Paul A. Komesaroff

It has conventionally been assumed that there are no limits to ethical discourse: that is, that no matter how difficult or fraught the questions being asked some common ground can always be found. This has been thought to arise from fundamental shared values and the conditions of possibility of dialogue itself. Contemporary events have put this assumption in doubt and raised questions about when and where dialogue might cease to be possible. This article examines some aspects of the conditions of, and obstacles confronting, ethical discourse today, focusing on the Kantian model, as represented by Jurgen Habermas, which emphasizes rational discourse and communicative action, and the critique of this view presented by Alphonso Lingis. It traces an actual dialogue—about potential justifications for the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza—and analyses both the multiple obstacles encountered and the unsuccessful attempts by the protagonists to circumvent them. The article concludes by proposing that a new ethical predicament has emerged where discourses encounter intractable limits—characterized as “categorical ethical exclusion” or “ethical homo sacer ”—in which multiple groups of individuals are systematically excluded from ethical consideration. The emergence of such an ethical singularity, it is suggested, may call for a fundamental re-examination of the conditions of dialogue and the mutual construction of meaning.

Background: Despite the widespread use of telehealth, particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been little published evidence about the effect of telehealth on the therapeutic relationship and clinician and patient interaction. This study sought to identify the divergence in this mode of communication compared with in-person interaction for both clinicians and patients. Methods: An exploratory qualitative interview study of 22 mental health practitioners (registered psychologists or psychiatrists) in Australia who have treated patients using psychotherapy in-person and using telehealth, followed by a qualitative interview study of 20 patients in Australia who have undergone psychotherapy in-person and using telehealth. Using an interpretative phenomenological analysis, this paper examines participants’ perspectives on, communication with, and reactions to telehealth when providing or receiving psychotherapy treatment. Results: Both clinicians and patients described the benefits and detriments of clinical interactions using telehealth versus face-to-face. Both groups drew attention to the evident “convenience” inherent in the use of telephone or video contact, while also noting how the absence of a shared physical space fundamentally changed the conduct of private conversations with affective content. Many clinicians expressed the view that telehealth induced an underlying and intrinsic shift in the connection with the patient. Patients, likewise, reported a corresponding change in interpersonal interaction, although many experienced difficulties articulating a description of this change in relational connection. Conclusion: Patients and doctors identify both benefits and limitations of telehealth in comparison with face-to-face communication. This study has found that various factors inherent in telehealth contact affect the curative value and quality of the healthcare interaction which impacts both patient and clinician. The structure and content of the therapeutic relationship varied according to whether it occurred in a telehealth setting or in-person. These results suggest that the use of telemedicine should be tailored to the specific needs, preferences and circumstances of individual patients. The results also demonstrate that the themes identified have different implications and effects depending on the clinician, patient, and clinical situation. There are indications that telehealth overall limits or constrains the exchange of meanings in the clinic, and further research is required to explore the process by which this change occurs and its meaning.

There has been much discussion about the tactics used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and government in the conflict in Gaza following October 7, 2023, which have caused, among other things, systematic destruction of hospitals and schools, the deaths of large numbers of civilians, including women and children, mass starvation, and denial of humanitarian aid. The Israeli government and IDF have sought to justify their actions using ethical arguments, many of which relate to their proclaimed role as the representatives of the Jewish state and of Jewish culture and history. Arguing from the extensive corpus of Jewish ethical thought, extending back thousands of years, this article poses a simple question: Are the above actions by the Israeli government and IDF in Gaza consistent with the ethical tradition of Judaism and the obligations that flow from it? To answer this question, key texts are analysed, especially the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud, and multiple arguments are examined, taking into account the complexities of context and diverse interpretive theories. The paper is presented in two parts, the first discussing the question and methodological issues and the second providing the data and conclusions. We conclude that the alleged acts of the Israeli government and IDF in Gaza are clearly and directly contrary to the Judaic tradition of ethics as it has developed over the millennia. The conduct of the war cannot truthfully be presented in any meaningful sense as representing, or indeed, consistent with, Jewish culture or ethics. These findings have potentially far-reaching consequences, including for the claimed status of Israel as a Jewish state, the relationship between criticism of the government of Israel and the scourge of antisemitism, and the identity of Jewish people both within and outside Israel.

There has been much discussion about the tactics used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and government in the conflict in Gaza following October 7, 2023, which have caused, among other things, systematic destruction of hospitals and schools, the deaths of large numbers of civilians, including women and children, mass starvation, and denial of humanitarian aid. The Israeli government and IDF have sought to justify their actions using ethical arguments, many of which relate to their proclaimed role as the representatives of the Jewish state and of Jewish culture and history. Arguing from the extensive corpus of Jewish ethical thought, extending back thousands of years, this article poses a simple question: Are the above actions by the Israeli government and IDF in Gaza consistent with the ethical tradition of Judaism and the obligations that flow from it? To answer this question, key texts are analysed, especially the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud, and multiple arguments are examined, taking into account the complexities of context and diverse interpretive theories. The paper is presented in two parts, the first discussing the question and methodological issues and the second providing the data and conclusions. We conclude that the alleged acts of the Israeli government and IDF in Gaza are clearly and directly contrary to the Judaic tradition of ethics as it has developed over the millennia. The conduct of the war cannot truthfully be presented in any meaningful sense as representing, or indeed, consistent with, Jewish culture or ethics. These findings have potentially far-reaching consequences, including for the claimed status of Israel as a Jewish state, the relationship between criticism of the government of Israel and the scourge of antisemitism, and the identity of Jewish people both within and outside Israel.

A key maxim guiding the introduction of new technologies, including those utilizing artificial intelligence, is that such technologies should carry rewards of “convenience”: indeed, the more “convenient” a new technology is considered to be, the more likely it is to be welcomed and adopted. Rudimentary examples from last century include the microwave, washing machine, and dishwasher; more recent innovations from the present century include portable navigation systems, online shopping applications, internet search engines, smart phones, telehealth, automated workplace systems and processes, email and messaging technologies, and—most recently—large language models that are able to undertake multiple complex tasks. Each of these technologies offers a variety of benefits. However, a unifying feature is that all have been considered to enhance convenience, understood as saving time and/or effort. In this paper we explore the provenance and meaning of the—usually unexamined—concept of convenience, identifying an unexpected link with erosion of values and depletion of the diversity and richness of personal experiences. We conclude that the prioritization of convenience as a driver of innovation carries with it risks, which may go unnoticed or be difficult to discern.