Where are the ethics?

There seems to be one thing missing from this week’s readings that is critical to transnational contexts: ethics. Though we read Douglas’ book on ethics, hers more pertained to the use of ethics in actual science and not necessarily to the use of ethics in transnational settings of employing science.

As such, I believe Levinas provides useful insight—he is just one of the many writers on the subject though. Levinas’ view of ethics and responsibility is one contingent on the self/other relationship. “[Responsibility] is a radically interdependent condition, a condition made possible only because of my responsibility to the Other” (Campbell 1999, 32) (p 32). Moreover, the subject—the self-- is found in the subjection of and relationship with the other. How does all this philosophical talk work? “As soon as I acknowledge that it is ‘I’ who am responsible, I accept that my freedom is anteceded by an obligation to the other” (Campbell 1999, 33).

Yet, this is based on the logic of the individual and one-to-one relationship with the Other. What if there are many others as in the can of transnational and global contexts? Levinas does address this with his discussion of “the third person.” Entry of a third person removes uniqueness of one-to-one relationship: the third person becomes the other of the other and makes me one of the others (make sense?) This third person brings doubt to the universality of responsibility to the Other that transnational groups and global governance is founded on while also requiring justice to be brought in. (Yes, I just threw justice in the mix with ethics, but Levinas did it first.)

Injustice occurs when one loses sight of the transcendence of the other and that the states are shaped by the proximity of my relation to the Other. This view of ethics and responsibility differs from previous views that were associated with autonomous moral agents (states). This is all fine and dandy, but how does it relate to the readings again?

I believe Miller’s chapter—as the overarching piece—can best show how ethics and justice need to be included in this week’s discussion. Miller saw that science and technology as both connecting people and as a source of authority in emerging global institutions. Yet those granting authority to these institutions based on science was not a universal representation—it was the modernized west bias. As such, Miller saw the need for more attention being placed on making these institutions accountability to all of their subjects and clients. The needed trust for this to occur requires a reestablishment of political accountability. For example, scientific models that transnational and global institutions are based have values and assumptions imbedded within them. Thus, these institutions are inherently bias and their foundations must be redone.

Such a restructuring requires being reflexive on both “the other” and ourselves. On a smaller scale, take the Mathew’s piece, For the local people’s view and beliefs to be included, the stated needed to rethink how they saw the other and how their existence in power depends on this other, it then becomes an ethical necessity for be responsible for these people and include them. Injustice occurred in the piece as the state forgot about the self/other transcendence and pushed the Other away

This is a wordy blog that simply lead to a simple question: where are they ethics and justice in these articles?