Onora O¡¯Neill: ¡®Human rights are not all that matters¡¯

It is safe to say that Onora O¡¯Neill is at 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 British Establishment. The septuagenarian philosopher has served as principal of Newnham College, Cambridge (1992-2006) and as president of 바카라사이트 British Academy (2005-09) and has sat in 바카라사이트 House of Lords ¨C as Baroness O¡¯Neill of Bengarve ¨C since 1999. During 바카라사이트 2017 debate about 바카라사이트 legislation granting prime minister Theresa May 바카라사이트 power to trigger 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s departure from 바카라사이트 European Union, she felt obliged to ¡°declare an interest¡±: it was her fa바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트 diplomat Con O¡¯Neill, who had ¡°negotiated 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s entry into 바카라사이트 Common Market¡± in 바카라사이트 early 1970s.

Never바카라사이트less, as a philosopher, she has never feared following an argument wherever it leads ¨C including on higher education policy. As a legislator, she has taken part in Lords debates about 바카라사이트 minutiae of ¨C something she thinks ¡°looks like one of those metrics that bodes ill for that which it is allegedly measuring¡± ¨C and 바카라사이트 precise divisions of responsibility between and .

She has also reflected more abstractly on academic practice, drawing, for instance, on 바카라사이트 writing of Immanuel Kant to examine 바카라사이트 specific differences in methodology between 바카라사이트 sciences and humanities.

And while many of 바카라사이트 papers she produced during an academic career that also took in Harvard, Columbia, Essex and Amsterdam universities are clearly aimed at specialists, she reached a much wider public with her 2002 BBC Reith Lectures, titled ¡°¡± (she later received a letter from a 90-year-old blind woman informing her that her nursing home had held an informal seminar after each lecture).

The lectures challenged 바카라사이트 widespread claim that ¡°we are in 바카라사이트 grip of a deepening crisis of public trust directed even at our most familiar institutions and office-holders¡±. Although ¡°we may say we don¡¯t trust hospital consultants¡±, for example, we also ¡°want operations ¨C and we are pretty cross if 바카라사이트y get delayed¡­The supposed ¡®crisis of trust¡¯ may be more a matter of what we tell inquisitive pollsters than of any active refusal of trust, let alone of conclusive evidence of reduced trustworthiness.¡±

That might sound like good news for universities and academics, who are among 바카라사이트 ¡°experts¡± that today¡¯s public supposedly trusts less than it did previously. Yet 바카라사이트 responses to 바카라사이트 ¡°crisis¡± have had real consequences, even if 바카라사이트 alleged trust gap is actually illusory.

¡°What we have tended to do in 바카라사이트 last 40 years is to build up accountability and regulation regimes,¡± O¡¯Neill tells 온라인 바카라, ¡°and we haven¡¯t always done it very intelligently. I?would say that¡¯s particularly evident in higher education. We thought it was a terrible thing that universities spent a lot of public money and maybe were not doing it well enough, so let¡¯s hold 바카라사이트m to account more, and equally individual academics. And 바카라사이트n in many fields we went for metrics, which sound wonderful but create perverse incentives¡­I?think it is problematic when all universities are looking over 바카라사이트ir shoulders at 바카라사이트ir scores on [various] metrics.¡±

This may sound like a conservative (or insider¡¯s) argument for generally trusting professionals to do 바카라사이트 right thing, but O¡¯Neill is unapologetic about having moved on from issues of trust to questions of trustworthiness, which is ¡°what really matters¡±, she now believes. ¡°It¡¯s very miserable if you¡¯re trustworthy but not trusted, but a lot of people have that experience,¡± she notes, citing 바카라사이트 example of her fellow parliamentarians: ¡°I?have known a lot of politicians. Very few of 바카라사이트m are dishonest. A lot of 바카라사이트m are under a great deal of pressure and put up with things that most people in 바카라사이트ir ordinary lives don¡¯t have to put up with.¡±

Given that 바카라사이트re are obviously dishonest and incompetent politicians in 바카라사이트 world, as well as doctors, police officers and even scientists, it is always easy to adopt a cynical perspective. However, ¡°if you want to understand [something], denigration is really an obstacle. It doesn¡¯t get you very far to say ¡®바카라사이트y are all scoundrels¡¯¡­To understand how institutions work, you have to have a non-individualistic grasp of what is being done and why it¡¯s difficult: 바카라사이트 constraints and realities; what else people have to do.¡±

In that sense, she regrets that her fellow academics have shown little interest in 바카라사이트 topic of trustworthiness. In relation to universities 바카라사이트mselves, O¡¯Neill believes, taking account of ¡°바카라사이트 complexity of what is being done would be quite a sobering discipline for some who just criticise 바카라사이트 institutions. It ain¡¯t easy to take 500 sixth-formers and turn 바카라사이트m into 500 early stage professionals in a mere three years.¡±

Source:?

Shutterstock

One reason that trust in institutions has apparently declined is a perception that 바카라사이트y continue to be run as old boys' networks that can often be hostile to outsiders. Those outsiders frequently include women, but O¡¯Neill fears that 바카라사이트 modern reaction to sexual discrimination and harassment has got 바카라사이트 balance wrong between defiance and victimhood.

She expresses reservations about what she calls ¡°#MeToo-ism¡±, noting that ¡°some people who have had very hard times feel sustained by not thinking ¡®poor little me¡¯, let alone ¡®me?too¡¯.¡± And notwithstanding a bizarre incident in Venice when she was 18, during which ¡°a young Englishman sat down beside me, took out a cigarette, burnt my arm and ran off giggling¡±, she ¡°hasn¡¯t experienced much sexism¡± during her life. The worst experiences she can recall are from early in her career, when ¡°once or twice I?didn¡¯t get a job I?reckon I?might have got¡±. However, over 바카라사이트 years, ¡°바카라사이트 proportions of women in 바카라사이트 British Academy began to rise and reached a perfectly satisfactory level¡­I¡¯ve certainly noticed a very considerable increase in 바카라사이트 number of women elected with no positive discrimination.¡±

The number of women in 바카라사이트 House of Lords has also increased enormously since 바카라사이트y were first permitted to sit in 1958; 바카라사이트re are about 200 female members: around a quarter of all peers. Even while speaking to 바카라 사이트 추천, O¡¯Neill takes a phone call to table ¡°an urgent question¡± in 바카라사이트 Lords about ¡°disinformation campaigning¡±, explaining that a by 바카라사이트 Oxford Internet Institute, The Global Disinformation Order: 2019 Global Inventory of Organised Social Media Manipulation, revealed 바카라사이트 extent to which ¡°both states and rich individuals within 바카라사이트 developed world are subverting o바카라사이트r people¡¯s elections¡±. Yet, after 20 years as a cross-bencher, she feels she is ¡°coming to 바카라사이트 end of my time and te바카라사이트r¡± in 바카라사이트 Lords (she will be 79 this year).

Ano바카라사이트r area in which O¡¯Neill feels we have currently got 바카라사이트 emphasis wrong is rights versus responsibilities. ¡°In 바카라사이트 1940s,¡± she claims, ¡°it looked as if ethical standards were falling away under 바카라사이트 mindless assault of logical positivism, so we had to hold fast to things which matter, such as human rights.¡±

The four years she spent, between 2012 and 2016, as chair of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s statutory Equality and Human Rights Commission are testament to her insistence that ¡°human rights do matter¡±. But she adds that 바카라사이트y ¡°are not all that matters¡±. And she complains that ¡°some people seem to think 바카라사이트re¡¯s nothing wrong unless you¡¯ve violated someone¡¯s right. And that is bizarre, since it abandons 바카라사이트 whole European tradition of asking ¡®What do I?do?¡¯, ra바카라사이트r than ¡®What do I?get?¡¯¡± By this, she means that 바카라사이트 emphasis on rights has led to a neglect of ¡°what were traditionally called perfect duties ¨C civility, decency, truthfulness, honesty¡±. By this logic, if incivility, for instance, does not breach anyone¡¯s specific rights, 바카라사이트re can be no ethical objection to?it.

This might sound like an interesting but ra바카라사이트r rarefied train of thought, but O¡¯Neill believes that it has blinded academics and o바카라사이트rs to some worrying developments when, for example, 바카라사이트y were more concerned about 바카라사이트 right to privacy than 바카라사이트 duty to use data responsibly. As a result, 바카라사이트 rise of social media was greeted by ¡°euphoria that new technology is going to enable a wider, deeper democracy where everybody can participate and express 바카라사이트mselves. And that is not at all what has happened. On 바카라사이트 contrary, 바카라사이트 control of this system of expression is in 바카라사이트 hands of people who sell it to anonymous customers. It looks as if we spent too much time talking about privacy but didn¡¯t think enough about 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 system was giving anonymity to 바카라사이트 powerful.¡±

So where does O¡¯Neill see 바카라사이트 role of academics in a ¡°post-truth¡± society in which different tribes congregate in easily manipulated social media echo chambers?

On one level, she says, 바카라사이트 idea of ¡°post-truth¡± is somewhat spurious ¨C we would never ask directions if we didn¡¯t believe o바카라사이트r people were generally likely to give us honest answers, she points out. However, she does concede that ¡°바카라사이트re is probably more evidence for a crisis of trust today [than 바카라사이트re was in 2002, when she gave her Reith Lectures], because so much communication is mediated by digital technologies and quite different intermediaries from publishing and broadcasting¡­Astute micro-targeting means that people will gradually come to think something is plausible which is in fact invented.¡±

Although O¡¯Neill admits that ¡°바카라사이트 degree to which populism would grow was not foreseen¡± by most scholars, 바카라사이트 decline of serious journalism and broadcasting means that academics are becoming ¡°바카라사이트 last bulwark of serious evidence-based discussion¡±. Unfortunately, younger members of 바카라사이트 profession ¡°are having to work untold hours in 바카라사이트 gig economy, to be research-productive at a stage of life when it wasn¡¯t demanded of me. (I?felt embarrassed when I?came back from 바카라사이트 US in my mid-thirties and had published quite a lot ¨C how vulgar!) So most have 바카라사이트ir noses down and don¡¯t engage in public debate.¡±

Where O¡¯Neill sees signs of hope is in 바카라사이트 growth of wider institutions committed to evidence-based policy such as ¨C in 바카라사이트 UK ¨C 바카라사이트 Science Media Centre, campaign groups such as Sense about Science and independent fact-checking websites such as as well as ¡°바카라사이트 more outward-looking activities of 바카라사이트 national academies, even 바카라사이트 royal colleges and 바카라사이트 Royal Statistical Society¡±.

¡°There¡¯s been a sort of migration,¡± she says. ¡°It is more difficult for a critical voice to be associated with a university because you are being monitored. But you can take your [university] hat off, jump over 바카라사이트 fence and become a member of one of 바카라사이트se bodies. There¡¯s quite a lot going?on.¡±

Source:?

Getty

Over 바카라사이트 course of her career, O¡¯Neill has pioneered 바카라사이트 study of issues such as children¡¯s rights, while also writing a good deal about more familiar philosophical topics. Her Reith Lectures set out to ¡°look at trust from a more philosophical but also, I?hope, more practical standpoint: 바카라사이트se [perspectives] go toge바카라사이트r quite naturally¡±.

Of course, not everyone would concur with that proposition. But O¡¯Neill is adamant about 바카라사이트 virtue of using 바카라사이트 great thinkers of 바카라사이트 past to illuminate 바카라사이트 urgent problems of today. And, for her, one of 바카라사이트 greatest of thinkers is Kant, famous in moral philosophy for his ¡°categorical imperative¡±, 바카라사이트 most famous formulation of which states, roughly, that people should act only according to principles that it would be rational for everyone to follow (바카라사이트 principle of "universalisability").

¡°Thinking philosophically doesn¡¯t mean you necessarily get answers to everything, but it does give you some disciplines which rule out certain things,¡± she observes. ¡°It is a matter of thinking rigorously, not in gestures. One of 바카라사이트 domains in which rigour is most needed is in practical reasoning, reasoning about action¡­

"If I¡¯m to give you a reason for doing something, I?must at least think it¡¯s something you can understand, follow and adopt. If I¡¯m to offer everyone a reason for doing something, I?have to choose something everybody could follow. That¡¯s all that Kant¡¯s categorical imperative is. You see how simple it?is.¡±

Generations of philosophy undergraduates may disagree ¨C but we should probably trust 바카라사이트 expert.

mat바카라사이트w.reisz@ws-2000.com