“Humanist formations are predicated upon some kind of bounded, rational, autonomous and sovereign human subject, the post-human condition suggests something more expansive, relational and nomadic”. My intention with this dissertation will be to find a connection between the conceptual notions of the post-human condition and the intricate web of ethics, making it evident that the very fabric of human understanding is continuously evolving. Just as the post-human perspective explains a shift from an isolated human entity to a more intertwined, relational, and dynamic being, the essence of ethics too underscores the significance of interconnectedness and the myriad relationships we are embedded in. This helped me understand that ethics is about ‘relationships’. It revolves around the intricate web of relationships between internal moral considerations using associations with ideologies and the broader external network that encompasses us. Principally, ethics is concerned with the way individuals interact with the world around them, which includes not only their own moral beliefs and principles but also the complex social and environmental contexts in which they exist. Fundamentally, it is about how individuals navigate these relationships and associations while striving to make morally sound decisions and judgments.

​

''ethics is about ‘relationships’. It revolves around the intricate web of relationships between internal moral considerations using associations with ideologies and the broader external network that encompasses us.''

​

     First and foremost, ethics involves one's internal moral compass—a set of principles, values, and beliefs that guide behaviour and decision-making. These deeply personal internal considerations can be influenced by various factors, such as upbringing, culture, religion, and personal experiences. They serve as the foundation upon which ethical decisions are built. However, these considerations do not exist in isolation. They are inextricably linked to the external world. Our actions and choices have consequences that ripple through society, affecting others and other things. Therefore, ethics requires individuals to be mindful of their roles and responsibilities within this broader context. It also highlights the relationships and associations people form with others as presented to us in the ethics of care by Virginia Held. Considering the rights, interests, and well-being of others when making decisions, and recognizing the importance of fairness, justice, and respect in interpersonal relationships and in the wider societal context, spells out ethics.

​

     Ethics resides not solely in its complexity but also in its nuances and intricacies. it can be related to the historical and philosophical foundations of ethics. The historical and philosophical foundations of ethics, as represented by utilitarianism, deontology, and a more novel normative theory in Virginia Held's perspectives on the ethics of care, provide different lenses through which to view ethics in terms of relationships. Utilitarianism emphasizes the consequences of actions on overall happiness, deontology emphasizes universal moral principles, and Held's critiques stress the importance of practical validation within real-life relationships and associations. 

Transitioning from the broad philosophical frameworks discussed above, I decided to delve deeper into the real-life implications of these concepts, specifically focusing on the lived experiences of those with disabilities. The convergence of ethical theories and post-humanist thoughts in the context of social and disability justice emerges as a testament to the adaptability and depth of human interactions. Here, personal stories mix with society's set ways, showing the challenges of living in a world where our early beliefs often shape how we see and act.

​

     I am 6 weeks into my capstone project which touches upon parenting in the context of people with mobility disabilities and this subject takes me out of my comfort zone not because I dont have experience in it, not because I feel overwhelmed easily but because I work with one of my classmates who is a wheelchair user. We have become great friends now and he constantly keeps on joking about his experience as a paraplegic. The first thing he said to me was “hey buddy, use me as a Ginnie pig for as many questions as you want about our project” since he is considering being a parent too. But it's not that simple. I pause every time I have to ask a question regarding the topic, to frame it correctly so that I dont unintentionally say something that's wrong or makes him uncomfortable. As a matter of fact just by engaging in this act of thinking before saying I put myself on the ableist side of the spectrum. I often find myself in this moral dilemma, but it gets easier every day. Untill today I didn't realise that my brain was deeply conditioned by the way the world functions, it only surfaced when I met my new friend. Thinking about rights and the future begins from early childhood and it is crucial in the developmental understanding of how children come to recognize and understand social norms, fairness, responsibility, and their evolving conceptions of time. As children grow and interact with their environments, they form foundational ideas about these concepts. 

​

     John Harris in his journal article ‘One principle and three fallacies of disability studies’ characterizes disability as a condition that someone has a strong rational preference not to be in and one that is in some sense a harmed condition and situates harmed conditions relative both to one's rational preferences and to conditions which might be described as harmful, not relative to normal species functioning but relative to possible alternatives. Another lens was presented by Buchanan et al where they state that whether a typical function's impairment is deemed as a disability depends on the person's social environment which seems inconsistent because they define disability as not being able to do things that most people in the same group (like adults) can usually do.  It's critical to emphasize these perspectives because many individuals fallaciously associate disability relative to normal species functioning. Talking about fallacies in regard to disability studies and popular opinion, some understand that if you choose to fix or enhance something about a person, it means the original state was really bad or that the person was of lesser worth, But this isn't true and some believe that if you choose certain health traits for your kids (like making them healthier or more capable), you're being unfair or unequal. It is also wrongly understood that disability or impairment must be defined relative either to normalcy, “normal species functioning”, or “species typical functioning”. From a semantics point of view, these fallacies significantly impact the ethical interpretation and understanding of disability, as it gets acquired by the masses.  From the version of the principle of equality, all persons are equal and none are less equal than others and in that sense, no disability however slight nor severe implies lesser moral, political or ethical status, worth or value.

​

     The history of the language around disabilities is disempowering. Anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski posited that language and culture are inextricably intertwined, asserting that "our language embodies our cultural values, and its usage provides insight into our cultural norms." Historically, cultural narratives have often marginalized, overlooked, and devalued individuals perceived as distinct or living with disabilities.

​

     A society's attitude towards individuals with disabilities can be gauged by the language and terminology it employs to describe them. Labels can diminish individuals by emphasizing their disparities or limitations instead of recognizing their unique identities. Such designations can pigeonhole people into predefined categories, often overshadowing other aspects of their identity. These tags end up serving as a simplistic mental reference, such as "the disabled," "homeless," or "single parents," among others.

​

     Until not long ago, the dominant perspective on disability was the medical model. In this view, the individual with the disability was perceived as the issue, “We are to be adapted to fit into the world as it is”. In the late 1980s, thanks to the advocacy of individuals with disabilities, there was a paradigm shift in understanding disability. They argued that disability is shaped by societal perceptions and structures. As a result, the focus transitioned from the medical model, which viewed the medical condition as the problem, to the social model. This new perspective identified societal prejudice, discrimination, and lack of accessibility as the disabling factors rather than medical conditions. To avoid upsetting or offending, society searched for more considerate terms: physically challenged, visually impaired, differently abled, and disAbled, among others. Canadian songwriter Jane Field expressed this very sentiment in The Fishing is Free: 

​

No one knows just what to call us which label should befall us, And they’re some dandy terms from which to choose. My favourite’s “wheelchair-bound” ‘cause it has a bondage sound. Oh it’s fun to guess what term they’re going to use 6.