Reply to My Critics: (Re-)Defining Racism: A Philosophical Analysis
In (Re-)Defining Racism, I offer the first comprehensive examination of the philosophical literature on racism and argue for a new methodological approach that I call conventionalism. Framing my argument within this approach, I defend an oppression theory of racism. In this article, I will attempt t...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Publicado: |
2021
|
| En: |
Ethical theory and moral practice
Año: 2021, Volumen: 24, Número: 3, Páginas: 679-698 |
| Clasificaciones IxTheo: | NBE Antropología NCC Ética social NCD Ética política VA Filosofía |
| Otras palabras clave: | B
Grammatical analysis
B Racial oppression B semantic externalism B Moralism B Moral Responsibility B Metalinguistic negotiation B Wittgenstein B Descriptive Analysis B Conventionalism B Semantic internalism B Political morality B Prescriptive analysis B Racism |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Sumario: | In (Re-)Defining Racism, I offer the first comprehensive examination of the philosophical literature on racism and argue for a new methodological approach that I call conventionalism. Framing my argument within this approach, I defend an oppression theory of racism. In this article, I will attempt to accomplish two goals: offer a reply to the thoughtful comments of my critics, and lay out the main argument and major themes of my book in an accessible manner. First, I will describe the philosophical problem of defining “racism” and explain why I think a new methodological approach is necessary to address this problem. Second, I will present the moralist presupposition of my project and extend my oppression theory of racism in response to the challenge of assigning responsibility for oppression. Finally, I will address several criticisms to my prescriptive approach, including: (1) my prescriptive approach unjustifiably privileges moralist explanation (explaining why racism is bad) over social explanation (explaining the causes of racism); (2) the tool of semantic clarification, which my conventionalist framework draws upon, is inadequate for resolving conceptual disagreement; (3) my call for scholars to negotiate the meaning of “racism” is unlikely to succeed and would be insufficient to inspire social change if it were to succeed; and, finally, (4) my conventionalist approach is wedded to a misguided intensionalist semantics, for an extensionalist semantics is more appropriate for the term “racist.” |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1572-8447 |
| Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: Ethical theory and moral practice
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s10677-021-10207-2 |
