What’s Wrong With Epistemic Injustice?

Harm, vice, objectification, misrecognition

Authored by: Matthew Congdon

The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice

Print publication date:  April  2017
Online publication date:  March  2017

Print ISBN: 9781138828254
eBook ISBN: 9781315212043
Adobe ISBN: 9781351814508

10.4324/9781315212043.ch23

 Download Chapter

 

Abstract

The question posed in the title of this essay is part of a more general question, namely, how best to situate the concept of “epistemic injustice” within the contested terrain of competing traditions called “normative ethics.” 1 As is well known, while differing normative theories might readily agree that some action is wrong, they may nonetheless differ vigorously as to why, with utilitarians emphasizing harmful consequences, virtue ethicists emphasizing a vicious character, and Kantians emphasizing the usurpation of one’s standing as free and rational, to name just three amongst many possibilities. In light of this, a preliminary strategy for locating epistemic injustice on the normative map presents itself in the form of the question: what background ethical commitments do we assume when we critique epistemic injustice as, precisely, unjust? However, a cursory glance at the literature reveals the complexities involved in answering this question. In the short period since the publication of Miranda Fricker’s Epistemic Injustice, a range of normative approaches to the distinctive wrongfulness of unjust epistemic practices have been adopted, with Fricker herself synthesizing multiple traditions, including Kantian, virtue-theoretic, and social contract elements within her own account.

 Cite
Search for more...
Back to top

Use of cookies on this website

We are using cookies to provide statistics that help us give you the best experience of our site. You can find out more in our Privacy Policy. By continuing to use the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.