The Duty to Remove Statues of Wrongdoers

This paper argues that public statues of persons typically express a positive evaluative attitude towards the subject. It also argues that states have duties to repudiate their own historical wrongdoing, and to condemn other people’s serious wrongdoing. Both duties are incompatible with retaining public statues of people who perpetrated serious rights violations. Hence, a person’s being a serious rights violator is a sufficient condition for a state’s having a duty to remove a public statue of that person. I argue that this applies no less in the case of the ‘morally ambiguous’ wrongdoer, who both accomplishes significant goods and perpetrates serious rights violations. The duty to remove a statue is a defeasible duty: like most duties, it can be defeated by lesser-evil considerations. If removing a statue would, for example, spark a violent riot that would risk unjust harm to lots of people, the duty to remove could be outweighed by the duty not to foreseeably cause unjust harm. This would provide a lesser-evil justification for keeping the statue. But it matters that the duty to remove is outweighed, rather than negated, by these consequences. Unlike when a duty is negated, one still owes something in cases of outweighing. And it especially matters that it is outweighed by the predicted consequences of wrongful behaviour by others

Killing John to save Mary: a defence of the moral distinction between killing and letting die

Introduction This paper defends the moral significance of the distinction between killing and letting die. In the first part of the paper, I consider and reject Michael Tooley’s argument that initiating a causal process is morally equivalent to refraining from interfering in that process. The second part disputes Tooley’s suggestion it is merely external factors that make killing appear to be worse than letting die, when in reality the distinction is morally neutral. Tooley is mistaken to claim that we are permitted to kill bystanders who had no fair chance to avoid being at risk of harm. We can support the significance of the killing / letting die distinction by considering the difference between what we are permitted to do in self-defence against those who are going to kill us, and what we can do against those who are going to let us die. I also suggest that we are less responsible for the deaths we allow than for the deaths that we cause, since we do not make people worse off for our presence in cases where we fail to save them

Language, ideology and education

This thesis examines the relationship between language and social reality. The position argued for is one which sees language as having a constitutive role to play in the formation and maintenance of the social world. It elaborates and develops a view expressed by Quentin Skinner, namely, that language and the social world are mutually supportive and exist in a state of dynamic interaction. Because language has this constitutive role in relation to the social world attention to the use of language is important for the language we employ will be a significant factor in determining the nature of that world. The notion of ideology is defined in a critical sense as 'malign decontestation', i. e., the presentation of that which is contestable as if there were only one legitimate perspective. The concepts of absolutism and universalisation are taken as key ideological markers. Given the constitutive role of language, the identification of ideological language becomes important because aspects of the social world which are informed by such a language will reflect the errors inherent in the linguistic structures themselves. One of the central arguments of the thesis is that ideological language often arises when insufficient attention is paid to the ontological differences between activities whose subject matter is the natural world and those whose subject matter is the social world. There is a focus on educational issues because the impetus for this thesis arose out of a growing unease with the nature of the language used in relation to this topic. Although a concern with the language of education is not uncommon, the full significance of the language we use in this area is often unacknowledged because the necessary theoretical background is absent. It is the main purpose of this thesis to provide a philosophical justification for this concern

Conflict and Cultural heritage: A Moral Analysis of the Challenges of Heritage Protection

This paper considers the moral problems raised by the paper by Thomas Weiss and Nina Connelly: 'Cultural Cleansing and Mass Atrocities: Protecting Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict Zones'. Weiss and Connelly argue for an extension of the 'Responsibility to Protect' legislation to argue that attacks on heritage could be a just cause for war. This view is opposed, and broader worries about the moral implications of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property are considered

Political vandalism as counter‐speech: A defense of defacing and destroying tainted monuments

Tainted political symbols ought to be confronted, removed, or at least recontextualized. Despite the best efforts to achieve this, however, official actions on tainted symbols often fail to take place. In such cases, I argue that political vandalism—the unauthorized defacement, destruction, or removal of political symbols—may be morally permissible or even obligatory. This is when, and insofar as, political vandalism serves as fitting counter-speech that undermines the authority of tainted symbols in ways that match their publicity, refuses to let them speak in our name, and challenges the derogatory messages expressed through a mechanism I call derogatory pedestalling: the glorification or honoring of certain individuals or ideologies that can only make sense when members of a targeted group are taken to be inferior

Bystanders, risks, and consent

This paper considers the moral status of bystanders affected by medical research trials. Recent proposals advocate a very low threshold of permissible risk imposition upon bystanders that is insensitive to the prospective benefits of the trial, in part because we typically lack bystanders’ consent. I argue that the correct threshold of permissible risk will be sensitive to the prospective gains of the trial. I further argue that one does not always need a person’s consent to expose her to significant risks of even serious harm for the sake of others. That we typically need the consent of participants is explained by the fact that trials risk harmfully using participants. Bystanders, in constrast, are harmed as a side-effect, which is easier to justify. I then consider whether the degree of risk that a trial may impose on a bystander is sensitive to whether she is a prospective beneficiary of that trial

Equating Innocent Threats and Bystanders

Michael Otsuka claims that it is impermissible to kill innocent threats because doing so is morally equivalent to killing bystanders. I show that Otsuka's argument conflates killing as a means with treating a person herself as a means. The killing of a person can be a means only if that person is instrumental in the threat to Victim's life. A permission to kill a person as a means will not permit killing bystanders. I also defend a permission to kill innocent threats against Otsuka's Trolley Cases. Otsuka depicts a person tied to an oncoming trolley as a bystander. I argue that such characters are threats whom Victim can permissibly kill