BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN VERSION:2.0 CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260607T055324Z DTSTART;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20231207T133000 DTEND;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20231207T170000 SUMMARY:Dehumanisation UID:20260614T112527Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-bd7db559-gt5qm TZID:Australia/Melbourne LOCATION:Clayton Campus\, Melbourne\, Australia\, 3800 DESCRIPTION:

START TIME: 1.30pm.

\n

Joel Reynolds\, Disability\, Dehumaniation and Speciesism

\n

Abstract: \;For the last fifty years\, philosophers discussed the problem of speciesism in quintessentially \;ethical terms\, invoking the frameworks of various moral traditions and deploying the normative tools of principles\, duties\, virtues\, and so on. In this paper\, I argue that this approach \;is a dead-end. We should not look to ethics to address the problem of speciesism\; we should turn to social psychology and intellectual history. After \;surveying scholarship on genocide\, hate crimes\, and other forms of treating others as non- or sub-human\, I turn to Peter Singer&rsquo\;s work and show how conceptualizing \;certain human progenies to be not persons&mdash\;not human with respect to their value&mdash\;is a paradigmatic psychological \;driver \;of \;dehumanization. By choosing to &ldquo\;abandon the idea of the equal value of all humans&rdquo\; instead of raising the value of non-human animals\, Singer and those who follow in his footsteps fortify a path that\, in light of the best social science research\, actively and directly supports the individual and social psychological mechanisms behind dehumanization. I conclude by arguing that all anti-speciesist arguments without an anchor in how we in fact tend to treat and think about each other should be dismissed\, and I \;discuss how research on dehumanization offers a path forward for ethical work that is both \;anti-specieist \;and anti-ableist.

\n\n

Suzy Killmister\, Rethinking Dehumanization

\n

Abstract: One of the most common ways to theorize dehumanization is as a psychological phenomenon: dehumanization\, on such approaches\, is a matter of seeing as less than human. In this talk I argue that such approaches are inadequate. Focusing on people with disabilities and trans and gender diverse people\, I aim to show that theorizing dehumanization as a structural phenomenon &ndash\; and more specifically as exclusion from a socially constructed category &ndash\; provides three key benefits over psychological approaches. 1) A structural approach can recognise a wider range of practices as dehumanization\; 2) it can provide us with better tools for countering dehumanization\; and 3) it can better explain the relationship between dehumanization and the related phenomena of subordination and marginalization.

ORGANIZER;CN=Linda Barclay: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR