Ayesha Gautam

One cannot deny the fact that we all have some understanding of moral issues. Each one of us can be said to have some sense of what is right, what is wrong, what is good, what is bad, what ought to be done, and what ought not to be done. This moral understanding can be in the form of some vague idea, notion, or simply a gut feeling. No matter who the person is, from which culture or community the person belongs to, everybody faces a moral quandary sometime or other in one’s life. All of this presupposes that there is some fundamental sense or understanding of what is right and what is wrong. We all seem to have some understanding about actions that are right and those that are wrong. Some actions, for instance, torturing babies just for fun, killing an innocent person, raping, etc. are exemplars of morally wrong actions. Assisting a person in need, giving to famine relief, etc. on the other hand are examples of morally right actions. The present essay is an attempt to delve into the question of the source of moral knowledge. Three sources, experience, reason, and intuition have been identified. Views of philosophers like G.E Moore, WD Ross, Immanuel Kant, JS Mill, Plato, Samuel Clarke, Aristotle Hume, and Anthony Ashley Cooper have been discussed to gain clarity about the issue.

Abstract: In this essay, I want to explore the predicament of epistemic injustice. I use the term “epistemic injustice” in the sense in which Miranda Fricker employs the term in her works. Epistemic injustice, in its broad sense, refers to an injustice meted down to an agent in his/her capacity as a knower. At the core of epistemic injustice lies the practice of denigrating the testimonies and exegesis of certain people based on certain biases like a person’s race, caste, color, and so on and so forth. Epistemic injustice gets manifested in various domains in different forms, thereby embroiling different forms of inequality, which in turn leads to other grave forms of injustice. When an individual gets accepted as a knower or informant of matters in everyday life, then that serves as a condition for that individual’s recognition and acceptance as a person, as one among the community of rationals. By ensuring epistemic justice, nations can pave the way for the realization of freedom (or capabilities) of individuals, thereby indirectly ensuring socio, political as well as economic justice.

According to the founding fathers of modern representative institutions, one of the ideals which justifies and is to be realized by any representative institutions or democracy is the ideal of self governance. Self governance is the fundamental tenet of democracy and republican government and is the best way to advance liberty or autonomy. When we are governed collectively, then the value of autonomy can be realized only if we are bound by the laws which we choose. Self governance can also be conceived as a culture of responsibility (self as well as social). Grounding this culture of responsibility is the norm that citizens can and should participate in the public decision making. The governing idea behind the notion of self governance is that each and every individual has the same preference about the legal and moral order under whose jurisdiction one would want to lead one’s life. In the practical realm however one never witnesses a form of homogeneity but one very often confronts conflict over interests, values or norms. It is these recurring conflicts that pose a challenge for democratic institutions. It is only by wedding the notion of self governance with a notion of responsibility that one can envisage an effective self government. It is pertinent to note that the conception of free will, selfhood, desireless action etc as enshrined in our ancient Indian philosophical tradition like Bhagvad Gita, Tattvarthsutra of Jainism, Nyaya Sutra and certain Buddhist text can give an insight into the ways in which one can attain effective self governance. An attempt will be made in this paper to explore the ancient wisdom. This paper is thus an endeavor to reflect and explore ideas relevant to the notion of self governance and responsibility in global times.

Misguided use, manipulation, misappropriation, disruption and mismanagement of Information deeply affects the infosphere as well as the social and moral fabric of a society. Information ethics is an attempt to bring the creation, organization, dissemination, and use of information within the ambit of ethical standards and moral codes. The diverse and inherently pluralistic nature of societies however puts forth an additional demand on us - to come up with an intercultural information ethics. An intercultural ethics which is other-centric, context sensitive and workable without being homogenizing, patronizing and colonizing. An endeavor in that direction has already been made by proponents of intercultural information ethics like: Charles M. Ess, Fay Sudweeks, Rafael Capurro, Pak-Hang Wong, Soraj Hongladarom et al. In our paper, we propose that the kind of ethical pluralism being sought in the domain of information ethics can be attained by having a reappraisal of the current methodological strategies, by casting a critical relook at the Eurocentric ethical model. This paper analyses the current framework of Intercultural Information Ethics. And in an endeavour to move towards an allencompassing, other-centric, workable, intercultural, harmonious and compassionate model of 'Pluralistic Information Ethics', it proposes the Indian / Asian philosophical method of 'Samvāda' to the current inventory which includes methods like: 'parrhesia/free speech' and 'interpretive phronēsis.