Abstract

Purpose: The millennia long struggles of various oppressed groups have over time illuminated widespread social injustices, organically leading to the recognition of yet further injustices captured by the umbrella of discriminatory isms, such as racism, sexism, classism, ableism, anti-Semitism, ageism, heterosexism, and many others. In recent years, the debate has become increasingly fierce, polarized, and even physically violent. Approach: One of the premises of the present work is that in part, the aforementioned unconstructive behaviours are a result of the different understandings of what constitutes an ism and the lack of a thoughtful consideration of this issue in the mainstream social debate as much as in the academic literature. Findings: I present evidence for this, and critique the dominant lines of thought in this realm showing them all to fall short of both the fundamental philosophical as well practical desiderata in how isms ought to be understood. Originality: I propose an alternative which does not suffer from the same weakness: one based on the denial of equivalence of sentience. I show how the adoption of this understanding leads to constructive ways of addressing isms effected injustice.