Posts
A brief reminder of the upcoming PHIG as well as a call for possible topics to be discussed at the next meeting. I have been mulling over various societal issues in order to make a proposition. What has registered for me over the past weeks though is issues regarding gender, marriage and rights, emanating from the law (recently amended) in Afghanistan which allows husbands the right to starve their wives if they do not comply with their reasonable sexual demands. Afghan women, at least at the political and/or judicial level appear to be opposed to this, but the law has been passed in an amended version to hopefully garner the Shiite vote.
I dont think we philosophised about issues of gender/marriage/rights etc, i could be mistaken, but I am hoping to come up with a more precise recommendation soon. For now though, emotions aside, if possible, it would be useful to have your thoughts on this. The "West" is usually scolded for its judgement of "non-Western" societies and their mores and norms, but I am not sure that an issue like this can be simplistically reduced to West/non-Western characterizations. Dont humans (women) have rights as human beings to be treated as such. I know that in reality politics will exist but lets start somewhere.
Nicole
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Its been some time since we discussed anything on here but hopefully we can get that to change. The PHIG discussion on sex was quite thought provoking and if anything revealed that there are some obscure ideas surrounding a topic on which many people would probably consider themselves an authority, or at minimum, knowledgeable. Interrogation however, usually shows us up by making us question our assumptions. Very intriguing and definitely a brain teaser for the future.
ReplyDeleteFor now though and thinking about the May PHIG I propose the less sexy topic of intervention, and as suggested on Saturday, ideas of whether, and when and how intervention should take place. I know some suggested its more a political issue than a philosophical one but I disagree. I disgaree simply because such compartmentalisation gives a very simplistic impression of the issue which at its core encompasses a very important ethical debate. It is clear from the world experience of intervention that it is not always perceived as being warranted. This however seems very discretionary. If we get beyond whether interventon is right or wrong, the question becomes when. Intervene in Libya but not Egypt; may be Syria but not Yemen? I am sure that the public is privy to the contributing considerations to these various decisions. Is more merit in intervention on humanitarian grounds and what does that even mean? what is the measure of such an intervention and who is your target audience and how does one know what such boundaries are being breached? The questions surrounding the subject make it clear that a clear decision is a luxury and that the imperative of action doesnt necessarily allow for such deep thought although some would argue that the sanctity of life necessitates exactly such thought. I am sure there are many more questions that can arise during our discussions but hopefully the few thoughts above gets the ball rolling as they say.........
U know i heard on the news today that arming the rebels in Libya was on the agenda...Belgium doesnt seem to think its a good idea..all the same a decision will be made.But i wonder whose decision it will be in the end..will it be the west will it be Qaddafi, the UN,US, NATO the rebels..? I was listening to a conservationist, Tim Flannery on the bbc. He used words like global consciousness and super organism ..he also admitted that game theory identifies the extreme challenges of multiple decision makers..If we could see human beings as members of some sort of microcosm forming some sort of collective then the question of intervention would be easy.It would be like ..going to the doctor, a part of my body has a problem..i get it fixed .But those ideas are difficult..at least for me.
ReplyDelete