MODULE 2: PHILOSOPHY AND ACTIVISM—CULTIVATING A SOCIALLY
ENGAGED PHILOSOPHICAL MINDSET
MODULE 2-LECTURE NOTES
SUMMER 2024
I. Introduction: Foundations of Applied Ethics
Moral Philosophy Frameworks
Moral reflection has long been constructed on different methods of determining right and
wrong. Three of the most famous are deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics, each with its
own take on morality. Kantian ethics, or deontology, asserts that an act is morally right,
regardless of the outcome, if it can be held to a strict code that governs behavior. This rationale
does imply that individuals ought to act because it is their duty, not because they would stand to
gain (Grace, 2009). Utilitarianism, on the contrary (where Bentham was the original architect
and Mill the refiner), reverses this logic. It states that morality is a matter of consequences, what
matters most is producing the greatest good for the most people. Then come the virtue ethicists,
who take a different turn. Aristotle held that moral character matters more than rules or
considering benefits (Tham, 2017). It is evident that far from being obsessed with individual
actions, this model encourages people to cultivate virtues like courage and honesty across their
lifetimes. Such frameworks can help people navigate ethical dilemmas but generate endless
disputes over which one most effectively brings about a just and fair society. In fact, people
often coalesce elements of all three in hard moral decisions. Philosophers may love neat
theories, but ethics in the real world seldom is so titled in black and white.
Each of these viewpoints has its own merits and shortcomings. A deontological approach
to ethics, which can be considered subsets of ethical theories that place an emphasis on moral
rules, provides a type of moral certainty that Kant’s categorical imperative, people should act
only in ways that could become universal laws (Stahl & Eke, 2024). This runs the risk of
treating morality as a set of fixed and immutable laws, but leaves no space for flexibility or
reconciliation. Utilitarianism, by contrast, is situational, gauging right and wrong by assessing
overall happiness and suffering. Mill refined this approach, recognizing that certain pleasures,
such as the expansion of the intellect, outweigh others (Chadwick, 2012). That flexibility,
though, can lead to ethical gray areas where one can ask if one person’s suffering ever justified
if it makes a lot of others happy. By basing its focus on character rather than rules or results,
virtue ethics transcends this dilemma (Allhoff, 2011). It implies that growing into a good person
requires time, effort, practice and advantages. Unlike deontology and utilitarianism, which tend
to view morality through the glass of individual decisions, virtue ethics conceptualizes morality
as a lifelong project. This method can be seen as attractive in that it promotes moral progress
over firm principles, although it has been criticized as offering no general prescriptive answer for
specific moral situations.
All three of these ethical traditions influence how people and institutions think about
morality today. Deontology’s focus on duty helps shape legal systems and professional codes of
conduct, upholding concepts of justice and fairness (Grace & Uveges, 2022). Utilitarianism,
which asks us to consider the consequences of our actions, is common in policymaking and
economics, where decisions usually boil down to doing what is best for society as a whole. On
the other hand, virtue ethics can be seen as important in leadership and education, embracing
that ethical action derives from someone of good character, rather than from rules (Tham, 2017).
These theories do not come out of a vacuum. In most real-world ethics debates, about artificial
intelligence, medical decisions, climate policy, etc., people draw from various frameworks to
identify balanced outcomes. With increasingly complex ethical challenges, it is impractical to
resort to only one approach. Rather, combining diverse perspectives enables more sophisticated,
flexible, ethical thinking.
Applied Ethics Distinction
Applied ethics goes beyond abstract philosophy, addressing practical moral questions. It
Is divided into three main areas including normative ethics, meta-ethics and practical ethics.
Theories constituting normative ethics attempt to describe what people ought to do, presenting
prescriptive rules and guidelines for conduct, derived from principles such as deontology,
utilitarianism, and virtue ethics (Allhoff, 2011). Meta-ethics takes a step back and asks broader
questions, what is the source of moral principles? Are they objective truths or do they merely
reflect human beliefs (Stahl & Eke, 2024; Stahl, Eke, Wibisono, & Urbano, 2018)? Then there is
practical ethics, which grounds these discussions in the issues of the day such as medical
decision-making, environmental policies, and business behavior (Chadwick, 2012). All of these
branches offer something unique, and they influence the course of ethical discussions in various
realms. Although they each address separate parts of morality, they help advance the common
goal of formalizing moral reasoning to make it more systematic and practical. In today’s context,
where ethical dilemmas have only become increasingly nuanced, understanding these
distinctions is how people are able to make moral decisions.
Social and professional conduct is guided by normative ethics. Instead of holding a strict
one-way approach, Ross instead developed a pluralistic way of looking at things that balances
different moral duties (i.e. honesty, fairness, kindness) (Grace, 2009). By asserting that moral
ethics should focus on alleviating suffering, particularly in the realms of global poverty and
animal rights, Singer, instead, takes the utilitarian argument to radical heights (Tham, 2017).
Metaethics extends this question by asking what we mean by morality at all. For example,
Mackie believes moral values are human constructs and not universal truths (Chadwick, 2012).
This view disagrees with Moore’s claim that morality is comprehensible only through intuition,
and not through logic or observation (Allhoff, 2011). These debates would show how
philosophical problems contribute to ethical problems. Normative ethics describes the rules, but
metaethics asks whether those rules even have an objective basis. The more one contemplates
these questions, the harder it is to claim that morality exists in an absolute sense.
These theories are subjected to scrutiny in practical ethics. The ongoing tension between
respecting individual rights and ensuring the best outcome in medicine is illustrated through
debates of patient autonomy and informed consents (Grace & Uveges, 2022). What are the
implications of this perspective for ethical concern, human obligations to future generations, and
non-human life (Stahl & Eke, 2024)]? Specifically, the rise of AI brings forth new ethical
challenges (Tham, 2017) when it comes to issues such as accountability and bias in decision-
making about morality. Real-world applications like these illustrate that ethical judgment is not
black and white, but is also constantly evolving (MacKenzie, 2013). Although certain moral
principles are constant, many ethical dilemmas need to be reframed to align with today’s
realities. An applied ethics methodology will be critical in guiding our decisions and policies as
technology and globalization continue to create novel ethical dilemmas in society.
Ethical Theories and Action
Ethics is more than theories; it is what people actually do. For example, the notion of
moral responsibility considers the circumstances of how people should be punished for their
decisions; or whether they are responsible at all, when external forces determine the nature of
their choices. That is, according to Strawson, people make judgments about whether to deem a
person responsible or not based on the social expectations of their behavior, not absolute moral
truths (Grace, 2009). Frankfurt takes this a step further by claiming that true moral responsibility
hinges on acting according to the depths of one’s values as opposed to mere reacting to surface
level wants (Chadwick, 2012). These ideas raise significant questions about free will and blame
meaning if something beyond their control, their upbringing, their culture, even artificial
intelligence, affects their behavior, how much responsibility do people really have? Such
discussions have become all the more urgent with the rapid pace of technological development.
As machines assume decision-making roles, determining where responsibility lies becomes
more difficult.
The central focus of ethical deliberation is, of course, obligation, but especially as it
pertains to justice and fairness. Moral obligations originate from the principles of right or justice
from Rawls which consider that social systems should be organized in such a way to make the
best use for the worst off people (Tham, 2017). If anything, as Nozick argues, obligations only
exist in the case of voluntary agreements, and thus he states that all other ways of creating
obligations, such as forced redistribution, are out of the question. According to Allhoff (2011),
such contradictory perceptions have serious implications for actual policies, including taxation,
welfare and corporate ethics. A society that embodies principles of equity will inspire its citizens
to give up a portion of their wealth and privileges in service to the public good, seeing this as an
ethical imperative rather than a command handed down by the sword of the state. Otherwise,
property rights and private ownership would be the end of their social responsibility. Some who
believe that redistributive policies are necessary for justice, while others argue that such
measures would erode freedom. The ethical quandary is how to negotiate collective well-being
with individual agency fairly and justly. These disputes still echo in contemporary debates
about economic equity, governance and corporate influence.
The question of agency, whether individuals are in fact able to choose how they act, is
central to moral philosophy. According to Anscombe ethical judgment should be less about the
action itself, and more about the intention behind it; it is therefore a shift in focus away from
what was done, to why it was done (Grace & Uveges, 2022). Sartre went further, declaring that
people are absolutely free and fully responsible for their decisions, no matter what the
circumstances. According to Stahl and Eke (2024), these concepts have played a central role in
shaping society's views on accountability and control ever since, influencing everything from
legal responsibility to corporate ethics to global governance. Today, human agency has been
muddied further by the encroaching power of technology and large institutions in decision-
making. Algorithms determine who gets loans, artifi-cial intelligence determines who gets hired,
multinational corporations have power over labor rights and pollution controls. These advances
require an even bigger ethical recalibration, one that forces individuals and institutions to
confront the inner war of personal accountability and systemic control, to clearer demarcate
when they are complicit in a crime and when they're playing the hero. With no guidelines these
agencies charge around with little regard for the consequences of their actions.
II. The Philosophical Basis of Activism
Social Contract Traditions
The social contract theories give a base for treating activism as an important consequence
of political and social duties. Activism, for Rousseau, is a necessary and important force to give
expression to the General Will but also a force that works to arbitrate how best to organize
governance around a collective interest. As Rousseau claims, by attaining a common will that
directs the ultimate individual good of the social contract, men are ultimately free. Activism is in
turn a corrective when governments fail to embody this collective will (Marinoff, 2017). Rawls’
theory of justice as fairness similarly treats activism as a corrective measure to safeguard
equality. Also, by promoting equitable institutions that support fair prospects and equal
freedoms, activists resist institutional biases that prevent social justice. These viewpoints imply
that activism is not just an individual's choice but a civic obligation that needs to be followed in
order to maintain fair and democratic legitimacy (Bordonaba-Plou, Fernández-Castro, & Torices,
2022). Activism is the antidote to injustice and the aspirational force of democracy. Without
these philosophical undercurrents, activism would risk becoming a solitary pursuit, rather than
one of the three legs of everyone governing themselves jointly.
Communitarian philosophers provide an alternative perspective, emphasizing the
importance of shared traditions and collective identity to activism (McGraw, 2014). MacIntyre
maintains that activism must come from a dedication to shared beliefs, not transcendent
ideologies. Sandel extends this critique, arguing a precaution on individual “rightism” erodes
social cohesion. From this vantage point, activism is not simply the struggle against injustice,
but the constitution and enforcement of ethical duties within a political community. Whereas
Rawlsian liberalism emphasizes an impartial justice, communitarianism draws attention to
activism as a way of maintaining moral traditions. Thus activism must be contextualized by its
cultural and historical settings and not solely assumed to be mentioned in universal terms
(McGraw, 2014). Activism cannot become a part of the society that reinforces traditions of
exclusion, so there is an important balancing act going on here between community values and
broader human rights. When it respects individual dignity within the context of collective well-
being, activism becomes a unifying force, not a divisive one.
Justice and Moral Duty
Activism based on the theory of justice is more likely to fight against inequalities by
requesting distributive justice. As Rawls notes, in just societies the least advantaged are given
priority over others, potentially providing activists with a moral framework for fighting
economic inequalities. Nozick, on the other hand, challenges the legitimacy of redistribution,
asserting that justice arises from voluntary exchanges without state intervention. These
antithetical views reflect the ideological tensions that undergird activism, with some movements
focusing on redistribution, others on property rights, both sides of which were on display in the
pollution controversy. Rawlsian justice encourages activism to restructure institutions, whereas
Nozick’s libertarian critique is raised to concern for state overreach (Bordonaba-Plou et al.
2022). These philosophical disagreements expose the challenge of building a consensus in the
cause of economic justice, as activists navigate conflicting visions of fairness. However,
underlying ideological discord, the continuity of activism in the struggle for economic reform
points to an enduring commitment to overcoming inequality in all its manifestations.
Beyond economic justice, the moral case for activism hinges on a fundamental concern
of rights and moral standing. For Dworkin, the idea that some rights are so central to a vibrant
democracy that they are beyond compromise strengthens the argument for activism to create
legal protections. According to Belfield (2020), in this vein, Regan’s study of moral standing
broadens activism’s scope to non-human beings, impacting efforts to advocate for environmental
and animal rights. These perspectives place activism as an ethical answer to systemic violations
of dignity and autonomy. These theories serve as an activist entry point, asserting the
inviolability of individual and collective rights and providing a philosophical bedrock for
movements for justice (Burns & Norris, 2012). What this means in practice is that activism gets
caught up in the struggle to define what rights are most fundamental and who should be
included in the protection. This ongoing and developing nature of the debates mean that activism
is not a static ideology, it is not the same as some sort of fixed ideology, it is itself, dynamic and
evolving. Faulkner’s views on women's issues have evolved significantly over time, which he
has embraced.
Human dignity as a vital norm of moral activism provides the ethical commitments of
moral activism. Kantian ethics ask that we treat each other as ends, a foundation that is at the
heart of social movements that advocate for the rights of all. As per Giraud (2019), Nussbaum
expands on this idea through the capabilities approach, where she argues that justice means
giving people the means to be able to have meaningful agency. Seen this way, activism is not
just about opposing oppression, but about creating the conditions for human flourishing. Such a
framework emphasizes the faith-based long-term objectives social movements tend to have,
while also affirming activism as a moral imperative in the pursuit of justice and dignity (Davids
& Waghid, 2021). In centering dignity, activism does more than resist the immediate signs of
oppression in society; it aspires to create lasting, systemic change. This castle-in-the-air approach
helps ground activists to look beyond tactical wins and focus on a long-term vision of embedded
justice in quotidian life.
Social Movements Philosophy
Critical theory sees activism as a form of engagement that is able to deconstruct and
reconstruct hegemonic power relations (Hollander, 2014). Continuing with Horkheimer and
Habermas, social movements appear as key correctives which make systematic injustice salient
and expose the ideological forces propagating injustice and inequality. Most activism happens
outside of the visible (Svirsky 2010) and it can, moreover, be a driven by a critical theory rather
than a limited reform agenda. Instead of being a single-issue movement or a reassertion of
existing reform, activism informed by the paradigm of critical theory is a transformative
movement led by the desire to change the collective consciousness of society. Approaching
activism in this way strengthens its broader purpose, not just against oppression, but for justice
that seeks to design systems that are more fair, equitable, participatory, and just. Such an
understanding is all the more relevant for current struggles against capitalism, colonialism, and
authoritarian governance (Bordonaba-Plou et al., 2022). These movements are not cowed by
repression; rather, they continue precisely because they know that genuine social change will
require destabilizing the existing order. As per Hollander (2014), their power is far from limited
to influencing politics, as over time they transform public conversations, upend cultural
narratives and help change the fabric of social norms. Through processes of contesting dominant
authorities, critiquing established power structures, and generalizing alternative possibilities for
future societies in given historical and social contexts, they therefore represent a key to the
realization of differing interpretations of justice and equity.
Existentialist thought posits that activism is a claim of human freedom responding to
oppressive forces. Beauvoir argues that activism resists the way that limiting identities are
imposed, granting autonomy to individuals. Camus likewise casts activism as defiance against
the absurd, where the struggle for justice in the social realm becomes a responsible reaction to
injustice. Such existentialist themes emphasize activism as an ethical position as well as a
deeply personal endeavor. Instead of being purely instrumental, activism asserts human agency
and refuses a passive acceptance of injustice (Hytten, 2017). This philosophical foundation helps
to explain why activism often requires personal sacrifice to give members of oppressed groups a
chance to remind society that they, too, are free. It is a model of transforming oppression into an
opportunity for empowerment on a personal level when all hope seems lost. And in a lot of ways
there is an existentialist side to activism that reminds us that resistance against oppression is not
just about pipeline leadership disruptors, but that the struggle is about regaining a sense of
meaning and dignity that has been stripped from you.
Meanwhile, pragmatism brings a more flexible, results-driven sensibility to activism. In
Dewey’s view, activism is democratic experimentation; social movements are laboratories of
democracy, testing the means to meet changing social needs. Rorty further develops this idea by
arguing that activism must be flexible and responsive to circumstances, not rigid and
ideologically fixed. This pragmatist perspective dovetails with contemporary activism’s focus
on novelty and flexibility. Instead of attempting to reach absolute truths, activism instead
operates as a persistent inquiry and reform process continuously constructed through collective
learning and engagement (McGraw, 2014). This flexibility keeps activism intelligible; it allows
movements to redirect their strategies when new challenges arise. Mbali (2013) suggest that by
focusing on practical solutions instead of rigid doctrines, pragmatist activism guards against
stagnation and allows social movements to remain active, even in uncertain situations.
Global Activism Fundamentals of Activism
Historical theories of activism show its many rationales, and changing tactics as a
philosophical defense. Social contract theories establish the boundaries of civic responsibility,
justice theories stress the role of moral imperatives, and existentialism and pragmatism highlight
human agency and adaptability. 49 As a form of activism (Gottlieb, 2019), these philosophies are
directly applicable to activism and actually can reinforce its ethical base and steer its way, as
more continues to drive change (Marinoff, 2017; Davids & Waghid, 2021). Such notions can, of
course, structure the way in which movements react to oppression but may even imbue the way
that individuals see their role in collective action. Ethical dilemmas around activism promote
our continuous re-evaluation of whether its techniques are consistent with our understanding of
the good life, and an assessment of the best ways to achieve it in the real world. Movements that
are mindful of the changes in social, political and economic landscapes avoid stagnation and are
able to more effectively adapt to new challenges. And whether it be through structural reform or
personal liberation, activism is part of humanity’s age-old struggle toward collective liberation,
for a more just and free world. It is the responsibility of each generation to redefine justice,
ensuring that activism is not a fading slogan of a bygone era, but rather a series of reforms and
transformations.
III. The Ethics of Resistance and Dissent
Civil Disobedience Theories
Theories of civil disobedience provide philosophical grounds for nonviolent resistance to
unjust laws. Thoreau’s case for resistance, made in Resistance to Civil Government, is based on
the idea of the moral obligation to refuse to follow the laws when they violate individual
conscience. "The form of government can be best defined by its fidelity to justice; without
justice, Justice would stop existing, and the institutions would cease to be any institutions,
therefore the absolute citizens must best turn it off" (O’Leary, 2017). This view also informed
subsequent movements for conscientious objection and direct action. Gandhi elaborated this
thought into his concept of Satyagraha, a form of nonviolent resistance that wrote moral
discipline together with political protest. His philosophy contextualized civil disobedience as a
moral battle that called for endurance, not hostility (Larsen, 2009). Gandhi's rejection of
violence was more than a narrow avoidance of harming others; he was insisting that true
resistance to injustice also honors the inviolability of the soul. This distinction distinguished his
philosophy from more strident forms of advocacy. As these theories would seem to convey, civil
disobedience is not merely a political tactic but one rooted in deeper moral commitments.
Nonviolent resistance, then, is a moral statement that not only affirms personal agency but also
defies modes of oppression.
Where Thoreau and Gandhi highlight the power of individual conscience and moral
conviction, Arendt argues for concerted political action. If institutions do not listen to new
voices, she believes, dissent and revolution are inevitable, as people have little choice but to fight
back. Ashok elaborates this point, writing that resistance is not merely a response to oppression,
but a prerequisite for democracy to revitalize and flourish. Civil disobedience, as opposed to
simple defiance, becomes a means to create new possibilities in the public sphere and violates
the status quo (Morningstar, 2023). Contrary to mere passive compliance, political dissent
catalyzes debate, pushing leaders to explain their choices. Resistance can change the social and
political order, even transform the very concept of rule itself. Arendt’s perspective also raises
tough questions about how dissent should be met by institutions. Some authorities suppress acts
of resistance; some co-opt them into the political mainstream or allow them into existing
structures. This tension that we see playing out on the streets is a reflection of the broader
tension between order and democracy. Civil disobedience does more than seek to challenge
authority; it brings to society the challenge of society’s own values, the legitimacy of power, and
whether society’s own self-construction is truly capable of justice.
The moral justification for protest
Dissent is often justified on moral grounds, in particular, autonomy and agency. A
central doctrine of Kant’s ethical philosophy is that genuine moral behavior derives not from
external threats of force but rather from reason’s guidance. This understanding suggests that
protest is based on self-governing where protestors are no longer willing to submit to a power
they deem illegitimate, thus exercising their moral independence (Weiss, 2020). Mill takes it
further by connecting dissent to intellectual, adaptive, personal growth, saying a society that
encourages open dialogue flourishes. Where there is no scope to question the assumptions of the
time, society breeds inertia and dictatorship, killing both innovation and justice. Dissent does
not just spring from injustice; it is a necessary part of moral and social progress. People who
challenge authority do more than push back against oppression; they help to write ethical and
political history. When dissent is silenced in any society, it ends up killing the society itself.
Resistance instills critical consciousness and civic duty; it does not result in disorder, but rather
plant the seeds of a deeper commitment to justice. This not only help defend your own rights but
also the principles upon which free and just society.
Besides individual autonomy, protest can also be justified by its benefits to the public
good. Bentham’s utilitarianism judges actions by their consequences, so dissent is justified when
it produces greater societal good. From this point of view, resistance is not only a personal
ethical stance, it becomes a means for maximizing collective benefit. This argument is fine-
tuned by familiar elements about what Habermas dubbed deliberative democracy, where dissent
creates dialogue towards inclusivity, which in turn contributes to political legitimacy (Milligan,
2022). Rawls comes to a similar conclusion, that civil disobedience serves as a stabilizing force
in democratic societies. Preventing more intractable conflict that can undermine social order is
one of the things that protest can do when it provides a formalized means to counter injustice
(Shahinpoor & Matt, 2007). These perspectives frame dissent as something broader than an
individual right, it is an apparatus for the maintenance of equity and the responsibility of
institutions. In such societies, the political legitimacy of rulers withers, leading to endemic
divisions and growing instability.
Revolution vs. Reform
The revolution vs reform debate points to fundamentally different ways of seeing the
world, the way that change is done. Revolution is the only viable solution when existing systems
define oppression as the status quo, and propping up reformism will not decenter violence. He
considers revolutionary change as the only answer for tearing down the economic and political
systems that prey upon the working class. Here Fanon elaborates on this assertion to highlight
the role of violent resistance in colonial contexts. Revolution for him is not only about structural
alteration, but also about restoration of dignity and self-determination from powers of
oppression (O’Leary, 2017). But these perspectives that call for radical restructuring also make
ethical claims about the implications of violent revolt. Destroying existing institutions creates
instability, which begs the question, does revolution ever actually accomplish what it set out to
do? Even when necessary, radical change entails risks that must be weighed.
Unlike revolutionary ideals, gradualism contends that systemic change is most
effectively pursued through reform, not rapid subversion. Burke argues that institutions are slow
to change and need piecemeal reform rather than radical upheaval. He cautions against tearing
down traditions without being fully aware of their function. Dewey agrees, but turns the
emphasis to democratic participation. He views reform as an incremental learning process where
social movements persist within institutions until change becomes permanent. Milligan (2022)
says, instead, this approach elevates stability and dialogue over confrontation and make the
effort that meaningful progress takes time and flexibility. Gradualism oftentimes, though, critics
argue, delays justice and allows systemic inequalities to linger longer than it must. It is this
tension between urgency and pragmatism that informs many of our current debates, inside and
out, about social change.
The understanding of the limits of resistance also creates additional confusion as to the
differences between revolution and reform. Berlin contends that resistance, although at times
necessary, should be balanced against the harm that such resistance creates. Aristotle offers a
similar caution against passing mayhem, stating that resistance for this reason per se is ethical
resistance (Larsen, 2009). This orientation points out that even when dissent is warranted, it
ought to be muted by ethical thinking. Of course, when clarity and pressure fail to produce the
desired resistance outcomes, activists tend to avoid tools and tactics which yield results outside
of dominant frameworks of meaning and purpose. But they acknowledge the need to adapt,
even as they seek to instill compliance within their own communities. Advocacy that seeks
progress without sacrificing stability could be a force for good and lasting transformation.
IV. Activism and the Ethics of Responsibility
Virtue Ethics and Character
To the virtue ethicist, activism is an expression of moral character, and ethical
responsibilities can stretch past individual actions and into influencing the moral architecture of
communities. Drawing on Aristotle, who saw virtue as a habitual act formed from regular moral
practice, Sandell (2012) argues that activism should be neither reactionary nor exceptional, but
rather a sustained commitment to injustice. Strongly consistent with this, MacIntyre continues to
argue that virtue is developed in the context of social traditions, requiring activists to be a part of
movements that promote deeply held ethical values as opposed to individuals' ambitions (Smith
& Ferguson, 2010). Such a view transforms activism away from a mere strategy to a war of
character, in which those who stand for justice embody role models in the national conversation.
When activists feel virtue in their bones, their labor has an authenticity that inspires trust and
gives movements wings, that allows them to endure beyond immediate opposition. The
underneath struggle, though, is to hold on to your ethics and morals in the face of politics, critics
and society, so we must have an ethical basis to handle such circumstances.
Ethical leadership is also central to keeping activism on solid moral ground. Key to this
piece and Zagzebski's articulation of leaders does have moral courage and wisdom, modeling the
moral ground for movements, and highlighting a connection between character and the
collective (Alsop & Bencze, 2014). Foot also emphasizes that practical wisdom is integral to
ethical leadership, where idealism has to be weighed against pragmatic approaches that will drive
justice without betraying core ethical tenets (Reilly & Lippard, 2018). Precedent-setting
victories, may sway public opinion but, the effectiveness of activism is long-term engagement
and moral formation within communities. Movements without principled leadership run the risk
of co-option by personal agendas or dilution in the face of changing political landscapes.
Integrity in leadership creates an environment of accountability so that activism embodies lasting
constructive influence instead of representational reaction to a perceived injustice.
Integrity is yet another dimension that consolidates the moral bedrock of activism by
aligning action with moral commitments. Butler (1995) also elaborates on the necessity of
integrity in activism; a self-reflective process in which movement participants scrutinize their
involvement in movements and the effects of their actions (Smith & Ferguson, 2010). So it is
not merely a matter of fighting against external wrongdoing, at least from the Confucian
perspective; it is also a matter of developing internal discipline and sincerity (Alsop & Bencze,
2014). The lack of integrity leads to performative activism, the act of being seen, rather than
changing the world in a meaningful way. One cannot afford to digress into a flippant
interpretation of activism that sees one way off the course of ethical justice, where one
conveniently turn the spin on their passion in such a way that we forget that we are lifelong
advocates who is learning and growing in our moral fiber does not rest on just what onedo in
public. Reflecting upon these values at the ground of their politics allows activists to reinforce
the legitimacy of their movements, and keep campaigns important to resist tied to moral
consistency rather than simply political opportunism.
Consequences of Social Action
The moral assessment of activism is usually consequentialist, that is, it is a matter of
whether the means of resistance can be justified by their ends. Mill’s utilitarianism maintains that
social action should be evaluated in terms of its ability to maximize overall welfare (Glickman,
2019) Activism, therefore, where it can bring more benefit than harm, is ethically sound. Smart
fine-tuned this reasoning between a symbolic view of activists who will judge whether or not
they are going to pursue their goal, based on each strategy's antecedent/impediment to its goal, in
terms of which strategies will improve people, how they see you (Sandell, 2012). From this
point of view, activism always needs to balance between its ethics and efficacy, as with the need
to practice justice over disruption in movements. This means that is where it gets complicated as
activism is designed to challenge those power structures, which means that what should be a
benefit to human interaction sometimes turns into a sacrifice (whose, and whose are we
prioritizing?). Effective activism must therefore negotiate these ethical tensions even while
remaining committed to its broader liberationist goals.
A second perspective we have is the harm principle, which is another way of assessing
the effect of activism. Mill argues that people are to be allowed to do as they please as long as
they do not cause direct harm to another person (Reilly & Lippard, 2018). Feinberg goes further
to make a distinction between legitimate harm and offense, pointing out that various forms of
activism that may bother others do not necessarily amount to a breach of morality (Alsop &
Bencze, 2014). That is also an important distinction in the ethics of civil disobedience, in which
disruption is often part of the protest for the sake of challenging injustice. When activism
threatens to drive away potential allies or exacerbate conflicts, the assessment of harm becomes a
necessary consideration for any movement that seeks to have a net positive impact. Kant’s
deontological ethics provides an alternative perspective, positing that no ethical means can rely
on harmful ends, as he believes it undermines human dignity (Ardila Sánchez et al., 2020). In
contrast, Machiavelli claims that activism can necessitate morally questionable strategies for
achieving change that matters, particularly in the face of long-standing oppression (Glickman,
2019). These perspectives reflect the ongoing philosophical conversation between idealism and
pragmatism in activist movements.
Deontology and Ethical Duty
Deontological ethics argues that activism should be based in moral obligation, not on
whether the resulting outcomes will be good. Kant’s categorical imperative suggests that an
ethical action must be justifiable for everyone, so that activists should only resist if they believe
their actions serve a precedent to which other people could reasonable follow (Sandell, 2012).
This perspective insists on a cohesive ethical course, one that overrules decisions stemming
from convenience or a perceived strategic upper hand. Ross adds to this argument with his ethics
of duty, stating that activists have moral duties to uphold principles like justice, truth, and respect
whatever the political situation (Smith & Ferguson, 2010). From this view, activism should shy
away from manipulation and coercion, particularly when it seems like it may be effective in the
short term. Thus, ethical resistance entails unwavering adherence to ethical principles in the face
of real cultivars of struggle. Activists who focus on deontological ethics can guarantee that their
movements remain motivated by justice instead of expedience.
As a practical application of deontological ethics, nonviolence further affirms this
perspective; when pursuing our resistance efforts, we should remain firmly tethered to our ethical
duty to act in a way that emphasizes our humanity. According to King’s philosophy of
nonviolent resistance, justice cannot be realized from violence, because ethical activism must
stand in congruence with what it seeks to achieve (Reilly & Lippard, 2018). In similar fashion,
Tolstoy argues that nonviolence is not just a strategy, it is a moral requirement, where activists
must deny themselves the temptations of oppression (Smith & Ferguson, 2010). As illustrated by
Alsop & Bencze (2014), Bonhoeffer expands this idea to stress responsibility to oppose injustice
while remaining true to the moral values to which one is committed, stating the danger of
violence reinforcing cycles and systems of oppression rather than ending them. As per Ruggie
(2013), these views expose the discipline that goes into sustaining nonviolent struggles amid
opposition and repression. Nonviolence may not themselves seem to have a positive and direct
effect, but its ethical consistency is something that strengthens activist movements. It shows a
commitment to justice beyond mere political expediency. Activists offer a vision of the values
they want to promote by choosing nonviolence; their resistance becomes transformational rather
than vengeful.
V. The Intersection of Intersectionality and Ethical Advocacy
Power and Social Identity
Power dynamics and social identities play important roles in how different people
experience oppression and privilege, which in turn shapes each person’s role in activism.
Feminist ethics critiques dominant moral frameworks by focusing on lived experiences, where
Gilligan (1982) argues that people develop their ethical reasoning through relationships and the
act of caring, as opposed to abstract principles. Intersectionality further argues that race, gender,
and class intersect to produce overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or
disadvantage (Bastia et al., 2023). Mills (1997) through his framework makes it clear that these
inequalities are maintained through systemic power structures that reinforce dominant
perspectives and marginalize others. Decouflé's use of music, evident in pieces such as the
Michèle Legrand ensemble G held for his career-defining 1983 work of choreographic art, La
Théorie de la Relativité, speaks to the greater interest in national connections and cultural
imperialism, which are also deconstructed in McIntosh's (1988) privileged notion of privilege,
revealing how those who benefit from unearned advantages rarely notice them. According to
Frye (1983), the experience of oppression is analogous to that of a birdcage, where multiple
barriers coalesce to restrict opportunity. These are not accidents, but are deeply rooted in
historical and institutional contexts that have proven difficult to break down. If these systems go
unexamined as activism takes place, then activism is at risk of reinforcing existing inequities
rather than dismantling them. Ethical advocacy must, therefore, acknowledge the intricacies of
power and identity to avoid further marginalization. When activists ignore these dimensions of
silence, they may inadvertently work to suppress marginalised individuals instead of helping to
amplify their voices.
Standpoint theory can provide us with a way to con-textualize how marginal perspectives are a
part of ethical debate. According to Hartsock (1983), those in the position of the oppressed
person can come closer to the phenomena of realizing these new insights. Building on this
theme, Harding (1991) argued, objective knowledge is unattainable without taking diverse
experiences into account. As the privileged perspective often dominates the decision-making
process, these views are often erased and limits how justice is construed (Rice et al., 2019).
Feminist scholars warn that though homogenizing intersectional struggles can help unify
otherwise disparate interests, the resultant struggle often ignores the unique experiences of other
marginalized groups within the intersection. Bastia et al. (2023) emphasize that ethical advocacy
means centering the voices of those who are most directly impacted instead of speaking for
them. This is an important distinction because good-hearted but ignorant activism can
unwittingly maintain hierarchies. In the absence of this awareness, activism may inadvertently
reproduce the power dynamics it seeks to dismantle. It means that the granting standpoint theory
is a critical place in activism ensures a genuinely ethical advocacy that is inclusive. Ethical
advocacy cannot presume a universal experience of oppression but must respond to the realities
of diverse social and cultural contexts.
Ethics of Representation
Representational ethics in activism shapes whose voices are amplified and how power
operates in public discourse. Taylor (1994) contends that misrepresentation skews marginalized
identities, contributing to structural inequalities. Plotting the ways colonial narratives produce
racialized subjects, Fanon (1967) suggests that self-representation becomes a key site of
resistance. Assuming that all oppressed groups can “speak for themselves” fails to acknowledge
how limited access to platforms for expression is structured by power (Tungohan, 2016). Such
performative activism upholds exactly these exclusions, valuing visibility over meaningful
change. Ethical representation has a role of amplifying marginalized voices without
appropriating them. In the absence of active efforts to subvert the status quo, activism can itself
become a vehicle for further consolidation of hegemonic discourses. Especially in media and
academic contexts, where representation is determined by those with institutional power.
According to Habermas (1984), ethical dialogue necessitates equitable contribution,
antecedent to the composition of subordinated and dominating collectivities. Freire (1970) goes
on to say that solidarity must be true and emerge from collaboration as opposed to advocacy
from a higher plane. According to hooks (2000) this colonization taking place led to a more
superficial representation of the master narrative, one that, while it could be a means to move
away from the current power relationships present on screen, also held the danger of keeping
these relationships intact. The danger is in symbolic inclusion that fails to disrupt real power
dynamics. If not critically examined whose voices are centralized, activism may be a means of
reinforcing privilege. Such ethical representation demands accountability, ensuring that
advocacy prioritizes those it most affects and making sure that the most privileged members of
our community are not benefiting from disability justice-paying lip service. Activists should be
aware of the ethical challenges associated with representing other people and sensitive to the
limits of their own sphere of experience. While representation is certainly important, it cannot
stand as the end goal; only ethical advocacy can cultivate structural change that leads to
community empowerment and real self-determination.
Responsibility in Allyship
Ethical allyship is more than a show of solidarity, it is a continual dedication to justice.
Among others, Derrida (1997) describes ethical responsibility as continuously changing through
relation to the "Other." Young (1990) argues that allyship should go beyond signs of
acknowledgment and ultimately combat systemic injustices. Inevitably, reciprocity in justice
yields mutually engaged solidarity rather than free-riding (Bastia et al., 2023). When allyship
focuses on the privileged instead of those directly affected, it has the potential to become
performative rather than transformative. Ethical allyship must, therefore, remain self-critical and
engaged. That means interrogating your own biases as well as the structures in which you work.
It also requires being open to listening and accountability even when it is difficult or painful to
do so.
Fixing this themselves requires understanding power and accountability. For example,
one of the prominent philosophical traditions is Rawls (1971), who argues that fairness should
inform our ethical decision-making, applying this notion to allyship dynamics. Butler (2004)
critiques allyship that becomes more about comfort than true confrontation of oppression. Yet,
some forms of activism reinforce rather than dismantle hierarchies, in the absence of self-
reflexivity (Rice et al., 2019). Allyship must create, sustain and inspire change; ethical
commitments are not rhetoric. When solidarity and support lack at the level of structural
transformation, injustice remains. Allies who do not act with intentionally run the risk of
becoming complicit to the very systems they purport to oppose. Instead of believing they are the
enlightened few, ethical allies must enter activism with humility, with the awareness that
genuine solidarity demands giving power away, not hoarding it.
VI. Global Ethics and Activist Movements
Global Ethics and Activist Movement
Human Rights and Ethical Responsibilities
The question of what it means to be human has been asked within the broad framework
of human rights, and the tensions between both universalism and relativism can be observes in
the discussion on human nature. Universalists contend that human rights are rooted in common
moral principles that transcend cultural boundaries, and relativists argue that ethical norms are
deeply ingrained in cultural contexts. Fasching, Dechant, and Lantigua (2011) posit that
universalism places a strong focus on the role of global institutions in the enforcement of rights
on a universal level, ensuring that basic human dignity is upheld. But this view has been
critiqued by relativists such as MacIntyre (1984) who maintain that a diversity of ethical systems
must be honored lest an alien morality be imposed on particular forms of life. Further to global
justice debates, Sen (1997) as an example, recognizes the tension between the two approaches
and insists on the importance of dialogue and mutual respect. MNCs typically find themselves
negotiating these tensions, as regular practices often do not coincide with universal standards of
human rights (Ruggie, 2013). The dynamic relationship between universalism and relativism in
this context influences how activists respond to ethical challenges across different cultures,
seeking to harmonize global ethical norms with local socio-cultural conditions.
Justice with respect to the environment and economy
The struggles can also be viewed through the lens of environmental and economic justice
movements that contend the environmental and social systems are interconnected and that
solutions must be equitable and sustainable. For example, (Chatzidakis et al, 2012) suggest that
owing to the nature of sustainability ethics a shift from anthropocentrism, focussed on human
needs, towards ecocentrism which places ecosystems at the centre of decision making is
required. The take on this is that when environmental healing takes precedence over
microbiocidal human habits, this is all good. This is also very much in line with the ethics of
labor which critique the exploitative nature of capitalist systems. Giraud (2019) speaks directly
to this systemic absence in understanding how global-transformation, environmental-
transformation and territorial-transformation occur via economic inequalities, powerfully noting
that due to the realities of externalities in economic development, it will usually be the poorest
sections of society who suffer the most severe externalities, experiencing the highest levels of
ecological degradation. These discourses coalesce around ecocentrism, the belief that non-human
entities have inherent value independent of human existence and which provokes a re-thinking
of hegemonic ethical paradigms. Mbali (2013) further explores the relationship between
environmental issues, and neoliberal policies in South Africa and illustrates this, also with this
activism from below that has articulated such issues. Such movements are an affront to the
origins of global inequality; they advocate for sustainable development and the fair distribution
of resources, producing a kind of justice that is not limited by territory.
Digital Activism and Morality
The emergence of digital activism has changed the dynamics of social movements and
created intentionally difficult ethical dilemmas surrounding online actions and accountability.
Digital ethics is less about how to navigate through global networks of information and digital
spaces, rather what it can mean to be responsible while existing in spaces where the traditional
moral imperatives have been overturned by anonymity and unreadable modalities of remote
corporeal involvement (Braidotti, 2010). This change has deepened debates about cancel
culture, in which shaming and boycotting serve as forms of accountability. The other angle is
provided by Chesters (2016), who explore the links between online platforms, activism, and
surveillance, all the while situating these dynamics within wider power structures. According to
Tham (2017), these conversations illustrate increasing anxiety over the impact of digital spaces
on public conversation and the delicate balance activists are have to establish between
accountability and freedom. Digital activism is riddled with ongoing ethical dilemmas, especially
regarding to whom the voices of the wounded need to be amplified and what needs to address
the needs of the injured community. Digital activism is ever changing, and must continue to
change for actual social change. As such their form will shape the dimensionality of our global
ethics and activism paradigm and archetype which like five columns will hold up the different
and conflating manner with which movements arise at the nexus of global values, habitual
cultures and a new inflection of technology. While important insights have also been added by
each perspective, connecting theory and practice through theory remains a challenge facing
global social justice activists and scholars alike.
VII. Conclusion: The Future of Ethical Activism
Ethical Change and Moral Progress
Ethical activism is a long-run game requiring continuous virtues, complemented with
steady commitment to real changes. Ethical activism should increasingly reflect these realities,
embedding justice-seeking, the inclusion of all groups in activism, and proximity to
sustainability throughout advocacy activities. As Allhoff (2011) indicates, without the grounding
of applied ethics, activism can lead to reactive instead of redeeming responses, and is not
capable of engaging with real-life dilemmas. First, performative changes cannot lead to ethical
changes; medial changes are necessary. As a reaction to the perceived limitations of action
research and advocacy, Alsop and Bencze (2014) call for that activism to become more radical,
to come out and confront the hegemonic structures of domination, yes, while at the same time
acting ethically responsibly. Such a perspective is in line with Ardila Sánchez et al. (2020) align
with the types of activism, advocacy, and accompaniment that are the scaffolding for the ultimate
goal of telling the collective story of poor people, as a way of producing viable social and
political change that empowers marginalized communities. Additionally, Bastia et al also argue
that integrating intersectionality is necessary in forging ethical activism. By acknowledging and
analyzing overlapping systems of oppression activists can develop holistic and transformative
approaches that address inequalities at their root.
Global Ethics in changing times: Philosophical Praxis Today
In this the age of politically engaged philosophy, and philosophy as activism,
philosophical praxis today is inextricably linked to contemporary activism. This positioning of
activism as an activity with potentially-creative possibilities, rather than a reaction to events, is
taken up by Braidotti (2010) who identifies a need to reclaim activism from the way it has been
co-opted by political frameworks, calling for philosophers to draw on their unique critical
perspective to intervene within power/knowledge regimes. This confirms the intimacy of the
political turn of analytic philosophy as determined by Bordonaba-Plou, Fernández-Castro and
Torices (2022), for they argue that analytic philosophy has undertaken both a descriptive and
political function that involves the very theory of work (theory in the service of social injustice
and oppression). Scholars submit to a formula that positions philosophical inquiry in the domain
of activism, guiding the dissolution of structures of exclusion and building ethical matrices for
social change. With respect to AI, Belfield (2020) notes that a growing number of people in the
AI research community have come together to become activists pushing for ethical AI research
and practice. Bastia et al. (2023) say this highlights how the practice of philosophy is responding
to technological development in a way that encourages responsibility in innovation and
accountability. This results in a more lucid understanding, simulate the hands on ethics of
activism, and helps in working on concrete issues in real life Billings (2020) contends that a
praxis of this kind can resist hegemonic power formations while also imagining new, more
equitable ways of being in the world (Abstract).
Re-creating for Educating for Moral Engagement
It is unethical education, then, that requires a pedagogy of the critical examination of
principles of morality. Both Freire’s concept of critical pedagogy and Nodding’s ethics of care
focus on empathy and dialogue as core elements of moral education. Rawls and Dewey contend
that a sense of justice among the members of democratic societies should, so to speak, generate
a sense of responsibility to meet it. Ethics education should not solely be about theory, but rather
encourage students to bring these lessons to the real world, where they can gain practice making
ethical decisions that lead to integrity. Ledin and Machin (2020) build on such thinking,
problematizing the commodification of activism and calling on teachers to encourage applied
philosophy rather than meaningless ethical consumption. Commodified activism perverts this
ethical development in favor of performative activism. Activists and educators can integrate this
into educational systems and construct educational environments that support moral reasoning, a
disposition to make ethical decisions, and civic responsibility. Such an ethical education
framework thus primes individuals to resist injustice, combat systemic inequities, and work
toward a more just and equitable society.
References
Allhoff, F. (2011). What are applied ethics?. Science and engineering ethics, 17, 1-19.
Alsop, S., & Bencze, L. (2014). Activism! Toward a more radical science and technology
education (pp. 1-19). Springer Netherlands.
Ardila Sánchez, J. G., Richling, S. M., Benson, M. L., & Rakos, R. F. (2020). Activism,
advocacy, and accompaniment. Behavior science perspectives on culture and community,
413-436.
Bastia, T., Datta, K., Hujo, K., Piper, N., & Walsham, M. (2023). Reflections on
intersectionality: a journey through the worlds of migration research, policy and
advocacy. Gender, Place & Culture, 30(3), 460-483.
Belfield, H. (2020, February). Activism by the AI community: Analysing recent achievements
and future prospects. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and
Society (pp. 15-21).
Bordonaba-Plou, D., Fernández-Castro, V., & Torices, J. R. (2022). Analytic philosophy as
philosophical activism. The Political Turn in Analytic Philosophy: Reflections on Social
Injustice and Oppression, 11, 3.
Braidotti, R. (2010). On putting the active back into activism. New Formations, 68(68), 42-57.
Burns, D. P., & Norris, S. P. (2012). Activist environmental education and moral
philosophy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology
Education, 12(4), 380-393.
Chadwick, R. (2012). Encyclopedia of applied ethics. Academic Press.
Chatzidakis, A., Maclaran, P., & Bradshaw, A. (2012). Heterotopian space and the utopics of
ethical and green consumption. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3-4), 494-515.
Chesters, G. (2016). Social movements and the ethics of knowledge production. In Research
Ethics and Social Movements (pp. 11-26). Routledge.
Davids, N., & Waghid, Y. (2021). Academic activism in Higher Education: a living philosophy
for social justice (Vol. 5). Springer Nature.
Deckha, M. (2013). Animal advocacy, feminism and intersectionality. Deportate, esuli,
profughe, 23, 48-65.
Fasching, D. J., Dechant, D., & Lantigua, D. M. (2011). Comparative religious ethics: A
narrative approach to global ethics. John Wiley & Sons.
Garcia‐Gibson, F. (2023). The ethics of climate activism. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Climate Change, 14(4), e831.
Giraud, E. H. (2019). What comes after entanglement?: Activism, anthropocentrism, and an
ethics of exclusion. Duke University Press.
Glickman, L. B. (2019). Buying power: A history of consumer activism in America. University of
Chicago Press.
Grace, P. J. (2009). Philosophical foundations of applied and professional ethics. Nursing Ethics
and Professional Responsibility in Advanced Practice, 1.
Grace, P. J., & Uveges, M. K. (2022). Nursing ethics and professional responsibility in advanced
practice. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Hankivsky, O. (2014). Rethinking care ethics: On the promise and potential of an intersectional
analysis. American Political Science Review, 108(2), 252-264.
Hytten, K. (2017). Teaching as and for activism: Challenges and possibilities. Philosophy of
Education, 2014, 385-394.
Larsen, Ø. (2009). Right to dissent: the critical principle in discourse ethics and deliberative
democracy. Museum Tusculanum Press.
Ledin, P., & Machin, D. (2020). Replacing actual political activism with ethical shopping: The
case of Oatly. Discourse, Context & Media, 34, 100344.
Lynn, W. S. (2003). Act of ethics: a special section on ethics and global activism. Ethics, Place
& Environment, 6(1), 43-78.
Marinoff, L. (2017). Philosophical practice as political activism. Socrate à l’agora. Que peut la
parole philosophique, 107-125.
Mbali, M. (2013). South African AIDS activism and global health politics. Springer.
McGraw, S. (2014). Activism and offense: a philosophical analysis.
Milligan, T. (2022). The ethics of political dissent. Routledge.
Moradi, B., & Grzanka, P. R. (2017). Using intersectionality responsibly: Toward critical
epistemology, structural analysis, and social justice activism. Journal of counseling
psychology, 64(5), 500.
Morningstar, N. (2023). Relations of dissent: politics, ethics, and the moral individual. Journal of
the Royal Anthropological Institute, 29(3), 692-694.
O’Leary, R. (2017). The ethics of dissent. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 39(2), 63-79.
Reilly, M., & Lippard, L. R. (2018). Curatorial activism: Towards an ethics of curating.
London: Thames & Hudson.
Rice, C., Harrison, E., & Friedman, M. (2019). Doing justice to intersectionality in
research. Cultural Studies↔ Critical Methodologies, 19(6), 409-420.
Ruggie, J. G. (2013). Just business: Multinational corporations and human rights (Norton global
ethics series). WW Norton & Company.
Sandell, R. (2012). On ethics, activism and human rights. In The Routledge Companion to
Museum Ethics (pp. 129-145). Routledge.
Shahinpoor, N., & Matt, B. F. (2007). The power of one: Dissent and organizational life. Journal
of Business Ethics, 74, 37-48.
Smith, M. F., & Ferguson, D. P. (2010). Activism 2.0. Handbook of public relations, 395-408.
Stahl, B. C., & Eke, D. (2024). The ethics of ChatGPT–Exploring the ethical issues of an
emerging technology. International Journal of Information Management, 74, 102700.
Svirsky, M. (2010). Defining activism. Deleuze Studies, 4(supplement), 163-182.
Tham, J. (2017). Applied ethics. Encyclopedia of global bioethics, 1-12.
Tungohan, E. (2016). Intersectionality and social justice: Assessing activists’ use of
intersectionality through grassroots migrants’ organizations in Canada. Politics, Groups,
and Identities, 4(3), 347-362.
Velte, A. (2018). Ethical challenges and current practices in activist social media archives. The
American Archivist, 81(1), 112-134.
Weiss, E. (2020). Dissent with/out resistance? Secular and ultra-Orthodox Israeli approaches to
ethical and political disagreement. The Intimate Life of Dissent, 46.
Yekani, E. H., Kilian, E., & Michaelis, B. (Eds.). (2016). Queer futures: Reconsidering ethics,
activism, and the political. Routledge.
