Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–17 | Cite as

The rational impermissibility of accepting (some) racial generalizations

  • Renée Jorgensen Bolinger
Article

Abstract

I argue that inferences from highly probabilifying racial generalizations (e.g. believing that Jones is a janitor, on the grounds that most Salvadoreans at the school are janitors) are not solely objectionable because acting on such inferences would be problematic, or they violate a moral norm, but because they violate a distinctively epistemic norm. They involve accepting a proposition when, given the costs of a mistake, one is not adequately justified in doing so. First I sketch an account of the nature of adequate justification—practical adequacy with respect to eliminating the \(\lnot p\) possibilities from one’s epistemic statespace. Second, I argue that inferences based on demographic generalizations tend to disproportionately expose group members to the risks associated with mistakenly assuming stereotypical propositions, and so magnify the wrong involved in relying on such inferences without adequate justification.

Keywords

Epistemology Acceptance Generalizations Statistical evidence Moral encroachment Epistemic risk 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work grew out of conversations with Rima Basu, John Hawthorne, and Mark Schroeder, who each also generously gave me comments on several drafts, and to whom I owe particular gratitude. Thanks also to Michael Ashfield, Julianne Chung, Justin D’Ambrosio, Kenny Easwaran, Georgi Gardiner, Alan Hájek, Elizabeth Jackson, Ethan Landes, Dustin Locke, Jonathan Quong, and James Willoughby for helpful comments, and to Matthew Babb, Maegan Fairchild, Sahar Joakim, Colin Klein, Jeremy Strasser, Jake Ross, and the audiences at the 2016 Arché Epistemology Workshop at St. Andrews, the Talbot Philosophical Society at Biola University, and the 2017 St. Louis Annual Conference on Reasons and Rationality, for fruitful discussion of earlier versions of this material.

References

  1. Anderson, C., & Hawthorne, J. (forthcoming). Knowledge, practical adequacy, and stakes. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 6). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (2010). The imperative of integration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armour, J. (1994). Race ipsa loquitur: Of reasonable racists, intelligent bayesians, and involuntary negrophobes. Stanford Law Review, 46(4), 781–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arntzenius, F., Elga, A., & Hawthorne, J. (2004). Bayesianism, infinite decisions, and binding. Mind, 113(450), 251–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basu, R. (2018). Beliefs that wrong. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  6. Basu, R., & Schroeder, M. (2018). Doxastic wrongings. In B. Kim & M. McGrath (Eds.), Pragmatic encroachment in epistemology. Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  7. Bratman, M. (1992). Practical reasoning and acceptance in a context. Mind, 101(401), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchak, L. (2014). Belief, credence and norms. Philosophical Studies, 169, 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1977). The probable and the provable. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1989). Belief and acceptance. Mind, 98, 367–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1992). An essay on belief and acceptance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Engel, P. (1998). Believing, holding true and accepting. Philosophical Explorations, 1(2), 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Enoch, D., Spectre, L., & Fisher, T. (2012). Statistical evidence, sensitivity, and the legal value of knowledge. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 40(3), 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franklin, J. H. (2005). Mirror to America: The autobiography of John Hope Franklin. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  15. Fritz, J. (2017). Pragmatic encroachment and moral encroachment. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 98, 643–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardiner, G. (2018). The burden of proof and statistical evidence. In D. Coady & J. Chase (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of applied epistemology. Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  17. Gendler, T. (2011). On the epistemic costs of implicit bias. Philosophical Studies, 156(1), 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haack, S. (2012). The embedded epistemologist: Dispatches from the legal front. Ratio Juris, 25(2), 206–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hájek, A. (2007). The reference class problem is your problem too. Synthese, 156, 563–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Locke, D. (2013). Practical certainty. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 90(1), 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moss, S. (2018). Probabilistic knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oberdiek, J. (2008). Towards a right against risking. Law and Philosophy, 28(4), 367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Peet, A., & Pitcovski, E. (2018). Normal Knowledge: Toward an explanation-based theory of knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 115(3), 141–157.  https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil201811539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Portmore, D. (2008). Dual-ranking act-consequentialism. Philosophical Studies, 138(3), 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pritchard, D. (2017). Legal risk, legal evidence and the arithmetic of criminal justice. Jurisprudence, 9(1), 108–119.  https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2017.1352323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ross, J., & Schroeder, M. (2014). Belief, credence, and pragmatic encroachment. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 2, 259–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Russell, J. (forthcoming). How much is at stake for the pragmatic encroacher. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 6). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, M. (2010). What else justification could be. Noûs, 44(1), 10–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Thomson, J. J. (1986). Liability and individualized evidence. Law and Contemporary Problems, 49(3), 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Worsnip, A. (2015). Two kinds of stakes. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 96, 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PhilosophyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations