The aim of this paper is twofold: In its first part, we work out the key features of constitutivism as presented by Christine Korsgaard. This reconstruction serves to clarify which goals Korsgaard wants to achieve with her account and which of its central claims she has to defend in particular. In the second part, we discuss whether Korsgaard can vindicate constitutivism's most central claim. To do this, we analyse two important arguments - the argument from unavoidability and the argument from (...) the abstract constitutive principle - that have been made in support of constitutivism. We show how both these arguments go amiss and conclude that at least for now, constitutivism's most central claim has not been successfully argued for. (shrink)

In recent years, a number of authors have claimed that we can wrong each other simply by having certain beliefs—in particular sexist, racist, ableist etc. beliefs—about each other. So far, those who argue for the possibility of so-called doxastic wronging have tried to defend this idea by focusing on issues of doxastic control and coordination. In this paper, I raise a distinctly moral challenge against the possibility of doxastic wronging. I show that the idea of doxastic wronging runs afoul of (...) the liberal principle according to which all moral obligations have to be justifiable vis-à-vis those they presume to bind. In addition, I argue that there is a better way to account for the fundamental intuition driving the debate: instead of assuming the possibility of doxastic wronging and the morally grounded epistemic duty it implies, we should conceptualize what is morally problematic about bigoted beliefs in terms of the harm they constitute for their targets. (shrink)

In this paper, I develop an expressive account of disrespect according to which an action becomes disrespectful in virtue of making an explicitly or implicitly demeaning statement about its target’s moral standing. On my reading, we act disrespectfully whenever we (in word or deed) spread the falsehood that some people can be treated worse than they in fact can be given the correct account of what we owe to each other. After elaborating on the content that renders an action disrespectful (...) and explaining how disrespectful actions come to acquire their distinctive content in the first place, I go on to defend my account against rival approaches and stress its usefulness in detecting a previously disregarded moral phenomenon, namely, the risk of causing moral confusion. I do so by arguing that, given our nature as social cognisers, disrespectful actions are particularly well-suited to pollute our beliefs about what we owe to each other and what is owed to us. (shrink)

Der Liberalismus ist eine normative Theorie dazu, was sich Menschen wechselseitig schulden, d. h. was ihnen im Umgang miteinander erlaubt, ver- und geboten ist. Als solche normative Theorie des wechselseitigen Miteinanders kann der Liberalismus sowohl Aussagen dazu beinhalten, welche Rechte und Pflichten Personen gegenüber anderen Personen haben, als auch dazu, wie das politische Miteinander gestaltet sein sollte, d. h. welche Pflichten und Ansprüche der Staat gegenüber seinen Bürger*innen hat bzw. die Bürger*innen gegenüber dem Staat haben. Denn in vielen modernen Gesellschaften (...) schreiben Personen die Regeln ihres wechselseitigen Miteinanders (etwa dass man andere nicht körperlich schädigen oder bestehlen darf) öffentlich fest, indem sie diese in kodifiziertes und vom Staat sanktioniertes Recht überführen. (shrink)

This paper addresses the question whether there is a rational connection between self-respect and the disrespect of others by engaging with the so-called Stoic View (SV) presented by Colin Bird. According to SV, there is no such connection because the disrespect other people show us can never provide us with a reason to lose our self-respect. This essay argues that SV is correct only from a third-personal perspective and false from a first-personal one. Since we are social cognizers, we use (...) how other people treat us as evidence, for instance, about our moral status, and we are justified in doing so if we have no reason to dismiss them as untrustworthy. Distinguishing between the first-and third-personal perspectives is important to avoid victim-blaming. I show this by discussing an example from literature in which the protagonist concludes that she does not have equal moral status and thus lacks in self-respect without any mistake in her reasoning simply because she has been given false information about her moral status. (shrink)

In this paper, we have two goals. First, we argue for a blueprint for hermeneutical injustice that allows us to schematize existing and discover new varieties of hermeneutical injustices. The underlying insight is that Fricker provides both a general concept of hermeneutical injustice and a specific conception thereof. By distinguishing between the general concept and its specific conceptions, we gain a fruitful tool to detect such injustices in our everyday lives. Second, we use this blueprint to provide a further example (...) of hermeneutical injustice that draws our attention to yet another distinction: Some hermeneutical injustices result from a lack or distortion in the collective conceptual resource and some are due to problems in the application of existing concepts. We argue that to combat hermeneutical injustices, we have to make sure not only that individuals have accurate concepts at their disposal but that they have the capabilities to use these concepts adequately. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie Jahrgang: 64 Heft: 6 Seiten: 1022-1027.

Das Buch spannt einen Bogen von der Kernfrage der Metaphysik hin zur Ausgangsfrage der Anthropologie: Was ist der Mensch? Ein missratenes Geschöpf, dem nur die blanke Verzweiflung bleibt, weil es für die Welt besser wäre, wenn es ihn gar nicht gäbe? Oder geht, um es mit den Worten von Rémi Brague zu sagen, dem Indikativ des Seins ein Imperativ zum Sein voran, so dass es gute Gründe für das Dasein des Menschen gibt – Gründe, die jenseits aller Selbstrechtfertigung liegen? Wenn (...) es solche Gründe gibt, wird man über sie kaum reden können, ohne zugleich nach dem zu fragen, was sie bedingungslos macht. Aus unterschiedlichen Blickwinkeln heraus wird dieser Frage nach dem Unbedingten – Gott – in ihrer Beziehung zum Sein des Menschen nachgegangen. (shrink)

Three indexes have been compiled: authors of main articles (including our special departments such as ‘Projects in progress’ and ‘Notes and discussions’); essay reviews; and book reviews. Co-author...

Dieses Buch verteidigt die These, dass bis auf leicht ausgrenzbare Ausnahmen die Ersetzung von Synonyma in einem Satz die Wahrheit oder Falschheit des Satzes nicht beeinflusst. Maik Sühr liefert eine sorgsame Formulierung der These, indem er sie aus dem im Allgemeinen akzeptierten Prinzip der Kompositionalität ableitet. Er konfrontiert sie im Anschluss mit zum Teil noch weithin unbekannten augenscheinlichen Gegenbeispielen und macht eine Reihe von neuen Vorschlägen, um diese zu entkräften. In diesem Zusammenhang setzt sich Sühr mit verschiedenen Themen innerhalb der (...) Sprachphilosophie und der Philosophie des Geistes auseinander. So bespricht er u.a. Freges Sinnhierarchie, kognitive Äquivalenz sowie verschiedene Aspekte der Semantik von Allquantifikationen und weil-Sätzen. Ferner nimmt er mit neuen Argumenten Stellung zur Debatte zwischen Externalisten und Internalisten in Bezug auf mentalen Gehalt und plädiert für eine grundsätzliche Unterscheidung zwischen semantischen und mentalen Gehalt. Im Schlussteil wendet er die Ersetzbarkeits-These auf das sogenannte Paradox der Analyse an. Im Zuge seiner kritischen Diskussion verschiedener Theorien über Begriffsanalysen entwickelt er dabei seine eigene Konzeption von Analysen als Erklärungen. (shrink)

In this article, we investigate the use of social media in contemporary family interaction from a linguistic ethnographic perspective. Inspired by Auer’s work on code-switching in conversation, we study how family members choose and sometimes alternate between digitally mediated and face-to-face modes of communication in various family settings. Based on ethnographic observations, the participants’ metapragmatic reflections, and their interactional orientations to mode choices, we show how such choices serve social and metapragmatic functions in the interaction between family members who are (...) present in the same house or even in the same room. Accordingly, we argue in favor of situating peoples’ polymedia repertoires in a broader framework of communicative repertoires. (shrink)