TY - JOUR
T1 - Diversity and Moral Address
AU - Brandenburg, Daphne
N1 - Funding Information:
I have received many helpful comments on this article. I am especially grateful to Anneli Jefferson, Sofia Jeppsson, Jeanette Kennett, Michael McKenna, and two anonymous reviewers of this journal for their comprehensive feedback on the latest draft. I would like to thank David Shoemaker for his comments on an earlier version.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author. Journal of Applied Philosophy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for Applied Philosophy.
PY - 2022/8
Y1 - 2022/8
N2 - This article evaluates communicative approaches to responsibility within the Strawsonian tradition. These approaches consider reactive attitudes to be forms of moral address and consider responsiveness to moral address a condition on responsible agency. The article consists of a critical and a positive part. In the first part, I identify a risk for these theories. They often provide an overly narrow account of how we can communicate with others about perceived moral disregard. I argue that, when read this way, a conversational approach has implausible implications and falls prey to a familiar objection to Strawsonian theory: it would incorporate social injustices inherent to our responsibility practices. In particular, it would affirm ableist attitudes towards autistic individuals, by exempting them as moral agents on the basis of irrelevant criteria. In the second part, I propose an inclusive reading of the communicative approach. This inclusive account steers clear of ableism towards autistic individuals and accommodates diversity. Although it is also derived from our practices and psychologies, it does not incorporate the biases and injustices that are part of those practices, and instead it provides us with a means to criticize them.
AB - This article evaluates communicative approaches to responsibility within the Strawsonian tradition. These approaches consider reactive attitudes to be forms of moral address and consider responsiveness to moral address a condition on responsible agency. The article consists of a critical and a positive part. In the first part, I identify a risk for these theories. They often provide an overly narrow account of how we can communicate with others about perceived moral disregard. I argue that, when read this way, a conversational approach has implausible implications and falls prey to a familiar objection to Strawsonian theory: it would incorporate social injustices inherent to our responsibility practices. In particular, it would affirm ableist attitudes towards autistic individuals, by exempting them as moral agents on the basis of irrelevant criteria. In the second part, I propose an inclusive reading of the communicative approach. This inclusive account steers clear of ableism towards autistic individuals and accommodates diversity. Although it is also derived from our practices and psychologies, it does not incorporate the biases and injustices that are part of those practices, and instead it provides us with a means to criticize them.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129753397&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/japp.12580
DO - 10.1111/japp.12580
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85129753397
SN - 0264-3758
VL - 39
SP - 631
EP - 644
JO - Journal of Applied Philosophy
JF - Journal of Applied Philosophy
IS - 4
ER -