Cosmopolitan Responsibility

Heilinger, Jan-Christoph

doi:10.1515/9783110612271

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, we are related to the harms others suffer. We agree, indeed, with those who invoke a Youngian, relational, or social connection conception of global structural justice concerning responsibilities to asylum‐seekers, refugees, and other migrants: all who contribute to the structures and processes that generate injustice have responsibilities (Parekh 2016; Heilinger 2020). Our reasoning diverges slightly, however, given our emphasis on place.…”

Section: Objections and Grounding Responsibilitiessupporting

confidence: 53%

Refugees and others enduring displacement: Structural injustice, health, and ethical placemaking

Eckenwiler¹,

Wild

2020

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Around the world currently, over 70 million people are forcibly displaced, most trying to escape war, persecution, disaster, drought, and/or famine (UNHCR 2019). In this paper, we pick up on the arguments that (a) the existing international apparatus concerning displaced people, such as asylum-seekers, has contributed to the creation of the new norm of chronic, insecure containment; (b) this state of affairs should be understood through the lens of structural injustice (Parekh 2016;Schiff 2018); and (c) we thus have responsibilities of justice to asylum-seekers and other migrants in the immediate and long term. Drawing on Iris M. Young's (2000) account of the structural injustice of segregation, work by Hannah Arendt, Serena Parekh, and Kelly Oliver on the plight of refugees and asylum-seekers, and the anthropological research of Michel Agier and others on camp settings and informal settlements, here, we add to the understanding of the injustice of chronic displacement and encampment (and the like) and offer a partial remedy. We argue that prevailing conditions: contribute to a loss of political community and identity; radically threaten agency and equal opportunity; and obscure privilege from the privileged. We further maintain that structural injustice in this context involves the moral experience of a loss of place and, then, implacement in inhospitable, deprived, and depraved environs for protracted periods. More responsible, more just, policy and planning around displacement should organize around a conception of people as ecological subjects. We describe these responsibilities in terms of the ideal and practice of ethical placemaking, an essential element of an enabling, or capabilities-oriented, conception of justice (Eckenwiler , 2016). Grounded in an ecological conception of persons, ethical placemaking (EPM) sees people as embedded socially and spatially, and enmeshed in structural injustice. It takes account of the ways in which asylum-seekers and others enduring longterm displacement are situated in asymmetrical social, political, and economic structures and relations of power that have contributed to their being uprooted, and that make the current conditions in which they dwell not just unsustainable, but also hostile. Constructively, it facilitates the formulation of an account of what ecological subjects generally and refugees particularly need to flourish and to be treated fairly as they await settlement (and eventually within a new given society)-a process from which all benefit on our account. Presented here as a remedial responsibility, EPM has the potential | 235ECKENWILER aNd WILd to mitigate some of the harms of encampment and, at the same time, serve as a catalyst in advancing global structural justice. From the perspective of policy making around refugee reception and resettlement, ethical placemaking should serve as a guiding ideal and a principle for the policies and practices of international institutions, states, local government, and civil society. | THE SYSTEMS FOR ASYLUM, REFUGEE MA...

show abstract

Section: Objections and Grounding Responsibilitiessupporting

confidence: 53%

Refugees and others enduring displacement: Structural injustice, health, and ethical placemaking

Eckenwiler¹,

Wild

2020

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Justice in our case refers to three distinct principles: firstly, to the principle that like cases should be treated alike, secondly, to distributive justice demanding a fair, equitable and appropriate distribution of health care in society [ 29 , 50 ], and thirdly, to assess whether our innovation system contributes to structural injustices by continuing to disadvantage historically marginalized groups [ 80 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Implications of Alzheimer’s Disease Prediction in Asymptomatic Individuals through Artificial Intelligence

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomarker-based predictive tests for subjectively asymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are utilized in research today. Novel applications of artificial intelligence (AI) promise to predict the onset of AD several years in advance without determining biomarker thresholds. Until now, little attention has been paid to the new ethical challenges that AI brings to the early diagnosis in asymptomatic individuals, beyond contributing to research purposes, when we still lack adequate treatment. The aim of this paper is to explore the ethical arguments put forward for AI aided AD prediction in subjectively asymptomatic individuals and their ethical implications. The ethical assessment is based on a systematic literature search. Thematic analysis was conducted inductively of 18 included publications. The ethical framework includes the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Reasons for offering predictive tests to asymptomatic individuals are the right to know, a positive balance of the risk-benefit assessment, and the opportunity for future planning. Reasons against are the lack of disease modifying treatment, the accuracy and explicability of AI aided prediction, the right not to know, and threats to social rights. We conclude that there are serious ethical concerns in offering early diagnosis to asymptomatic individuals and the issues raised by the application of AI add to the already known issues. Nevertheless, pre-symptomatic testing should only be offered on request to avoid inflicted harm. We recommend developing training for physicians in communicating AI aided prediction.

show abstract

“…This problem displays features that are known from other cases of decision-making under conditions of systemic and structural background injustice (Heilinger, 2020;Young, 2011) where a fully morally satisfying option seems to be unavailable: What would ultimately be morally demanded is to abolish unjust structures that distribute options and resources so unequally. But what should be done under unjust real conditions?…”

Section: A Short Comment On Accuracy In Explainability Standardsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Justice and the Normative Standards of Explainability in Healthcare

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Providing healthcare services frequently involves cognitively demanding tasks, including diagnoses and analyses as well as complex decisions about treatments and therapy. From a global perspective, ethically significant inequalities exist between regions where the expert knowledge required for these tasks is scarce or abundant. One possible strategy to diminish such inequalities and increase healthcare opportunities in expert-scarce settings is to provide healthcare solutions involving digital technologies that do not necessarily require the presence of a human expert, e.g., in the form of artificial intelligent decision-support systems (AI-DSS). Such algorithmic decision-making, however, is mostly developed in resource- and expert-abundant settings to support healthcare experts in their work. As a practical consequence, the normative standards and requirements for such algorithmic decision-making in healthcare require the technology to be at least as explainable as the decisions made by the experts themselves. The goal of providing healthcare in settings where resources and expertise are scarce might come with a normative pull to lower the normative standards of using digital technologies in order to provide at least some healthcare in the first place. We scrutinize this tendency to lower standards in particular settings from a normative perspective, distinguish between different types of absolute and relative, local and global standards of explainability, and conclude by defending an ambitious and practicable standard of local relative explainability.

show abstract

Cosmopolitan Responsibility

Cited by 14 publications

References 65 publications

Refugees and others enduring displacement: Structural injustice, health, and ethical placemaking

Refugees and others enduring displacement: Structural injustice, health, and ethical placemaking

Ethical Implications of Alzheimer’s Disease Prediction in Asymptomatic Individuals through Artificial Intelligence

Justice and the Normative Standards of Explainability in Healthcare

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About