminnan taustalla. Kapitalismi suffiksi sanassa filantrokapitalismi viittaa vahvaan taloudelliseen kytkökseen. Tutkielmassa käydään lyhyesti läpi nykymaailman talouspoliittisia rakenteita käsitteleviä teorioita ja väittämiä, sekä köyhyyden ja epätasa-arvon tuottamia moraalisia velvoitteita. Tutkimukseen sisältyvää moraalista pohdintaa ohjaavet pääasiassa Thomas Pogge ja Tom Campbell. Tutkimuskysymys on kaksiosainen: Onko filantrokapitalismi käsitteenä ja ilmiönä eettisesti koherentti? Ja minkälaiset motiivit Bill Gatesin mukaan ohjaavat filantrokapitalistiseen toimintaan? Filantrokapitalismin eettistä koherenssia tutkitaan kirjallisuuden sekä useiden aihepiiriä käsittelevien artikkelien kautta. Tutkielmassa pureudutaan filantrokapitalismia kohtaan esitettyyn kritiikkiin, sekä yritetään hahmottaa filantrokapitalismin tarjoamaa potentiaalia yhteiskunnallisessa kehityksessä. Yhdessä pääluvuista esitetään tapaustutkimus, jonka kohteena on Yhdysvaltojen koulutusjärjestelmä, ja erityisesti filantropian rooli sekä vaikutusvalta sen uudelleen strukturoinnissa. Tutkielman johtopäätöksenä esitetään seuraava väittämä filantrokapitalismin luonteesta: Nykyisessä maailman tilassa lienee kaikille parempi, että upporikkaat miljardöörit kuten Gates lahjoittavat omaisuutensa pois sijoittamalla sen hankkeisiin joissa on potentiaalia postitiiviselle kehitykselle, kuin se että he eväisivät maailmalta nämä varat ja käyttäisivät ne omiin tarkoituksiinsa ja nautintoihinsa.

This Master’s Thesis proposes a reading of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (first edition published 1818) against the historical background of secularization and the philosophical problem of secular ethics. At a moment in Western history when religious views of man and the world he inhabits were rapidly losing significance, many intellectuals sought to find a non-theistic foundation for ethical values. Among them were many of the renowned British Romantic poets, much of whose literary opus can be read as an ethico-philosophical undertaking. This thesis reads Frankenstein against the backdrop of the religious and ethical thought of Percy Bysshe Shelley, Mary Shelley’s companion, literary mentor during the composition of Frankenstein, and later husband. In comparison with other period texts, Frankenstein presents a distinctly naturalistic outlook from which the supernatural is strikingly absent. Furthermore, the religious and ethical views of the novel’s protagonist are remarkably similar to those of Percy Shelley; this finding dovetails with recent scholarship which suggests that Victor Frankenstein was modeled upon the author’s real-life companion. However, the fact that the novel’s Shelley-like protagonist can easily be read as the villain of the story and that his distinctly Romantic attitudes result in an ethical catastrophe suggests a subtle but powerful critique of Shelleyan Romanticism and its metaphysical and ethical tenets. This interpretation is underscored by an analysis of Victor Frankenstein’s first-person confession narrative employing James Phelan’s taxonomy of narratorial unreliability, which highlights the protagonist’s lack of ethical clairvoyance and his inadequate engagement with his severe ethical failures.