Explain recognition as orientation. b) What is social stigma?

c) Show how COVID-19 related

social stigmas are expressions of misrecognition. d) What do you personally do to minimize
the prevalence of the misrecognizing practice of social stigmas?

a) Recognition as orientation means that we pay attention to others’ evaluative qualities, such
as their abilities, achievements, preferences, identities, etc1. We also internalize the reasons
why these qualities are important or valuable, and we act accordingly to respect and
appreciate them. Recognition as orientation involves five stages: commitment,
internalization, realization, motivation, and externalization.

b) Social stigma is a negative attitude or judgment toward a person or a group based on a

perceived attribute that makes them different or inferior. Social stigma can lead to
discrimination, exclusion, and loss of status for the stigmatized person or group. Social
stigma consists of five elements: labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss and
discrimination, and power.

c) COVID-19 related social stigmas are expressions of misrecognition because they fail to
recognize the dignity and worth of people who are affected by the virus or associated with it.
For example, some people may label and stereotype those who are infected, recovered, or
exposed to COVID-19 as dangerous, dirty, or irresponsible. They may also separate them
from the rest of society and treat them unfairly or harshly. These actions are influenced by
fear, ignorance, or prejudice, and they violate the principle of participatory parity.

d) To minimize the prevalence of the misrecognizing practice of social stigmas, I personally

do the following things:

• I educate myself and others about the facts and myths of COVID-19 and how to
prevent its spread.
• I empathize and support those who are affected by COVID-19 or face stigma because
of it.
• I challenge and correct any misinformation or negative stereotypes about COVID-19
or its victims.
• I promote and practice positive values of respect, solidarity, and inclusion in my
community.
Explain JJ Thompson’s argument for abortion? b) Why is it called the rights argument?
c) Do you agree with this argument and why? d) How is this argument different from
the utilitarian reasoning for abortion.

a) JJ Thomson’s argument for abortion is based on the idea that a pregnant woman has a right
to control her own body and decide whether to allow the fetus to use it or not. She uses an
analogy of being kidnapped and attached to a famous violinist who needs your blood to
survive. She argues that you are not morally obligated to stay connected to the violinist, even
if he is a person with a right to life. Similarly, she argues that a pregnant woman is not
morally obligated to continue a pregnancy, even if the fetus is a person with a right to life.
Thomson’s argument is based on the idea of negative rights, which means that people have a
right to be left alone and not be interfered with, rather than positive rights, which means that
people have a right to something, such as healthcare or education.

b) It is called the rights argument because it focuses on the rights of the pregnant woman and
the fetus, and how they may conflict or outweigh each other. Thomson claims that the right to
life does not entail the right to use someone else’s body without their consent. She argues that
the fetus has a right to life, but not a right to use the woman’s body without her consent.
Therefore, the woman has a right to refuse to allow the fetus to use her body, even if this
results in the death of the fetus.

c) Whether I agree with this argument or not depends on my personal values and beliefs.
Some possible reasons to agree with this argument are:

• I respect the autonomy and dignity of women and their choices about their
reproductive health.
• I think that the moral status of the fetus is not clear or relevant for the abortion
decision.
• I think that the analogy of the violinist is persuasive and shows the difference between
killing and letting die.

d) This argument is different from the utilitarian reasoning for abortion because it does not
depend on the consequences or outcomes of the abortion decision. It does not consider the
happiness or suffering of the pregnant woman, the fetus, or anyone else who may be affected
by the abortion. It only considers the rights and duties of the parties involved. Utilitarian
reasoning, on the other hand, would consider the consequences of the abortion decision, such
as the impact on the woman’s mental health, the financial burden of raising a child, or the
social benefits of reducing unwanted pregnancies. Utilitarian reasoning would weigh the
costs and benefits of different options and choose the one that maximizes overall happiness or
minimizes overall suffering.
 Explain Gandhi’s understanding of ahimsa (non-violence). b) Mahatma Gandhi
supports killing a living being when it is an expression of compassion. To measure
whether our action of killing is an expression of compassion, he then sets up three
standards. Explain them. c) For Gandhi, in the case of suffering terminal patients,
euthanasia and assisted suicide are not the best solutions, and generally are not
permissible. Why? d) To what extent do you agree, and why?

a) Gandhi’s understanding of ahimsa (non-violence) is that it means abstaining from ‘causing

pain to or killing any life out of anger or from a selfish purpose, or with the intention of
injuring it’1. Ahimsa applies to acts, words and thoughts, and is an expression of love and
compassion for other living beings2. However, Gandhi also recognizes that non-violence has
some limitations and exceptions, and that sometimes violence is unavoidable or even
justified3.

b) Mahatma Gandhi supports killing a living being when it is an expression of compassion.

To measure whether our action of killing is an expression of compassion, he sets up three
standards:

• The absence of self-interest: The motive for killing should not be based on any
selfish or personal gain, such as financial considerations or the unwillingness to care
for the dying living being4.
• The occurrence of uncontrollable suffering at the end of life: The condition of the
living being should be incurable, terminal and unbearable, and no help or relief should
be possible.
• The consent of the patient if possible: If the living being is a human person, the
informed consent of the patient should be obtained if she is still capable of expressing
her wishes5.

c) For Gandhi, in the case of suffering terminal patients, euthanasia and assisted suicide are
not the best solutions, and generally are not permissible6. Why? Because:

• The criterion of the absence of self-interest is very strict: Gandhi believes that
most cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide are not entirely free of self-interest, and
that it is everyone’s duty to care for the dying, even if it is difficult or inconvenient.
• The criterion of the occurrence of uncontrollable suffering at the end of life is
very rare: Gandhi thinks that almost always something can still be done for the
patient, such as providing care, comfort and support. He also believes that suffering
has a spiritual meaning and value, and that it is related to karma.
• The criterion of the consent of the patient is not decisive: Gandhi argues that most
patients who request euthanasia or assisted suicide are not in a rational state of mind,
and that their requests may change if they receive proper care and attention.

d) To what extent I agree with Gandhi’s view on euthanasia and assisted suicide depends on
my personal values and beliefs. Some possible reasons to agree with his view are:

• I respect the sanctity and dignity of life and the moral duty to preserve it.
 • I acknowledge the spiritual and karmic aspects of suffering and death.
• I appreciate the value and importance of care for the dying7.

Explain the growing consensus for addiction among neuroscientists. b) Describe three
objections to this consensus. c) How can these objections be refuted, as discussed in the
class reading? d) Of these refutations, which one is the strongest? Why? e) Of these
refutations, which one is the weakest? Why?

a) The growing consensus for addiction among neuroscientists is that addiction and obesity
are symptoms of the same neural phenomenon, which is the stimulation of the same brain
circuits by palatable food or addictive drugs. This hypothesis was first suggested in 1949, but
it took more than 50 years for neurological evidence to support it. In 2009, Marcia Pelchat
published the opinion that many obese people are addicted to food1.

b) Three objections to this consensus are:

• Objection I: Appetites for food are innate, while desires for drugs are learnt through
repeated drug use23.
• Objection II: Obesity is influenced by a range of biological processes that are unique
to food intake, such as hormones, metabolism and genetics.
• Objection III: Food eaters are not like drug takers, because they do not exhibit the
same stereotypical behaviors of addiction, such as stealing, lying or neglecting other
aspects of life.

c) These objections can be refuted as follows:

• Reply to Objection I: Neuroimaging studies have shown that food hunger and drug
craving activate the same brain regions, regardless of their evolutionary age.
Therefore, learnt or acquired appetites use the same neural circuits as the natural
appetites.
• Reply to Objection II: The relationship between our satiety mechanisms and our
food appetites is not very strong, as we can crave food even when we are not hungry
or full4. Our hunger for food does not track our biological need for nutriment5. The
rare disorders that affect obesity are not relevant for the majority of obese people who
do not have them.
• Reply to Objection III: Overeaters share many behavioral similarities with drug
addicts, such as craving, denial, obsession, guilt, disgust and dissociation. The
stereotypes of drug addicts and obese people are inaccurate and biased, as they do not
reflect the diversity and complexity of their conditions.

d) Of these refutations, the strongest one is the reply to objection I, because it is based on
empirical evidence from neuroimaging studies that directly show the similarity between food
hunger and drug craving in the brain.

e) Of these refutations, the weakest one is the reply to objection III, because it is based on
generalizations and comparisons that may not apply to all cases of overeating and drug
addiction. There may be individual differences and contextual factors that affect the
behaviors and motivations of food eaters and drug takers.
a) According to Mahatma Gandhi, violence is justified if it is unavoidable. But he gives
no categorical rules to determine ‘unavoidable violence.’ It rather depends on time,
place and person. Give an example of such an unavoidable violence that can be
regarded as an expression of non-violence. Note that your example should not be from
the class reading assignment. b) Explain why your above-mentioned case is unavoidable
violence and can be regarded as an expression of non-violence. c) For Gandhi, in the
case of suffering terminal patients, euthanasia and assisted suicide are not the best
solutions, and generally are not permissible. Why? d) To what extent do you agree, and
why?

a) An example of an unavoidable violence that can be regarded as an expression of non-

violence is killing a person who is about to detonate a bomb that would kill many innocent
people. This is a case of self-defense and protection of others, and it is motivated by
compassion and justice.

b) This case is unavoidable violence because there is no other way to prevent the harm that
the bomber is going to cause. It is also an expression of non-violence because it is not done
out of anger, hatred or selfishness, but out of love, duty and responsibility.

c) For Gandhi, in the case of suffering terminal patients, euthanasia and assisted suicide are
not the best solutions, and generally are not permissible. Why? Because:

• The criterion of the absence of self-interest is very strict: Gandhi believes that
most cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide are not entirely free of self-interest, and
that it is everyone’s duty to care for the dying, even if it is difficult or inconvenient.
• The criterion of the occurrence of uncontrollable suffering at the end of life is
very rare: Gandhi thinks that almost always something can still be done for the
patient, such as providing care, comfort and support. He also believes that suffering
has a spiritual meaning and value, and that it is related to karma.
• The criterion of the consent of the patient is not decisive: Gandhi argues that most
patients who request euthanasia or assisted suicide are not in a rational state of mind,
and that their requests may change if they receive proper care and attention.

d) To what extent I agree with Gandhi’s view on euthanasia and assisted suicide depends on
my personal values and beliefs. Some possible reasons to agree with his view are:

• I respect the sanctity and dignity of life and the moral duty to preserve it.
• I acknowledge the spiritual and karmic aspects of suffering and death.
• I appreciate the value and importance of care for the dying.
Some possible reasons to disagree with his view are:

• I value the autonomy and dignity of individuals and their choices about their
own life and death.
• I reject the spiritual and karmic aspects of suffering and death.
• I recognize the limits and challenges of care for the dying.

What is suicide? b) According to the author of our class reading, are there actual examples of
suicide, if we confine our interest to people who are healthy? Explain the author’s position in
this regard. c) What is Kant’s position with respect to suicide? d) Do you agree with him?
Why?

Here is my response to your question:

a) Suicide is the act of intentionally ending one’s own life. b) According to the author of the
current web page context, there are no actual examples of suicide, if we confine our interest
to people who are healthy. He argues that healthy people who kill themselves are either
mentally ill or under external pressure, and therefore their actions are not truly voluntary or
rational. c) Kant’s position with respect to suicide is that it is always wrong, because it
violates the categorical imperative. He claims that suicide is a contradiction in the universal
law of nature, and that it is a misuse of one’s rationality and autonomy. d) Whether I agree
with Kant or not depends on my personal values and beliefs. Some possible reasons to agree
with him are:

• I respect the moral law and the dignity of rational beings.

• I think that suicide is irrational and unnatural.
• I believe that life is a gift and a duty that cannot be renounced.

Some possible reasons to disagree with him are:

• I value the freedom and dignity of individuals and their choices about their own
life and death.
• I think that suicide can be rational and natural in some circumstances.
• I believe that life is a right and a responsibility that can be relinquished.
According to Seyyed Hossain Nasr, “what is generally called the ‘environmental crisis’ is not
merely the crisis of the environment; it involves both the natural world as well as the
microcosm within us” (pp. 75-76). Towards the end of the interview we read in the class, in a
long reply to Muzaffar Iqbal, Nasr discusses human beings’ obligations to nature as “God’s
men” (p. 96). It seems that understanding our obligation to nature in this way goes against the
Western understanding. Keeping all these statements in your mind answer the following: a)
State Nasr’s position clearly. b)Mention some of its advantages and disadvantages. c) Do you
think that his argument would motivate a secular person? Why? d) If not, what aspect of his
argument needs to be changed, and why? If yes, what aspect of his argument is the strongest,
and how does it motivate you?

Seyyed Hossain Nasr argues that the environmental crisis is not just a crisis of the
environment, but it also involves the microcosm within us 1. He believes that human beings
have an obligation to nature as “God’s men” 1. Nasr’s position is that our obligation to nature
is rooted in our spiritual and religious traditions, which are often neglected in the Western
understanding of the environment 1.

Nasr provides several examples to support his argument. For instance, he notes that the
Islamic tradition has a rich history of environmentalism, with many verses in the Quran
emphasizing the importance of protecting the natural world 1. He also points out that many
indigenous cultures around the world have developed sustainable ways of living in harmony
with nature 1. By contrast, the Western understanding of the environment tends to be more
focused on economic growth and technological progress, often at the expense of the natural
world 1.

One advantage of Nasr’s position is that it emphasizes the spiritual and religious dimensions
of environmentalism, which can provide a deeper and more meaningful connection to nature
1
. For example, by connecting with nature on a spiritual level, people can develop a greater
appreciation for the natural world and a deeper sense of responsibility to protect it. This can
be especially important for people who are looking for a sense of purpose and meaning in
their lives.
However, one disadvantage of Nasr’s position is that it may be seen as too religious or
spiritual for secular audiences 1. This could limit the appeal of his argument to a wider
audience, particularly those who do not identify with any particular religious or spiritual
tradition.

Despite this, Nasr’s argument could still be persuasive to some secular individuals who are
open to exploring the spiritual dimensions of environmentalism. For example, people who are
interested in mindfulness practices or meditation may be more receptive to Nasr’s argument,
as it emphasizes the importance of developing a deeper connection with the natural world.

If Nasr’s argument does not motivate a secular person, one aspect that could be changed is
the emphasis on religious and spiritual traditions. Instead, the argument could be framed in a
way that emphasizes the practical benefits of environmentalism, such as improved health and
well-being, economic benefits, and a more sustainable future 1.

In conclusion, Nasr’s argument that our obligation to nature is rooted in our spiritual and
religious traditions is a compelling one that can provide a deeper and more meaningful
connection to the natural world. While there are some disadvantages to this position, such as
its potential to be seen as too religious or spiritual for secular audiences, it could still be
persuasive to some individuals who are open to exploring the spiritual dimensions of
environmentalism. By emphasizing the practical benefits of environmentalism, it may be
possible to appeal to a wider audience and motivate more people to take action to protect the
environment.