Normative Inference Tickets

IF 1.3 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology Pub Date : 2023-09-22 DOI:10.1017/epi.2023.43
Jen Foster, Jonathan Ichikawa
{"title":"Normative Inference Tickets","authors":"Jen Foster, Jonathan Ichikawa","doi":"10.1017/epi.2023.43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We argue that stereotypes associated with concepts like he-said–she-said , conspiracy theory , sexual harassment , and those expressed by paradigmatic slurs provide “normative inference tickets”: conceptual permissions to automatic, largely unreflective normative conclusions. These “mental shortcuts” are underwritten by associated stereotypes. Because stereotypes admit of exceptions, normative inference tickets are highly flexible and productive, but also liable to create serious epistemic and moral harms. Epistemically, many are unreliable, yielding false beliefs which resist counterexample; morally, many perpetuate bigotry and oppression. Still, some normative inference tickets, like some activated by sexual harassment , constitute genuine moral and hermeneutical advances. For example, our framework helps explain Miranda Fricker's notion of “hermeneutical lacunae”: what early victims of “sexual harassment” – as well as their harassers – lacked before the term was coined was a communal normative inference ticket – one that could take us, collectively, from “this is happening” to “this is wrong.”","PeriodicalId":46716,"journal":{"name":"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2023.43","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract We argue that stereotypes associated with concepts like he-said–she-said , conspiracy theory , sexual harassment , and those expressed by paradigmatic slurs provide “normative inference tickets”: conceptual permissions to automatic, largely unreflective normative conclusions. These “mental shortcuts” are underwritten by associated stereotypes. Because stereotypes admit of exceptions, normative inference tickets are highly flexible and productive, but also liable to create serious epistemic and moral harms. Epistemically, many are unreliable, yielding false beliefs which resist counterexample; morally, many perpetuate bigotry and oppression. Still, some normative inference tickets, like some activated by sexual harassment , constitute genuine moral and hermeneutical advances. For example, our framework helps explain Miranda Fricker's notion of “hermeneutical lacunae”: what early victims of “sexual harassment” – as well as their harassers – lacked before the term was coined was a communal normative inference ticket – one that could take us, collectively, from “this is happening” to “this is wrong.”
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
规范推理票据
我们认为,与“他说-她说”、阴谋论、性骚扰等概念相关的刻板印象,以及那些由范式诽谤表达的概念,提供了“规范性推理门票”:对自动的、很大程度上未经反思的规范性结论的概念许可。这些“心理捷径”是由相关的刻板印象所支撑的。因为刻板印象承认例外,规范推理门票是高度灵活和富有成效的,但也容易造成严重的认知和道德危害。在认识论上,许多是不可靠的,产生错误的信念,抵制反例;在道德上,许多人延续了偏见和压迫。尽管如此,一些规范性推理门票,比如一些由性骚扰引发的门票,构成了真正的道德和解释学上的进步。例如,我们的框架有助于解释米兰达·弗里克(Miranda Fricker)的“解释学空白”(hermeneutical lacunae)概念:在“性骚扰”这个词被创造出来之前,“性骚扰”的早期受害者——以及骚扰她们的人——缺乏的是一个共同的规范推理票——一个可以把我们从“这正在发生”带到“这是错误的”的票。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
48
期刊最新文献
The Value of Risk in Transformative Experience The Hard Problem of Access for Epistemological Disjunctivism In Defence of the Acquaintance Principle in Aesthetics Evidentialism, Judgment, and Suspension: Meeting Sosa's Challenges The Rationality of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1