Browsing by Author "Bhattacharyya, Anureema"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Open Access Gender justice and sustainable relationships: an examination(Reflections Printers and Publishers, 2021) Bhattacharyya, Anureema; Talib, Javaid; Khan, Zafar AhmadGender justice in the conventional way is opposed to gender discrimination. Gender discrimination is a major cause of concern for any feminist or social activist, Different gender roles are ascribed to people by way of this discrimination. Men are given specific roles by virtue of their capacity which women are considered not to have. Women are allotted roles as part of their obligations for the family, society, their living or their very existence, which ,as if ,are not applicable to men. The most crucial relationship which is responsible for the dynamism in a society and hence its progression is that of a male-female partnership in a family. The very term 'partner' indicates an attitude of mutual love, respect, understanding. Now, the situation in a family is where men and women partners are differently occupied in household chores as they are expected to be. But the conflict arises here. Both have complaints of being discriminated. They feel pressurised, stressed. Hence, the small issues rise to larger scales which finally disturb the relationship to any extent as handled Even for those who manage to ignore or suppress matters, the allegations do not vanish but are rather consciously taken care of with individual level of emotional maturity. My point is that the tension remains — whether dormant or active,. In this context, I like to refer to the book 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus' by John Gray, a relation to his success in holding a dignified relation with others. partnership relations are to a great extent successful with the implementation of differential treatment towards the other. By differential treatment, I refer to 'treating differently' as discussed by John Gray. What I want to focus at this crucial juncture of understanding is that 'giving differential treatment' or 'treating differently' is not necessarily 'treating unequally', hence is not necessarily 'unjustified'. If the basic purpose behind Gender Justice or say any other form of Justice for humans is to confirm mutual respect and dignity, then such dignity can surely be guaranteed by treating each other differently if that helps in understanding one another better, if that helps in sustaining a relationship meaningfully. Therefore equal treatment as demanded by Gender Justice is not to be taken literally. Having comprehended the inner import of the term, we may interpret it in the context of partnership relations by saying that every partner in a relation deserves to be treated differently by the other in relation to his/her own, and thereby given equal treatment. Hence Justice towards Gender in a partnership relation is headed towards Justice towards the relationship in which both the genders are involved. If for the purpose of healthy partnership, genderisation or essentialisation is needed in treatment, it is not opposed to justice in any way. Attitude is important. Interpretations are important. "Love is magical, and it can last, if we remember our differences..”Item Open Access Review of Ethical Naturalism as A Form of Cognitivism and Realism(University of North Bengal, 2018-03) Bhattacharyya, AnureemaItem Open Access Ross’s Version of Ethical Intuitionism: A Study in The Light of Moore And Kant(University of North Bengal, 2020-03) Bhattacharyya, AnureemaThe prime focus of moral philosophy in the last four centuries had been the relation of facts to values, specifically the ethical values. The issue evolved and centered round the Humean view that ‘Ought cannot be derived from Is’. The naturalist philosophers attempted to define moral words like ‘good’ or ‘right’ in terms of natural properties. G. E. Moore in Principia Ethica criticized the naturalists’ intention of defining ethical terms with reference to factual properties. He elaborated the issue and preferred to consider moral terms as in-definable and which refer to some non-natural property knowable through intuition.Item Open Access Semantic Import of Moral Terms: Cognitivism vs. Noncognitivism(University of North Bengal, 2021-03) Bhattacharyya, AnureemaAn important discussion in the area of metaethics is about the meaning of ethical terms which in turn relates to the epistemic status of moral judgements. The purpose of this paper is to understand the specific approach towards ‘meaning’ when there is a discussion about meaning of a term; thereby investigating the claim towards epistemic import of a judgement, if at all justified. The paper seeks to interconnect the two independent philosophical approaches to ethical language and hence prove that there is no convergence or divergence strictly as to relate the meaning of an ethical term with the judgement being cognitive or non-cognitive....Item Open Access Unique status of meta-ethical emotivism in Stevenson(University of North Bengal, 2022-03) Bhattacharyya, AnureemaThe basic understanding of morality undoubtedly revolves round the situational aspects of the moral agents who form the subject of discussion. There cannot be any question about ethicality where the human agents are not involved. Now, concepts of ‗good‘ or ‗bad‘ are necessary to understand for the sake of answering normative queries; but, they are never appropriately comprehended from a non-subjective standpoint, as it is nothing without the subject which can be absolutely relevant in understanding the judgements passed by them. The physical world is a party to the discussion only because the moral agents sustain their existence through interacting with them, and thereby having a common interaction also with the environment of which they both form an indispensable part. Now, the question is- why are ethical questions asked or ethical judgements passed? It is precisely to express our attitude towards something thereby contributing in affecting the thoughts of others, or else in resolving disputes /disagreements rising out of differences in belief or attitudes. This purpose is effectively served only when the situational factors are understood in relation to the subject/subjects involved – i.e. in understanding the totality of the emergence of such contexts. Hence, comes the justification of introducing meta-ethics in the form of a comprehensive understanding of ethical language along with an understanding of the psychology behind use of the language, the background behind the use of such language, and hence the social role played by use of such language. This way of exercising ethics stands in sharp contrast to the normative approach of knowing what is ‗good‘, ‗bad‘ on the basis of some objectively set standards. Morality is subject-oriented, and because the existential situations of humans/subjects evolve in its domain, any bit of discussion on ethics is rendered pointless when dealt with in absolute objectivity. The focus of my paper is thus to study after C.L.Stevenson the purpose of doing metaethics as a wholesome study addressing the justification and practicality of the very existence of the discipline called Ethics.