POLITICAL JUSTIFICATIONISM: A CASUISTIC EPISTEMOLOGY OF POLITICAL DISAGREEMENT

TRAMES 24 (3):339-361 (2020)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
The conciliationist and steadfast approaches have dominated the conversation in the epistemology of disagreement. In this paper, drawing on Jennifer Lackey’s justificationist approach and the casuistry paradigm in medical ethics, I will develop a more contextual epistemology of political disagreement. On this account, a given political disagreement’s scope, domain, genealogy, and consequence can be helpful for determining whether we should respond to that disagreement at the level of our confidence, beliefs, or with policy. Though some may argue that responding with policy is a practical consideration instead of an epistemic matter, I argue that even policy responses to disagreements have an epistemic dimension to them that we should not ignore.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
CARPJA-6
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-09-15
View other versions
Added to PP index
2020-09-15

Total views
12 ( #53,047 of 52,662 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #39,609 of 52,662 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.