Sep 2026· Moral Philosophy and Politics· 0 citations· 21 references
Abstract
Abstract Most people have a need to regard their significant life choices as justified. More than that, they want to be able to give acceptable justificatory reasons to the people in their social milieu. In this paper, I argue that structural disadvantage can lock people into a situation in which they struggle to appeal to their best reasons. I start out with a paradigmatic example inspired by Jennifer Morton’s work on disadvantaged students aiming at upwards mobility and identify a struggle that has more than one cause but amounts to a distinctive experience: that you have objectively good reasons for a life choice, which, however, are not available to you because of your social position. I analyse this ‘unavailability’ of a reason with the help of existing literature on epistemic injustice, in particular hermeneutical injustice, and coin the new term ‘justificatory injustice’. While it can be described as epistemic injustice broadly conceived, justificatory injustice goes beyond epistemic access in a narrow sense and is entangled with features distinctive of practical justification taking place in a concrete social milieu. Justificatory injustice, I argue, can only be remedied in a more integrated justificatory community, which requires equality of condition, also in economic terms.
When, if ever, is it permissible to afford special consideration to friends and family? How can we strive to be objective in our thinking, and is this always a feasible or appropriate aim?
This book examines the categories of impartiality and objectivity by showing how they frame certain debates in epistemology, moral...
Can predictable impairments of epistemic performance constitute injustice in the absence of harassment, manipulation, or prejudicial credibility deflation? I use this question to examine a case drawn from ordinary intellectual exchange: in mixed-sex settings, some male speakers may be distracted by the perceived attr...
This article explores the relationship between objectivity and epistemic injustice. It aims to question the guiding principles of scientific objectivity through criteria of epistemic justice, seeking to identify whether these principles create conflicts for objectivity. To this end, discourse analysis has been employed...
Jean Carlos Sirias· Revista de filosofia de la U...· 0 citations
In post-Kantian metaphysics, several analytic thinkers argue that criterialism is both a necessary and sufficient condition for personhood. Criterialism contends that there is a specific subset of properties that determines someone’s personal identity, such as social reactive attitudes, mental complexity (second-order...
Stavros Panayiotou· Phenomenology and Mind· 0 citations
Jennifer Lackey has argued that victims of gross violations and injustices are owed epistemic reparations and have the right to be known. This is roughly the right for these victims to have their stories heard and to be givers of knowledge. Recent work in the field has focused on ways we fail to listen to the stories o...
We often accuse others, and sometimes ourselves, of engaging in, as psychologists are apt to term it, “motivated reasoning.” This is the charge that the collection, use, and interpretation of information have been warped by one'sdesires, andis often regarded as amounting to a charge of epistemic irrationality. In a 2...
Yuval Avnur, Dion Scott-Kakures· Philosophical Perspectives· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.