Rational Enquirer Issue #15

Q1] Welcome back to campus! You commented in your address about the place now being both new and familiar. What are some special places for you here, and some special memories?

Since I was a grad student here, more Hagey Hall has been built around the old Hagey Hall.  What was once an outside balcony and staircase is now indoors and carpeted. And there are also new buildings between the old buildings on the campus. So it is the same, but different!   

There used to be large sculptures in the old outdoor space at the bottom of the staircase; they were bright red, bright orange, and bright yellow. You could see them from different seminar rooms, and from some of the offices.  I remember talking to Marilyn Frye when she was visiting as the Humphrey Chair of Feminist Philosophy, and she said she liked them because the yellow one reminded her of a ray of sunshine, and I knew exactly what she meant. 

I remember a lot of silly stuff we did as grad students—office chair races in the hallways, chatting in the lounge. It was nice to see all of these places again. The department was like a second home for us for so long.    

Q2] You spoke in your address about how you use your philosophy training in your important work as a Health Care Ethicist.

One of the things I do is provide consultation, and this can mean I attend meetings where there is a disagreement, sometimes between health care providers and decision-makers. 

It can sometimes seem that the disagreement is arising from a difference in values or because of emotions. Either of those could be happening, but I try to start each consult with the belief that reasonable people with the same information tend to agree. In other words, I start by seeing if there is some difference in the information that people have. Each person’s position makes sense to them, and I want to understand the individual ideas and how they cohere for each person. 

So I start by listening. I listen to the words they are using, and how they are using them. I also listen for any possible assumptions that could be causing misunderstanding, and try to bring them to the surface by asking clarifying questions. By doing these things I am trying to see if we actually have a disagreement, or just a misunderstanding that can be fixed through careful, mediated discussion. 

If we do have a genuine disagreement, and it is based on a difference in values, then we need to tease apart those values to ensure that it is the patient’s values that are being honored, which is actually what is required by Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act.

During the consultation process I am analyzing the situation by identifying the different positions people have, where they align, and where they don’t. It is not my job to determine who is right or wrong (and it’s often not about this anyway), but to identify where the disagreement stems from.  My training in philosophy is integral to this work and how I approach it.

Q5] What remain some of your very favourite and most meaningful works of philosophy?

This is a difficult question to answer. I feel like now that I am a bit older and have more life experience, I want to go back and learn everything again. I want to go back and read everything again. 

To name just a few readings, though, I would have to go with Sense and Reference by Frege, The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir, and Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals and The Critique of Pure Reason. Those have probably had the most impact on my thinking.   

More than the readings though, I think the conversations I had with people—professors and other grad students—were really what was most meaningful to me. I remember so, so many conversations about ideas—both in class and outside of class. Those are probably the most meaningful things for me.

Q1] Huge congratulations, Artur, on your successful doctoral defence! Before I get into the content of your research, share how the moment felt, and what the achievement of the PhD means to you.

Barring some nervousness leading up to the commencement of the defence, I found the day itself to be a positive experience. Thanks in no small part to Dr. Orend’s comprehensive feedback throughout the writing and revision process, I felt confident in the overall quality of the project heading into the dissertation defence. As a result, the defence itself felt less like a daunting cross-examination, and more like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for me to share my insights into the project with a committee of experts. I found the Q & A section of the defence to be particularly rewarding as the questions posed by the committee revealed several further avenues along which the project research could be extended. Likewise, some of the points raised during the discussion encouraged me to think about how the framework argued for within the project may apply to situations even beyond those that I’ve already analyzed.

The reality of having completed the PhD didn’t truly sink in until a few days after the defence. Reflecting on the experience, I’m quite proud of what I was able to accomplish over my time at UW. With both of my parents having immigrated to Canada in the late 1980s in pursuit of better opportunities for myself and my younger brothers, I’m very proud that I’ve been able to make their sacrifices worthwhile by becoming not only the first person in my family to complete an MA, but now also a PhD. On a personal level, I found the process of going from a junior researcher just starting on their doctoral project to having my dissertation accepted by my committee to be immensely rewarding. This feeling is only magnified by Dr. Lucas’ willingness to engage with my project and serve on my committee. Insofar as his work was hugely influential on the initial direction my project took, it felt surreal to complete the process with his seal of approval on the completed dissertation. [Artur’s External Examiner was Dr. George R. Lucas Jr., a global authority on cyberconflict and professor emeritus at both the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Naval Post-Graduate School.]

Q2] Tell us about the core thesis of your dissertation, which I understand has both theoretical and practical dimensions?

Over the past two decades, cyberspace has emerged as a nascent “fifth domain” of warfare. The growing prevalence of network technology across all facets of modern society generates new points of vulnerability which are readily exploitable by hostile entities. We’ve seen high profile cyberattacks remotely shut down power grids in Ukraine, heavily disrupt healthcare services in the UK, force a precautionary pipeline shutdown in the US, and even remotely sabotage a nuclear centrifuge in Iran. Given the reach and effectiveness of cyberweapons, it’s not surprising that states have begun investing heavily in the development of cyberwar capabilities to better position themselves for future conflict within the fifth domain.

While our ability to wage war across cyberspace has surged ahead, our ability to evaluate potentially aggressive cyber operations has lagged behind. There are presently no internationally binding laws of cyberwar. Existing efforts to establish a rule of law within cyberspace tend to view conflict through a decidedly kinetic lens, with key distinctions regarding what constitutes a use of force or an armed attack relying on the presence of kinetic analogues; cyberattacks may justifiably trigger forceful reprisals if and only if their effects closely resemble those of conventional military action. While this approach offers a compelling evaluative account for cyberattacks resulting in familiar kinds of harms, it proves less effective in addressing the broader spectrum of disanalogous harms that may be inflicted by cyberweapons, some of which may nonetheless pose serious threats to the long-term stability of sovereign states.

Accordingly, the overall goal of my project is to develop a more comprehensive evaluative framework for disanalogous cyberattacks using the jus ad bellum [i.e., start-of-war] principles of the Just War Theory tradition. To this end, I explore each of the six principles of jus ad bellum (namely just cause, right intention, public declaration by proper authority, proportionality, last resort, and probability of success) to draw out the ethical considerations underpinning each principle and to illustrate how the idiosyncratic nature of cyberattacks has important implications for how these principles are applied to cyberwarfare. Using these six principles, I develop a cyber-specific jus ad bellum which not only identifies the circumstances within which a disanalogous cyberattack may morally justify a forceful response, but also establishes limitations on what kinds of responses a state may ethically deploy in the wake of an incurred cyberattack. While this resulting framework is not legally binding, I argue that it nonetheless offers a strong conceptual and ethical foundation for the evaluation of a fuller spectrum of cyber operations and the development of norms of best practice for state conduct within cyberspace.

Q3] And a little bird told me that you’ve been invited to submit a revised version of your dissertation as a book proposal to the University of Toronto Press. Fantastic news! Tell us about that, and what your plans are for revision?

In the aftermath of the dissertation defense and at the encouraging suggestion of my dissertation committee, I began looking into the possibility of publishing a revised copy of the project with an academic press. Having decided to reach out to the University of Toronto Press as an optimistic first-choice target, I put together a quick pitch for the project and got in touch with an acquisitions editor at the press to gauge whether there would be any interest in publishing the project. Fortunately, the editor’s response was quite enthusiastic, expressing a strong interest in developing the project further with the intentions of publication. With the initial approval in hand, I’ve since turned my attention towards preparing a more formal book proposal that offers a detailed roadmap for developing the dissertation into a monograph.

While perhaps not as daunting as setting off and starting a dissertation from scratch, the process of putting together a strong book proposal has posed some interesting challenges. Dissertations and monographs serve different purposes. Although a highly technical section of a dissertation might be necessary to address the concerns of a defence committee, it may nonetheless prove unlikely to find much interest amongst a more generalist readership. Despite originally intending to put the proposal together within a few weeks, I found it surprisingly difficult to maintain an objective perspective while reviewing the project so soon after defending. You tend to grow a bit attached to something you’ve spent most of the past two years writing and revising. As a result, I decided to first distance myself from the project for a little while and spent more time reading through guides on the thesis revision process. This break has proven invaluable now that I’ve returned to working on the proposal as I’m now finding it much easier to organize the cuts and revisions that I intend to make.

Q4] What’s the future for cyber-conflict, at least in the near-term? In some ways, and on some days, it almost seems like a Hobbesian war “of all against all.” What would you most like to see happen in this regard?

As global tensions have generally been on the rise, I would expect cyber-conflict to become an unfortunate norm within international affairs, if it hasn’t already. It is likely that robust cyber capabilities will be necessary for states to stand a fighting chance in the event of conventional conflict. As a result, states have already been conducting extensive cyber espionage campaigns into foreign critical infrastructure to uncover vulnerabilities which may be exploited in the event of an outbreak of conventional hostilities; even just a couple of days ago there have been reports of a comprehensive Chinese-backed cyber espionage operation into US critical communications infrastructure around its base in Guam, vulnerabilities in which can potentially be weaponized to heavily hinder the effectiveness of a US military response to conflict within the South China Sea. Likewise, I believe the heavy losses incurred by Russia’s military in the face of fierce Ukrainian resistance will have reinforced the appeal of cyberweapons as an alternative means of forcefully advancing foreign policy, further motivating the development of progressively more potent cyberweapons and tactics. Of course, this sort of digital arms race runs the risk of potentially destabilizing the fraught “game theoretic equilibrium” (to borrow from scholar Randall Dipert) that we’re currently reliant upon as states test their newfound capabilities against one another.

Q5] And what about your own future? What are the next plans for your own professional development?

Aside from further professional development within the financial industry, my primary focus is undertaking the project of developing the dissertation into a book. While I’m expecting it to be a lengthy (and likely arduous) journey, I believe that completing this next step would serve as an excellent capstone for my work as a scholar and would stand as something I’d be very proud of accomplishing. In terms of research, beyond mapping out revisions of my existing dissertation material and exploring recent developments within cyberwarfare (such as the cyber component of the ongoing war in Ukraine), I’m also looking to dive a bit further into some of the lines of inquiry raised during the defence itself; doing so may add valuable depth to the existing project, or perhaps even open the door to completely new ones.

Q6] I realize it’s a busy time for you professionally, but how do you like to spend your down-time? What are some fun hobbies and leisure activities that you get up to?

When not otherwise busy with work or research, I enjoy running tabletop RPGs [i.e., role-playing games] with friends, both virtually and in-person, as I’ve found it to be an excellent venue within which to practice some creative writing and subsequent improvisation as soon as nothing goes to plan. I have also picked up the rather unfortunately expensive hobby of playing Magic the Gathering over my time in the PhD program thanks to the encouragement of Chris Wass. When out of the house, I enjoy exploring southern Ontario’s various craft breweries and restaurants, as well as frequenting music events around Toronto. Finally, I’m an avid supporter of what seem to be exclusively terrible sports teams, such as Crystal Palace FC, the Vancouver Canucks, the Chicago Bears, the Toronto Raptors…

We had our usual end-of-year class- and essay prizes; it was especially fun to celebrate in-person. Please see the winners below, and join us in congratulating them for their achievements!

Philosophy Class Prizes

Fourth Year: Olivia Kamminga

Third Year: Hazel Gifford

Second Year: Jade Reijmers

First Year: Jonathan Olding

Philosophy Undergraduate Essay Prizes

Gold: “Quantum Computer Through the Lens of System Design” (Hazel Gifford)

Silver: “The Morality of Consensual “Non-consensual” Sex” (Maya Gusak)

Bronze: “A Philosophical and Legal View of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Algorithms” (Ella Cai)

Philosophy Graduate Essay Prizes

Gold: “Communities of Individuals: Evaluating the Racial Dimensions of Algorithmic Criminal Justice” (Madeleine Kenyon)

Silver: “Classical Intuitions in Quantum Physics” (Zorn Rose)

Bronze: “What is Ignorance?” (Nadia Miller)

The Angus Kerr-Lawson Prize

“Bias in Algorithmic Predictions of Extinction for Data Deficient Species” (Hannah Anderson)

The Larry Haworth Prize

“A Defence of Substantive Due Process” (Constien Minhas)

The Mapara Scholarship

Edwin Huras

Gender and Social Justice Class Prizes

First Year: Chloe Maila Chamredon

Upper Year: Kate Bradley

The Sandra Burt Research Award

“K-9” (Remy Leigh)