<p>The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the Swedish debate regarding genetically modified food products. What does the moral disagreements within this debate entail? In which way would it be possible to obtain and maintain a true dialogue? Is consensus a plausible or even a desirable goal? Can communicative ethics contribute? These questions are analysed in this research project.</p><p>The project focuses on three themes of the debate on genetically modified food 1990-2000 in Sweden. The first theme is in relation to the concepts: natural and unnatural. Within the debate on genetically modified food, there have been various wide ranging arguments on whether or not genetic modification is natural or unnatural. </p><p>The second theme concerns the concepts of risk and benefit. Safety questions and possible risks and benefits have been subjects of discussion and debate for a long time. This analysis highlights the way risks or benefits are valued. What does it mean if something is a risk? </p><p>The third theme concerns the argumentations regarding democracy, mostlyin relation to labelling discussions. Democracy is used to describe freedom of choice, another argumentation focuses on the right to be a part of the decision making process.</p><p>The last part of the thesis discusses the question whether communicative ethics can contribute to obtain dialogue between various parties, and whether consensus is possible or even a desirable as a goal. How would this function in a debate where there is an ethical disagreement based on divergent ethical standpoints? </p>

The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the Swedish debate regarding genetically modified food products. What does the moral disagreements within this debate entail? In which way would it be possible to obtain and maintain a true dialogue? Is consensus a plausible or even a desirable goal? Can communicative ethics contribute? These questions are analysed in this research project. The project focuses on three themes of the debate on genetically modified food 1990-2000 in Sweden. The first theme is in relation to the concepts: natural and unnatural. Within the debate on genetically modified food, there have been various wide ranging arguments on whether or not genetic modification is natural or unnatural. The second theme concerns the concepts of risk and benefit. Safety questions and possible risks and benefits have been subjects of discussion and debate for a long time. This analysis highlights the way risks or benefits are valued. What does it mean if something is a risk? The third theme concerns the argumentations regarding democracy, mostlyin relation to labelling discussions. Democracy is used to describe freedom of choice, another argumentation focuses on the right to be a part of the decision making process. The last part of the thesis discusses the question whether communicative ethics can contribute to obtain dialogue between various parties, and whether consensus is possible or even a desirable as a goal. How would this function in a debate where there is an ethical disagreement based on divergent ethical standpoints?

Thèse numérisée par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

Life scientists have increasingly been asked to incorporate a dual use responsibility in their research conduct. In this thesis, different aspects of what constitutes a reasonable responsibility in terms of avoiding harmful misuse of research for biological weapon purposes have been explored. The first study investigated the claim that scientists have a dual use responsibility, and also outlined some of its possible content. Criteria for what may constitute preventable harm were used to analyze some proposed obligations in the field, and it was concluded that reasonable obligations include: e.g. considering the potential negative implications of one’s research and reporting activities of concern. In the second study, the conditions for a Precautionary Principle (PP) were explored and applied to the dual use research context. The study found that the main conditions of the PP frequently appear in present discussions and formulations of life scientists’ responsibility. It was also concluded that the PP is applicable to the dual use field and that it is meaningful and useful as a normatively guiding principle. The third study suggested an ethics of dissemination, based on the assumption that scientists have a responsibility to occasionally constrain the dispersion of their research findings. Three core aspects were proposed for an ethics of dual use dissemination. Additionally, to help scientists understand when constraints may be justified, three corresponding conditions for their application were suggested. In the fourth study, the concept of ethical competence was introduced and explored within a dual use context. It was concluded that competence-building is important in the nurturing of individual responsibility and, subsequently, in achieving a culture of dual use responsibility in the life sciences. Finally, the discussion on ethical competence was included in a proposed ethic of deliberation, in which various stakeholders in the dual use debate are conceived to participate in communicative processes. It was argued that spaces for deliberative activities should be institutionalized by the scientific community to ensure structural opportunities for individuals to both assume responsibility and share it. Moreover, it was argued that deliberation can constitute a cornerstone of responsible dual use governance.

Thèse numérisée par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

Η διαδικτυακή επικοινωνία αποτελεί σύγχρονο μέσο πραγματοποίησης αλληλοδράσεων και στον εκπαιδευτικό χώρο. Η Εκπαίδευση Ενηλίκων ως ενεργός χώρος έκφρασης του προτάγματος της Δια Βίου Μάθησης έχει προχωρήσει στην ανάπτυξη συλλογικών υποκειμένων – Δίκτυα – δια των οποίων το Διαδίκτυο, μέσω των ποικίλων εφαρμογών του, αξιοποιείται ως μέσο επικοινωνίας και μάθησης μεταξύ των μελών που εργάζονται σε κοινούς στόχους. Η επικοινωνία μεταξύ των μελών δομείται με αξιώσεις εγκυρότητας, δηλαδή με εκείνες τις αναγκαίες προϋποθέσεις που καθιστούν την διυποκειμενική συνάντηση, πεδίο της συναινεσιακής θεωρίας της αλήθειας. Στην παρούσα εργασία το διακύβευμα αφορά στην κριτική διερεύνηση των αξιακών απαιτήσεων των συμμετεχόντων στο διαδικτυακό διάλογο, όπως τον μεταφέρουν τα μέλη του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικτύου Διαπολιτισμικής Εκπαίδευσης Ενηλίκων (NILE) σε μια αναστοχαστικά διατυπωμένη εμπειρία καθώς και τη συσχέτιση της στάσης τους με την νομιμοποιημένη σε επίπεδο ευρωπαϊκής ρητορικής χρήσης του Διαδικτύου, ως απόδειξη της διαλεκτικής που διέπει τον τεχνοκρατικό λόγο στην Εκπαίδευση Ενηλίκων και του λόγου του στην διαμόρφωση Κοινοτήτων Γνώσης. / The digital communication consists a modern medium for the implementation of interactions in the field of Education. In particular The Adult Education as active agent where the Life Long Learning doctrine grounded, proceeds in articulating collective subjects – Networks – where Communication and learning is possible among participants collaboration within the Internet multiple applications. The Communication is articulated in validity claims, named those prerequisites that validate the intersubjectivity as the space of ‘the consensual theory of Truth’. The present thesis is referred to the claims that participants of the European Network on Intercultural Adult Learning (NILE) critical reveal through reflective utterances, concerning the internet discourse development. Hence, we are looking into the relationship of their attitude towards internet discourse with the legitimation of the digital communication in European policy rhetoric. Our basic aim is to justify the dialectics that regulates the technοcratic discourse of the Communication in Adult Education and its reason to the articulation of the Communities of Knowledge.

The present study has a threefold aim: First, the theoretical aim is to give a contribution to refinement of the theory of dialogue based feminist ethics, concerning the understanding of judgment and narration within such an ethics.  The study also has an empirical aim, defined as to clarify what kind of knowledge, relevant to the moral judgment of an engaged outsider actor, can be received from dialogical interpretation and analysis of a limited selection of critically reflecting life stories. Third, a methodological aim is defined as to develop an approach to interpretation and analysis of reflecting life stories, which renders the storyteller visible as a reflecting moral subject, and makes the story accessible as a source of knowledge for the moral judgment of an engaged outsider actor. The thesis combines philosophical reflection and argumentation, with a narrative-hermeneutic method for interpretation of life stories, relating the two to each other in a hermeneutic process.  The theoretical reflection draws on Seyla Benhabibs theory of communicative ethics. A dialogue based model for moral justification and a likewise dialogue based model for political legitimacy are at the heart of this universalistic theory, although in combination with a conception of a narratively and hermeneutically constituted context sensitive moral judgment, based on Hannah Arendt’s concept “enlarged thought”. In the reflection, this model is related to other feminist theorizing within the tradition of dialogue based feminist ethics, as found in the works of Iris M. Young, Georgia Warnke and Shari Stone-Mediatore. The empirical study draws on three critically reflecting life stories from Israeli-Palestinian women activists for a just peace. The methodology for interpretation and analysis that is worked out combines dialogical interpretation as presented in Arthur W. Frank’s socio-narratology with a method for structural analysis derived from Shari Stone-Mediatores theory of storytelling as an expression of political resistance struggle. The results show that some stories drawing on marginalized experiences have a potential­ to stimulate further public debate through their capacity to enable a stereoscopic seeing, elucidating a tension between ideologically structured discourse and non-linguistic experience; implying that narrative-hermeneutic competence should be considered crucial for public debate.

Abstract: During the past decade, media researchers have intensified the study of media scandals and the role of journalism as an institution that holds social actors responsible for malfeasance and wrongdoings. On a micro level of analysis, the main attention has beendirected towards the journalistic interview and its use to promote the impression of guilt and journalistic neutrality. However, such studies have not been able to address the editing dimension of TV journalism that transforms conversation to another type of communicativepractice – that of communication through TV-flows composed of speech sequences, pictures,and sounds. This doctoral thesis develops a theoretical framework for analysis of the functions of editing inthe process of guilt attribution by journalistic TV-flows – e.g. investigative TV reporting. The purpose is also to contribute to an understanding of the relationship between the communicative competences of viewers and the contextualization of speech acts through the composition of TV-flows. The developed perspective consists of three parts: 1) A division of viewers’ reception of TV-flows in two types of interpersonal relations (to a speaker and to the composer) that involves six levels of cognitive activities. This division is based on the Habermasian notion of communicative rationality; 2) An intent-model, that lists communicative intentions expressed by the composer when speech sequences are merged and pictures are inserted; 3) A guilt-model, that encompasses guilt as a mental structure of ontologically separated elements (e.g. deed,intention, norm) and the associative relations that the viewer uses to create a meaningful whole– a fabula of guilt. The conveyed analysis of three cases of investigative reporting illustrates how the developed framework can be applied in the study of guilt attribution. The analyses also describe several compositional strategies by which the viewer is encouraged to make certain meaning, evaluate, and judge. The strategies concern the following areas: promotion of certain understanding of speech, promotion of certain evaluation of the validity claims, and promotion of certain understanding of the speaker’s intentions. Also strategies of positioning of the reporter in constructed discourses, that enhance the impression of her performances and argumentation, are explored. Furthermore, the composer’s strategies for masking intentions to interfere with the speech acts, by increasing intent ambiguity, are described. The guilt-model is used to understand the workings of the TV-flow on an overreaching level of meaning (the fabula level). Here, the analysis explains the interplay between portrayed intentions and acts, and the different ways in which condemning norms can be activated and highlighted. Furthermore, the model explores the possible employment of categorization in theprocess of guilt attribution (e.g. when properties of an individual are transferred to a group). In sum, this thesis contributes to a new way of understanding the reception of current affairs programs and TV journalism, as relation building between composer and viewer, by means of contextualization of speech acts.

The present study has a threefold aim: First, the theoretical aim is to give a contribution to refinement of the theory of dialogue based feminist ethics, concerning the understanding of judgment and narration within such an ethics.  The study also has an empirical aim, defined as to clarify what kind of knowledge, relevant to the moral judgment of an engaged outsider actor, can be received from dialogical interpretation and analysis of a limited selection of critically reflecting life stories. Third, a methodological aim is defined as to develop an approach to interpretation and analysis of reflecting life stories, which renders the storyteller visible as a reflecting moral subject, and makes the story accessible as a source of knowledge for the moral judgment of an engaged outsider actor. The thesis combines philosophical reflection and argumentation, with a narrative-hermeneutic method for interpretation of life stories, relating the two to each other in a hermeneutic process.  The theoretical reflection draws on Seyla Benhabibs theory of communicative ethics. A dialogue based model for moral justification and a likewise dialogue based model for political legitimacy are at the heart of this universalistic theory, although in combination with a conception of a narratively and hermeneutically constituted context sensitive moral judgment, based on Hannah Arendt’s concept “enlarged thought”. In the reflection, this model is related to other feminist theorizing within the tradition of dialogue based feminist ethics, as found in the works of Iris M. Young, Georgia Warnke and Shari Stone-Mediatore. The empirical study draws on three critically reflecting life stories from Israeli-Palestinian women activists for a just peace. The methodology for interpretation and analysis that is worked out combines dialogical interpretation as presented in Arthur W. Frank’s socio-narratology with a method for structural analysis derived from Shari Stone-Mediatores theory of storytelling as an expression of political resistance struggle. The results show that some stories drawing on marginalized experiences have a potential­ to stimulate further public debate through their capacity to enable a stereoscopic seeing, elucidating a tension between ideologically structured discourse and non-linguistic experience; implying that narrative-hermeneutic competence should be considered crucial for public debate.