Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Who’s to Blame? Hermeneutical Misfire, Forward-Looking Responsibility, and Collective Accountability.Hilkje Hänel - 2020 - Social Epistemology 35 (2):173-184.
    The main aim of this paper is to investigate how sexist ideology distorts our conceptions of sexual violence and the hermeneutical gaps such an ideology yields. I propose that we can understand the problematic issue of hermeneutical gaps about sexual violence with the help of Fricker’s theory of hermeneutical injustice. By distinguishing between hermeneutical injustice and hermeneutical misfire, we can distinguish between the hermeneutical gap and its consequences for the victim of sexual violence and those of the perpetrator of such (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Getting Personal: The Intuition of Neutrality Reinterpreted.Wlodek Rabinowicz - 2020 - In Paul Bowman & Katharina Berndt Rasmussen (eds.), Studies on Climate Ethics and Future Generations, Vol. 2. Institute for Futures Studies.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Denial of Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery and Responsibility for Epistemic Amends.Seunghyun Song - 2021 - Social Epistemology 35 (2):160-172.
    This article argues that some denialists of Japan’s military sexual slavery are responsible for past epistemic injustices. In the literature on epistemic responsibility, backward- and forward-looki...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Towards a Non-Ideal Theory of Climate Migration.Joachim Wündisch - 2019 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy:1-32.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Middle Ground on Liability for Costs?Joachim Wündisch - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (10):3097-3115.
    On the strict liability view, excusably ignorant agents must cover all the wrongful costs they have inadvertently brought onto others, although it is undisputed that they are not at fault. On the fault liability view, victims need not be compensated by excusably ignorant harmers. To some, both views appear harsh. Under fault liability, those who cause harm are seen as getting off scot-free while victims suffer. Under strict liability, agents are viewed as being burdened without any fault of their own. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark