Kazi A S M Nurul Huda

Facing marginalization under the Awami League and historical stigma, the BNP’s recent outreach to India signals a pivotal shift. This commentary explores how the BNP seeks to establish legitimacy, distance itself from past associations, and connect with a younger electorate by advocating for democratic principles, social justice, and individual empowerment. It argues that a renewed commitment to ethical leadership and social justice will allow the BNP to bridge socio-economic divides and appeal to a disillusioned, younger electorate. This reorientation could shape a more inclusive, equitable political landscape, offering a foundation for Bangladesh’s democratic future.

The 2024 uprising in Bangladesh marks a significant victory in the fight against authoritarianism, yet it remains an incomplete revolution. Its true success will hinge on whether it can pave the way for a new political order that reflects the hopes and aspirations of its participants. In this commentary, I draw on Arendt’s concept of natality to explore this pivotal moment, as it emphasizes the need for ongoing creativity, active engagement, and the creation of new possibilities. I argue that Bangladesh’s future will be shaped by the movement’s ability to channel its momentum into building a lasting and visionary political landscape that embodies the collective will of its people.

The author discusses Mahfuj Alam's viral speech advocating for a shift from Bengali to Bangladeshi nationalism, which is more inclusive and tolerant. The core of Mahfuj's argument is that the reform of the state should begin with the moral reform of individuals, which then extends to societal change. He criticizes the historical application of Bengali nationalism for being exclusionary and contributing to the rise of authoritarianism, suggesting that a reformed secularism within a new nationalist framework could better embrace the diversity of Bangladesh. The author analyzes Mahfuj's perspective, noting its potential oversimplifications and exploring whether a new form of nationalism or a reimagined Bengali nationalism could more effectively address the country's challenges.

In Bangladesh, opposition parties like BNP and JI have struggled to mobilize support despite their claims of championing democracy. The 2024 Anti-Discrimination Student Movement, however, succeeded where these parties failed, uniting people across political divides. Though BNP and JI offered covert support, they hesitated to openly join the movement, reflecting deeper issues in their strategies. This commentary argues that the movement’s success highlighted public disillusionment with traditional politics and the need for trust and accountability in future political mobilization, showing a path to genuine, inclusive change.

This article explores the concept of degrees of epistemic responsibility by examining the debate between Michael Bishop and Katherine Puddifoot on the internalist perspective on epistemic responsibility. While Bishop’s empirical evidence challenges internalism, Puddifoot argues it can be supportive. The author presents an account of degrees of epistemic responsibility, drawing inspiration from Martin Montminy’s idea of moral responsibility. The central argument suggests that an agent is epistemically responsible only if her reasoning strategy aligns with her epistemic abilities, a concept referred to as epistemic par performance. The paper discusses how the Bishop-Puddifoot debate contributes to this perspective, presents Montminy’s view on moral responsibility, and applies it to epistemic responsibility, emphasizing the importance of matching reasoning strategies with individual abilities. The article ultimately highlights the contextual, ability-dependent, and effort-inclusive nature of epistemic responsibility and offers a framework to recognize and credit agents based on their contributions and endeavors in expanding our epistemic horizons.

In this paper, I offer an expansionist view of the Frickerian central case of testimonial injustice, citing examples from the South Asian context. To defend this expansionist position, I provide an argument in three parts. First, I argue that credibility deficit and credibility excess are entangled with each other in such a way that often, one produces the other. Secondly, I contend that we should not say that systematic testimonial injustice is a consequence of credibility deficit only because of the entanglement between them. I also contend that for being the central case of testimonial injustice, identity prejudice should not be necessarily negative; it can be positive as well. Propounding a twofold condition of the status of a knower, the last part claims that testimonial injustice occurs when one of the two conditions remains unmet.

The paper explores the logical structure of Rawlsian justice principles in order to see whether their justificatory or explanatory conditions are unproblematic. To facilitate this purpose, drawing on readers of Rawls, the author shows that the Aristotelian principle is used to explain the principles of rational choice, particularly the principle of inclusiveness. Then, on the basis of the Aristotelian principle, Rawls justifies his conclusion, via the principles of rational choice and the theory of primary goods. After figuring out the logical structure of justice as fairness, the author deals with the central objective of the paper, where he exposes some problems suffered by the motivational basis of the principles of justice. The foundation on which Rawls grounds his principles of justice is problematic, and consequently, they remain as matters of contention as of today.

হেগেল তাঁর “লজিক এজ মেটাফিজিক্স” নামক গ্রন্থাংশের শুরুতেই অল্প ব্যবধানে যুক্তিবিদ্যার দৃশ্যত দুটি ভিন্ন সংজ্ঞা প্রদান করেন। এ দুটি সংজ্ঞানুযায়ী, যুক্তিবিদ্যা বিশুদ্ধ ধারণার বিজ্ঞান হলেও এটিকে চিন্তার বিজ্ঞান হিসেবেও আখ্যায়িত করা যেতে পারে। কিন্তু প্রশ্ন হলো, হেগেল একই গ্রন্থাংশে অল্প ব্যবধানে যুক্তিবিদ্যার এ যে দুটি ভিন্ন সংজ্ঞা প্রদান করলেন, তার কারণ কী? বা এ দুটি সংজ্ঞার মধ্যে সম্পর্কই বা কী? তারা কি একে অপরকে সমর্থন করে? বা তারা কি আসলেই ভিন্ন দুটি সংজ্ঞা? নাকি একই বক্তব্যের দুটি ভিন্ন প্রকাশ? এ প্রশ্নগুলোর উত্তর খোঁজাই বর্তমান প্রবন্ধের মূল উদ্দেশ্য। এক কথায়, প্রবন্ধের মূল উদ্দেশ্য হচ্ছে, হেগেল প্রদত্ত যুক্তিবিদ্যার দুটি ভিন্ন সংজ্ঞার মধ্যকার সম্পর্ক নির্ণয়। প্রবন্ধে লেখক দেখিয়েছেন যে, হেগেল প্রদত্ত যুক্তিবিদ্যার সংজ্ঞা দুটির মধ্যে পারস্পরিক যে সম্পর্ক তা কোনোভাবেই সাংঘর্ষিক বা বর্জনমূলক নয়। বরং এ সম্পর্ক রূপান্তরমূলক বা স্পষ্টীকরণমূলক বলে সংজ্ঞাদ্বয়কে একই মুদ্রার এপিঠ ওপিঠ বললেও অত্যুক্তি হবে না।

Drèze and Sen are not entirely right in their apparent glorification of the roles of nongovernmental organizations in Bangladesh in An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions because they leave out and/or de-emphasize some important issues, especially those that are related to the problematic trusting relationship between nongovernmental organizations in Bangladesh and rural poor women. Nongovernmental organizations’ use of trust disturbs social solidarity in rural Bangladesh mainly because of their massive supervision mechanism that they undertake to sustain the so-called trusting relationship between them and their debtors. The massive supervision mechanism damages social solidarity also because it creates a tension between local norms and nongovernmental organizations’ neoliberalist values of “discipline, efficiency and competitiveness,” which nongovernmental organizations try to inject into villagers by their numerous social engineering programs, which are state’s responsibility. Nongovernmental organization monitoring has some psychological impacts on their clients that also contribute to shaking social solidarity. The absence of a proper trusting relationship between nongovernmental organizations and rural poor women reduces the capabilities of the latter as a result of which Drèze and Sen’s glorification of Bangladeshi nongovernmental organizations and Sen’s capabilities approach are in tension. However, there are strategies that Bangladeshi nongovernmental organizations should employ to address the issues raised due to their massive supervision mechanism.

As social and interdependent beings, we have responsibilities to each other. One of them is to recognize each other appropriately. When we fail to meet this responsibility, we often stigmatize. In this paper, I argue that the COVID-19-related stigmatization is a variation of the lack of recognition understood as an orientation to our evaluative features. Various stereotypical behaviors regarding COVID-19 become stigmatized practices because of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss and discrimination, and power. When people stigmatize COVID-19 victims, they orient themselves to their evaluative quality of being vulnerable to the SARS-CoV-2 virus by internalizing the victims as dangerous, understanding them as separable, and being motivated to act with them differently. All this causes the COVID-19 victims to lose status and suffer discrimination for which they do not experience participatory parity in different facets of their lives, rendering the COVID-19-related stigmatization an appalling example of misrecognition.

This paper aims to show the necessity of development ethics. For this purpose, I discuss two of many moral issues of development policy – poverty and corruption. I argue that reducing poverty and curbing corruption are the two moral issues that should be considered seriously, because poverty and corruption prevent people from getting any access to development. But in order to reduce poverty and to curb corruption value-neutral measures of economics are not enough. They are also involved with ethical assumptions. I show that if any development policy maker wants to reduce poverty and corruption to some extent, he has to resort not only to value-neutral strategies of development, but also to the ethics of development. And this opens the door for development ethics that can contribute to the creation of a sane and judicious development policy.

This paper explains how discrimination and COVID-19 related stigmas are intertwined. When people stigmatize COVID-19 victims, they act in ways for which the victims suffer status loss and discrimination. As a result, they do not enjoy participatory parity in various aspects of their life making COVID-19 related stigmatization a deplorable instance of discrimination. But a society already fraught with discrimination is a breeding ground of stigmatization often because of people’s fear and anxiety about their life once they become a patient of a disease like COVID-19.

In this paper, I argue the importance of competition and cooperation cannot be denied as they both are instrumental in making any business transaction. Because two parties always set for themselves different priorities to a business transaction, business has been thought of in terms of competition. But cooperative action is also important, because in the case of cooperative activities the overall total is greater (though the outcomes differ) if we do cooperate than if we do not. Hence humans form cooperative groups to compete for scarce resources. Those business firms, where employees take specialized, interdependent jobs and work together to compete in the free market, produce higher quality products and show greater work efficiency. Hence friendly cooperation is needed to compete more efficiently against other individuals or groups. It is for this reason people should value more in belonging to a group, practicing teamwork, helping others, etc. They should put more value on cooperation than competition though both competition and cooperation are natural to man.

As social and interdependent beings, we have a minimalist expectation that we do not harm one another. Consistent with this expectation, we have some responsibilities to others for the sake of regulating our social and interdependent relationships. One of our most important responsibilities is to recognize people appropriately. In the dissertation, I develop an account of recognition and motivate it as an important normative/moral phenomenon with implications for our intellectual lives. Recognition is normative because when we recognize people, we orient ourselves to certain normatively significant properties they have, such as needs, rights, traits, abilities, achievements, and the like. Its moral importance stems from the fact that recognizing others’ evaluative qualities gives us reason(s) to behave in a specific way required for forming and sustaining our social relationships on which our individual and collective flourishing depend. Defining recognition as an appropriate orientation to others’ evaluative qualities required for our individual and collective flourishing, I argue, like Axel Honneth, that there are at least three types or ways of recognition: loving care, respect, and esteem. I also demonstrate that since social and cultural forces shape our interpersonal relations and responses, we should not think of the phenomenon of recognition as unaffected by them. Having explicated my generalized account of recognition, I illustrate that this account could be used to comprehend a crucial virtue of our epistemic life. I call this virtue intellectual recognition, which is a disposition to appropriately orient oneself to others’ evaluative qualities in the pursuit of intellectual goods at the right times, in the right ways, and about the right objects, overcoming or compensating for structural obstacles to parity of epistemic participation.

The author examines the problem of motivation about future generations. He argues that though many philosophers think that direct motivations are problematic for future generations only, they are not unproblematic for the current generations too, and that the motivation problem can be solved if we consider the idea of “leaving the earth no worse.” He also shows why such an idea should be promoted and can motivate us to work in the best interests of current and future generations. The author also contends that prioritizing the idea of “leaving the earth no worse” is not exclusively anthropocentric.

Amartya Sen (co-author with Jean Drèze) in An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions (2013) seemingly glorifies the roles of non-government organizations (NGOs) in Bangladesh’s better progress in many common aspects of societal development than India although Bangladesh is half as well-off in income per capita as India. This glorification of the roles of NGOs in Bangladesh leads Sen (2013) to leaving out and/or deemphasizing some issues related to the micro-credit model of NGOs, which is the primary subject-matter of this study. In other words, the main objective of this study is to show that Sen (2013) is not entirely correct in his apparent glorification of the roles of NGOs in Bangladesh. To this end, I will argue that the micro-credit model of NGOs in Bangladesh is based on the idea of a supposedly trusting relationship between NGOs and rural poor women which is questionable for four associated reasons. The first reason is that the sort of trust Bangladeshi NGOs claim they have in rural poor women in offering loans without collateral is not genuine trust. The second reason is a modification of the first. If NGO-touted trust is trust of any kind, it is at most strategic trust and semi-particularized trust, not generalized trust. Hence, it has some consequences which are epistemically, politically, and ethically wrong. The third reason is that the kind of trust NGOs in Bangladesh put in rural poor women disturbs social solidarity. Relevantly, I will argue that NGOs’ strict supervision of rural poor women may have many psychological impacts on rural poor women that cause unfortunate strife among group members; that, in turn, hampers group relations. Lastly, the so-called trusting relationship between Bangladeshi NGOs and rural poor women reduces people’s capabilities because NGOs remain unaccountable and not transparent for their activities for the most part.

This study contributes to the micro-credit literature by addressing the lack of philosophical dialogue concerning the issue of trust between micro-credit NGOs and rural poor women. The study demonstrates that one of the root causes of NGOs’ contested roles in Bangladesh is the norm that they use (i.e., trust) to rationalize their micro-credit activities. I argue that Bangladeshi micro-credit NGOs’ trust in poor village women is not genuine because they resort to group responsibility sustained through aggressive surveillance. I maintain so by drawing on a trust-based theoretical framework that uses various philosophical insights. Drawing on the same conceptual framework, I also contend, somewhat softening the previous claim, that if micro-credit trust is trust at all, it is at most strategic, not generalized. For being strategic, it has many undermining effects on local social solidarity norms, rendering Bangladeshi micro-credit NGOs and strategic trust an odd couple with no moral compass. To bring forth the moral impetus in micro-credit activities, I lay out some recommendations intended for organizations, managers, and policymakers, consistent with normative corporate social responsibility initiatives. However, further studies can be initiated based on this paper, suggesting its importance for future research.

Development ethics is concerned with the justification of development in terms of different normative issues. Mahatma Gandhi was the greatest among all who contributed to the Indian nationalism movement. The focus of this article is to show that Mahatma Gandhi can be regarded as a third world precursor of development ethics. To facilitate the purpose, the writer will try to show first that Gandhi’s theory of ahimsa acts as a foundational ethics of his entire development thought, because it is against arbitrary consumerism and unsustainable resource use. Then the writer will analyze three important concepts of Gandhi – sarvodaya, swadeshi and satyagraha – which are the three principles of sustainable development, an important aspect of development ethics. Through its preference to the essential unity and equality of all earthly creatures, the principle of sarvodaya shows an empathetic approach towards natural world. The swadeshi spirit is handy in getting support for the national economic planning. To fight against injustices, Gandhi resorted to the method of satyagraha. Hence it became a technique that made the foundation of development ethics (that is, ahimsa) practical. Before drawing the conclusion, the writer will briefly evaluate Gandhi’s development thought that will also depict how Gandhi pioneered development ethics.