In Mark McBride & Visa A. J. Kurki (eds.), Without Trimmings: The Legal, Moral and Political Philosophy of Matthew Kramer (forthcoming)

Authors
Lubomira Radoilska
University of Kent
Abstract
This chapter outlines a new disentangling strategy for moral epistemology. It builds on the fundamental distinction between value-neutrality and value-independence as two separate aspects of methodological austerity introduced by Matthew Kramer. This type of conceptual analysis is then applied to two major challenges in moral epistemology: globalised scepticism and debate fragmentation. Both challenges arise from collapsing the fact/value dichotomy. They can be addressed by comprehensive disentangling that runs along both dimensions – value neutrality vs. value non-neutrality and value independence vs. value dependence. The success of this strategy rests on two factors. The first is broadening the scope of disentangling to include theoretical-explanatory values on a par with distinctly ethical values. The second is differentiating between wider and narrower conceptualisations of what value neutrality requires with respect to contested matters. The objective is to pre-empt unjust theorising, a distinctive form of epistemic injustice that derives from the exclusive methodological focus on ethical evaluations at the expense of epistemic ones. When these methodological conditions are fulfilled, opponents should gain the confidence to treat each other as fellow inquirers engaged in the same project, that of reducing the scope of unhelpful disagreements.
Keywords conceptual analysis  disagreement  disentangling  fact/value distinction  epistemic injustice  moral epistemology  unjust theorising
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2022
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Law’s Empire.Ronald Dworkin - 1986 - Harvard University Press.
Justice for Hedgehogs.Ronald Dworkin - 2011 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

View all 47 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Neutrality and the Social Contract.Ian J. Carroll - 2009 - Les ateliers de l'éthique/The Ethics Forum 4 (2):134-150.
Political Morality and Neutrality.Michal Sládecek - 2018 - Filozofija I Društvo 29 (3):401-414.
Advocating Procedural Neutrality.Linda Bomstad - 1995 - Teaching Philosophy 18 (3):197-210.
The Impossibility of Political Neutrality.Noriaki Iwasa - 2010 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (2):147-155.
What Is Neutrality?Roland Pierik & Wibren Van der Burg - 2014 - Ratio Juris 27 (4):496-515.
Advocating Procedural Neutrality.Linda Bornstad - 1995 - Teaching Philosophy 18 (3):197-210.
Why Liberal Neutralists Should Accept Educational Neutrality.Matt Sensat Waldren - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):71-83.
Epistemic Communities and Political Society.Alexander Jozef Zieba - 2001 - Dissertation, Queen's University at Kingston (Canada)

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-12-26

Total views
76 ( #153,870 of 2,520,899 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
17 ( #48,459 of 2,520,899 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes