Peer Review Classmates Answers

Reply to the two different peer review with a cogent and meaningful reflection that explores how that the essays enabled you to think differently and more profoundly about a particular text/author and, in turn, how that created compelling ways for you to reflect on your own essay.

 First peer review: 135 words

Introduction to the Ethical Dilemmas Addressed in this Portfolio

Ethical dilemmas move us to an unsettled place, where we face sometimes frightening questions of self and society, of our human past and future. In my five essays drawing on the class materials and discussions, I look at the application of ethics to human interaction, seeking practical ways to make progress in the existential issues of our time.In “We Already Know,” I consider the damaging history of colonization, slavery, and genocide, moving to look at what individuals can do with what we already know about humanity’s committing of atrocities.In “Think,” I build on Hannah Arendt’s proposal that we think about what we do, as individuals and as a society, looking at how the international community has and has not responded to violence against women as a weapon of war. I also explore the complications in carceral approaches and how thought and respect can transform our responses.“Remember or Reconcile?” considers the value and danger of remembering past harms. I discuss refocusing to reconciliation and I look at the role of music as a weapon or tool, both in remembrance and reconciliation.In “Who Am I?” I raise the issue of each person’s fractured identity and the impact this can have on their actions in the world. I explore how people can find ways to accept their identity and use it to move in ethical directions.Finally, I move from the self to the other in “Hell Is Other People,” exploring the fear and bias behind xenophobia and refuting claims about dangers of accepting immigrants. I emphasize that seeing others’ value can transform them from a source of hell to heavenEpilogue“We already know enough,” Sven Lindqvist and Raoul Peck told us. Yet the exploration of ethical dilemmas across this course taught me much more, leaving me better equipped to discuss and help address the serious issues confronting humanity. I also feel better able to recognize the complexity inherent in these issues. Here are my three core takeaways from this class.

 1.Humanity turns to othering to legitimize its fears and justify its actions.A crucial throughline among the course modules is othering. From genocide to rape to xenophobia to conditional citizenship, to simple fear and greed, people’s tendency to look for ways that other people are different – and therefore less worthy – has led to damage for most and benefit for a very few.Othering is especially predominant at times of disruption and cultural unease – like today. In investigating the impacts of othering both at a high level and from the close-up reports of individuals, this class has reinforced my conviction that we must reach out, not pull away. Individuals and societies benefit from building connections, not demanding exclusion.

2. It is possible to change and to reject the practice of othering.Despite the grim situations in so many of our readings, I perceive glimmers of optimism. Nadia Murad described Iraqi Muslims who helped her despite her Yazidi identity, and she took her case to the United Nations. George Makari reported ways that racial “science” was debunked. Deeyah Khan found that engaging with extremists could change their stances. Change is possible.When we move from othering, we can come together to solve problems. But is enough change happening to keep us from the brink, or are we slipping back toward the rampant othering of authoritarianism? That introduces the final takeaway:

 3. Ethical inquiry raises further questions.From my first Digication entry, I proposed the importance of questioning ourselves and questioning our knowledge. This continued across the modules of the class, with more questions arising as we delved into significant ethical issues.A classmate challenged me to address why we should question ourselves and push beyond our comfortable stasis. I admit that I have found myself resistant at times to calls to move outside the comfort zone. But as Peck and Lalami prodded us to recognize, we cannot claim ignorance. In light of the troubles of the world, we must be willing to question the status quo and even the science of our time, recognizing that the work of society, humanity, and science is never complete. Rather, all things are in a state of perpetual change, even if imperceptible.In our final reading, Lalami concluded by calling on us to use “radical imagination and lifelong commitment” (2020, p. 165) to improve the systems of our society. Our engagement with education such as this class is a component of our commitment to expand our understanding and, I hope, put that to work with radical imagination.

 2) Second peer review: 135 words

 Introduction to the Ethical Dilemmas Addressed in this PortfolioEngaging with ethics in a diverse world presents numerous challenges, including (but not limited to): cultural relativism, value pluralism, ethical universalism versus cultural sensitivity, language and communication barriers, power imbalances, blinding loyalties, globalization and technology, environmental ethics, and historical legacies. The entries in this portfolio examine five ethical dilemmas that broadly relate to the course readings from a subset of those challenges.The first portfolio entry examines how extreme situations of enforced poverty and hunger can result in actors’ moral frameworks deteriorating into an ethics of survival. This phenomenon is illustrated via Musselmänner in the National Socialist concentration camps and the current war in Yemen. This dilemma leads one to question the defensibility of outsiders’ propensity for formulating moral judgments about individuals who experience these dire conditions and the responsibility outsiders have to preempt such extreme situations from happening in the first place.The second portfolio entry probes into how a universally recognized norm of rape as a war crime has a chasm between the de jure norm and its de facto realization. This dilemma leads one to question just how far hegemonic powers are prepared to go in order to allow actors affiliated with them and their allies to violate jus cogens norms with impunitThe third portfolio entry inquires into how humans remember collectively, recognizing that while remembering could help us learn from history, our collective memories can also be a causal factor for conflicts, thus creating an inherent tension. This dilemma raises questions regarding how we should try to construct our collective memories to mitigate this tension.The fourth portfolio entry explores Freud’s discovery of the unconscious as the stranger within us that could unite humanity, yet, contemplates that the possibility of epigenetically transferred selectively mutually shared memory traces as the stranger within the unknowable unconscious could further polarize our species. This dilemma engenders further reflection on managing tensions between universalism and difference.The fifth portfolio entry considers the implications of stereotypes when coupled with the Knobe Effect, postulating this to explain an inelasticity of institutionally discriminatory practices against negatively stereotyped groups. The tension in this dilemma comes from acknowledging that certain immanent actors might be incapable of challenging their implicit biases, which implies there is no infallible remedy to rectify these structural biases.The insight from mulling over these portfolio entries illustrates the ethical dilemmas arising from living in a world of diversity.

 Epilogue

The ethical dilemmas highlighted in my five portfolio entries illustrate the omnipresence of tensions when contemplating various dimensions of ethics. My deliberations on the tension in the lived human experience that arises from the desire to understand our origins but existing in a world where we cannot control time have influenced my perspective on my identity and subjectivity.Understanding our origins is pivotal in giving us a greater comprehension of who we are.  Still, our origins are far more complicated than what countries and cultures we hail from, the pigmentation color of our skin, our biological sex, and our ancestors' beliefs, customs, and practices. A thorough comprehension of our origins would require deciphering how each of us has evolved into the unique actors we currently are and detailing the inner subterranean drives within the unknown unconscious, otherwise thought of as the foreigner within us (Kristeva 170). Such an understanding is far beyond the scope of what modern science can currently explain, and it is debatable whether our origins will ever be comprehensively understood.In common parlance, we use identities as heuristics to attempt to explain our origins.  However, geneticists have established that these identities are a poor proxy for genetic ancestry (Harden).  The upshot is that these identities are socially constructed reductionist linguistic labels whose signification is elusive and does not truly capture the full extent of our origins. Once we understand the meaning behind reductionist linguistic labels, those labels might seem to identify us for other people, but those labels don't have to identify us for ourselves.The more time an actor spends immersing themselves in these heuristics, the more they trivialize existing in a world where time advances, thus ignoring the role of their agency in the ongoing development of their essence. Every person deals with a tradeoff between time spent attempting to understand their origins, which may also satisfy their need to belong, versus venturing into the unknown by apprehending how they continue becoming. Accepting the inescapability of subjectivity comes after appreciating the uniqueness and seemingly arbitrariness of our original positions in life, as well as the ongoing predicament surrounding coping with the previously mentioned tradeoff. Every actor has their own means of dealing with this perplexing characteristic of our existence, and exposure from the class learning materials and discussions to the multiple ways of approaching this dimension of our existence has altered my perspective of the human experience and the world.Taking these learnings into consideration has led me to three significant takeaways.  Firstly, recognizing and acknowledging other actors’ subjective lived experiences is essential. All of us have been thrown into unique positions in the world and have something to contribute.  Dismissing another actor’s lived experience to false consciousness is ineffective in advancing ethical frameworks.Secondly, while acknowledging the subjectivity of the other, it is vital not to succumb to the Peritrope (Plato 803). Avoiding this trap of sophistry requires being prepared to feel uneasy by challenging the premises underlying one’s own belief system and a willingness to transform internalized views when the underlying premises behind them are not well-founded. Hiding behind reductionist reasoning with an unwillingness to productively engage with the other underpinned by the rigidity of thought and the inability to unpack the substantiation behind premises is symptomatic of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, i.e., being ignorant of one's own ignorance (Dunning). Moreover, this recalcitrant orientation is emblematic of actors who operate in bad faith and is not constructive in developing ethical frameworks.The third takeaway is the importance of being aware of the human shortcoming in our susceptibility to delineate and concretize narratives and heuristics that attempt to impose a semblance of order on the workings of a world that is not stable and filled with uncertainty.Taken together, these three takeaways champion a different way of thinking about pluralism, suggesting it should be reliant on recursive dialogue that recognizes the prevalence of special obligations to specific humans and groups of humans based on subjective views regarding the intersections of various human connections and, simultaneously, not denying universal interconnectivity across humanity. Dialogues between our species will often not resolve dilemmas or arrive at mutually agreed-upon universal norms. However, internalized changes, including transforming perspectives on obligations, can come from empathetically listening to each other’s positions, being aware that we all have implicit biases and failings, and adopting actively open-minded thinking (Haran et al.). This version of pluralism appeals to an understanding that liberal nationalism is not necessarily an endpoint, and post-nationalism is not necessarily inevitable.Normativity should then be seen as an ongoing quest to continually strive for juris generative living ethical frameworks via democratic iterations grounded in a commitment to welcome diversity, embrace moral residue, live with tensions, empathetically listen to the other, and never cease dialogue.

• Exploring Christian Ethics and the Dilemma of Relativism
• Greater Good Analysis
• Religon and Ethics
• Annotated Bibliography- Police Brutality
• COP 28 Issues
• Ethical Issues In Marketing Communications
• Merger
• Homework
• Reference List Assignment
• Ethical Situation Analysis