Series 'Ethical Annotations'
With the Ethical Annotations series, the Ethics Institute at Utrecht University aims to open up the insights of philosophical ethics concerning current ethical issues to a broad audience of students, policy makers, business leaders, politicians, journalists, activists, and other citizens.
To preserve this accessibility, the Ethical Annotations are concise and often present only the results of research. Those who seek more depth or wish to understand all the reasoning in detail are referred to the publications listed at the end.
The Ethical Annotations tie in with research done at the Ethics Institute. They appear on an irregular basis.
Together with Public Cinema, we created animations that introduce some of these Annotations in an even more accessible manner. See below for the animations accompanying EA#2 and EA#4.
EA#8: 'Public goods: why government should provide them'
Download Ethical Annotation #8: 'Public goods: why government should provide them' (pdf).
Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, government in the Netherlands and abroad has played a much more central role in the lives of citizens. At the same time, its functioning has been strongly criticised. But what exactly is the role of government and why is it valuable? In this Ethical Annotation, dr. Maurits de Jongh analyses the government’s role in terms of the provision of public goods. Using three central values — economic efficiency, social justice, and democratic politics — it explains why government should guarantee and strengthen the provision of public goods.
EA#6: 'Unconditional basic income: why would we (not) want to have it?'
Download Ethical Annotation #6: 'Unconditional basic income: why would we (not) want to have it?' (pdf).
Unconditional basic income, or basic income for short, is a weekly or monthly income paid by the state to every citizen of a country. Unconditional basic income is an old idea, but is currently being widely discussed in public debates, both in the Netherlands and in many other countries. Proponents see it as a radical proposal that will restore real freedom to people living in a capitalist economy, or as a proposal that will put an end to long-term poverty. Opponents argue that it is an inefficient way to fight poverty and that the sustainable level of a basic income is too low to make a real difference. In this Annotation, prof. dr. Ingrid Robeyns does not aim to argue for or against a basic income but rather to better equip the reader to form their own opinion.
EA#4: 'The public role of corporations: power and accountability in a constitutional democracy'
Download Ethical Annotation #4: 'The public role of corporations: power and accountability in a constitutional democracy' (pdf).
Corporations are increasingly being called on to account for their role in solving social problems. The political theory of constitutional democracies divides society into a private sphere, in which individuals are free to organise their own lives as they see fit, and a public sphere of (semi-)public institutions that guard the public interest. Normally, corporations are classified as private institutions, free to focus on profit or any other private objective. But does this status still fit with an institution as powerful and overloaded with public expectations as the modern corporation? Or are corporations perhaps (also) public institutions with public responsibilities? In this Annotation, prof. dr. Rutger Claassen argues that the exercise of power by corporations is no more or no less problematic than the political exercise of power, and therefore deserves a similarly serious treatment.
Animation: the public role of corporations
EA#2: 'Moral responsibilities towards refugees'
Download Ethical Annotation #2: 'Moral responsibilities towards refugees' (pdf).
Wars and crises worldwide force millions of people to flee and seek refuge, often outside their countries of origin. What moral responsibilities do states have towards refugees? In this Ethical Annotation, dr. Jos Philips and his co-authors zoom in on the responsibilities of EU countries. They consider arguments in favour of and against admitting refugees and argue that EU countries must do at least at much as they can do at little cost, and perhaps even more.