Papers by Martin J Fitzgerald
The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine
Ethics exists among beings that can relate to one another and who can create change in one anothe... more Ethics exists among beings that can relate to one another and who can create change in one another. Although this may appear as a simple truism, the implications of relation and change in bioethics are manifold. For instance, one can relate not only to others, but also can enter into self-relation by relating to oneself. Self-relation problematizes autonomy insofar as one does not have immediate access to all of oneself and so therefore also does not immediately fully determine oneself in the way that an uncomplicated understanding of autonomy might imply. This article proceeds as a preliminary exposition of the concepts of relation and change as they apply to bioethics, particularly as they inform autonomy, action theory, and the porous subject.
The Heythrop Journal, 2020
It … becomes necessary to think of reality that is specific to becoming.-Keith Ansell Pearson If ... more It … becomes necessary to think of reality that is specific to becoming.-Keith Ansell Pearson If one surveys contemporary news headlines, one will encounter a litany of thought-pieces on what is to blame for the COVID-19 pandemic. It is said to be a result of Chinese food policy, of the proliferation of air travel, of a slow quarantine response by Western nations, or of Spring Breakers. Yet, each 'master key' falls short of explaining the global scale of the phenomenon. The causes proposed aim to achieve normative control over the world; one way or another they are complicit in an anthropocentric humanism. The world we inhabit, however, is the result of far more than human processes, whether these be as individuals, communities, or nation-states. To see COVID-19 as emerging only from a failure of legislation or social policy confuses tools of ethical evaluation with diagnostic analysis. In our paper, we outline an alternate mode of analysis, namely one through overlapping, provisionally-stipulated systems emerging from a nonhumanist perspective. The COVID-19 pandemic poses a rare opportunity to elaborate such an analysis because of the different systems (e.g. biological, agricultural, economic, political, legislative, technic, etc.) that contribute to the outbreak and by the speed with which the powerful asymmetric shocks of the pandemic have appeared. To develop our mode of analysis, we will first demonstrate why conventional humanist models of diagnosis are inadequate, paying specific attention to the cosmopolitan assumptions latent in perceiving COVID-19 as, for example, resulting from a failure in legislation. We will then develop a logic of systems, their interaction, and how forces within one may be transformed to influence another. Our contribution will benefit from a dialogue between two of the most penetrating contemporary nonhumanist researchers, Bernard Stiegler and Keith Ansell-Pearson. On the shambles of the failure of the alternatives, we recommend this mode of analysis because it gives due place to complexity and abandons the search for a single culprit.
In this paper we will argue that modern epidemics and pandemics—such as the one the world current... more In this paper we will argue that modern epidemics and pandemics—such as the one the world currently faces—escape humanist and anthropocentric ways of thinking; as a consequence of this it is hard to gain normative purchase to even begin to resolve the problem. While pandemics can be thought in terms of particular systems, say a public health system, the problem can also be thought in terms of a long list of other options, such as viral mutation rates, or as a problem of technology, in that the failure of some countries to transition to modern refrigeration and food storage techniques has resulted in wet markets. It can be imagined as a problem of political economy or a result of globalization. Unfortunately, any one of these ways of asking questions restricts the global answers that may be required.
Each way of framing the question of COVID-19 imagines its particular approach or angle of attack as getting to the heart of the problem. But so far, each way of thinking about normative interventions into COVID-19 has fallen short of the complexity of the whole. For instance, imagining it as a problem of viral evolution and viral infection, and thus focusing on vaccine or therapeutic interventions misses much of the problem. The public health approach sees it as a problem of health across populations, whereas seeing COVID-19 as a problem of wet markets imagines the problem to be one of food economy in China. Seeing COVID-19 as a problem arising in China might imagine it to be the result of government ideology; as often carried out, imagining it as the result of the cosmopolitan interaction of nation states conflates modes of action with modes of analysis. Inevitably, any systematic construal of the problem falls short of the complexity of what is happening. We must imagine the problem holistically as a techno-organic evolutionary political-economic complex.
Most ways of imagining this problem, we will argue, are grounded in humanistic ways of thinking. The normativity that animates humanistic ways of thinking limits how the question of COVID-19 is framed; it is delimited by the kinds of answers that can be given. Put differently, every question is already a type of quest; some spectrum of possible answers is already assumed in the act of questioning, while others are excluded. In the first section of this paper, we will present a typical narrative of the origin of COVID-19 as the result of genetic mutation, and then as some sort of failure of Chinese law, revealing how these are inaccurate and inadequate explanations: their inaccuracies result, we will argue, from framing the problem as a cosmopolitical dispute. Next, acknowledging the agricultural origins of COVID-19, we will look at counter-models of cosmopolitanism, specifically ones that include nonhuman animals as cosmopolitical subjects. We will show why this approach is deficient by invoking systems analysis. We will then unfold two recent and related non-humanistic ways of imagining evolution, including simultaneous human and viroid evolution. We draw on the work of Bernard Stiegler for insight into the way life evolves by means other than life, namely through technical innovation; and benefit from Keith Ansell-Pearson’s proposal that machinic thinking may be required at all levels.
We conclude with a reflection on the benefits of imagining the realities of globalized life in non-humanistic and non-anthropocentric ways. This approach gives us types of imaginaries to explore diagnoses excluded or foreclosed in overly humanist and anthropocentric ways of thinking.
Drafts by Martin J Fitzgerald
This paper examines the controversial research, development, and deployment of Xigris, a drug int... more This paper examines the controversial research, development, and deployment of Xigris, a drug intended to treat sepsis. In particular, I take up the observation that “inappropriate influence is readily alleged, but can be neither proved nor disproved.” Using the work of Immanuel Kant on the motivations for action, I argue that it is a mistake to try to concretely link some inappropriate action to a particular inappropriate influence. Rather, due to the somewhat opaque nature of motivators, we ought to emphasize constructing decision-making environments which minimize undue influences altogether.
A line on a walk 1 . With this, Paul Klee begins his famous Pedagogical Sketchbook, a record of l... more A line on a walk 1 . With this, Paul Klee begins his famous Pedagogical Sketchbook, a record of lecture notes meant for a course of study at the Bauhaus. In addition to being a skilled artist, Paul Klee was also a provocative theoretician who took a ground-up approach to studying and categorizing aesthetics. As an artist, Klee had direct access to the process of artistic creation and used this access to study the basic elements of graphical and painterly work. His theoretical contributions include meditations on points, lines, planes, colors, rhythm, and composition as well as on the artist, the artist's place in the world, space, time, and the structure of the universe such that pure art is possible.
Uploads
Papers by Martin J Fitzgerald
Each way of framing the question of COVID-19 imagines its particular approach or angle of attack as getting to the heart of the problem. But so far, each way of thinking about normative interventions into COVID-19 has fallen short of the complexity of the whole. For instance, imagining it as a problem of viral evolution and viral infection, and thus focusing on vaccine or therapeutic interventions misses much of the problem. The public health approach sees it as a problem of health across populations, whereas seeing COVID-19 as a problem of wet markets imagines the problem to be one of food economy in China. Seeing COVID-19 as a problem arising in China might imagine it to be the result of government ideology; as often carried out, imagining it as the result of the cosmopolitan interaction of nation states conflates modes of action with modes of analysis. Inevitably, any systematic construal of the problem falls short of the complexity of what is happening. We must imagine the problem holistically as a techno-organic evolutionary political-economic complex.
Most ways of imagining this problem, we will argue, are grounded in humanistic ways of thinking. The normativity that animates humanistic ways of thinking limits how the question of COVID-19 is framed; it is delimited by the kinds of answers that can be given. Put differently, every question is already a type of quest; some spectrum of possible answers is already assumed in the act of questioning, while others are excluded. In the first section of this paper, we will present a typical narrative of the origin of COVID-19 as the result of genetic mutation, and then as some sort of failure of Chinese law, revealing how these are inaccurate and inadequate explanations: their inaccuracies result, we will argue, from framing the problem as a cosmopolitical dispute. Next, acknowledging the agricultural origins of COVID-19, we will look at counter-models of cosmopolitanism, specifically ones that include nonhuman animals as cosmopolitical subjects. We will show why this approach is deficient by invoking systems analysis. We will then unfold two recent and related non-humanistic ways of imagining evolution, including simultaneous human and viroid evolution. We draw on the work of Bernard Stiegler for insight into the way life evolves by means other than life, namely through technical innovation; and benefit from Keith Ansell-Pearson’s proposal that machinic thinking may be required at all levels.
We conclude with a reflection on the benefits of imagining the realities of globalized life in non-humanistic and non-anthropocentric ways. This approach gives us types of imaginaries to explore diagnoses excluded or foreclosed in overly humanist and anthropocentric ways of thinking.
Drafts by Martin J Fitzgerald
Each way of framing the question of COVID-19 imagines its particular approach or angle of attack as getting to the heart of the problem. But so far, each way of thinking about normative interventions into COVID-19 has fallen short of the complexity of the whole. For instance, imagining it as a problem of viral evolution and viral infection, and thus focusing on vaccine or therapeutic interventions misses much of the problem. The public health approach sees it as a problem of health across populations, whereas seeing COVID-19 as a problem of wet markets imagines the problem to be one of food economy in China. Seeing COVID-19 as a problem arising in China might imagine it to be the result of government ideology; as often carried out, imagining it as the result of the cosmopolitan interaction of nation states conflates modes of action with modes of analysis. Inevitably, any systematic construal of the problem falls short of the complexity of what is happening. We must imagine the problem holistically as a techno-organic evolutionary political-economic complex.
Most ways of imagining this problem, we will argue, are grounded in humanistic ways of thinking. The normativity that animates humanistic ways of thinking limits how the question of COVID-19 is framed; it is delimited by the kinds of answers that can be given. Put differently, every question is already a type of quest; some spectrum of possible answers is already assumed in the act of questioning, while others are excluded. In the first section of this paper, we will present a typical narrative of the origin of COVID-19 as the result of genetic mutation, and then as some sort of failure of Chinese law, revealing how these are inaccurate and inadequate explanations: their inaccuracies result, we will argue, from framing the problem as a cosmopolitical dispute. Next, acknowledging the agricultural origins of COVID-19, we will look at counter-models of cosmopolitanism, specifically ones that include nonhuman animals as cosmopolitical subjects. We will show why this approach is deficient by invoking systems analysis. We will then unfold two recent and related non-humanistic ways of imagining evolution, including simultaneous human and viroid evolution. We draw on the work of Bernard Stiegler for insight into the way life evolves by means other than life, namely through technical innovation; and benefit from Keith Ansell-Pearson’s proposal that machinic thinking may be required at all levels.
We conclude with a reflection on the benefits of imagining the realities of globalized life in non-humanistic and non-anthropocentric ways. This approach gives us types of imaginaries to explore diagnoses excluded or foreclosed in overly humanist and anthropocentric ways of thinking.