Christine Bratu

In this paper, I develop an expressive account of disrespect according to which an action becomes disrespectful in virtue of making an explicitly or implicitly demeaning statement about its target’s moral standing. On my reading, we act disrespectfully whenever we (in word or deed) spread the falsehood that some people can be treated worse than they in fact can be given the correct account of what we owe to each other. After elaborating on the content that renders an action disrespectful and explaining how disrespectful actions come to acquire their distinctive content in the first place, I go on to defend my account against rival approaches and stress its usefulness in detecting a previously disregarded moral phenomenon, namely, the risk of causing moral confusion. I do so by arguing that, given our nature as social cognisers, disrespectful actions are particularly well-suited to pollute our beliefs about what we owe to each other and what is owed to us.

The aim of this paper is twofold: In its first part, we work out the key features of constitutivism as presented by Christine Korsgaard. This reconstruction serves to clarify which goals Korsgaard wants to achieve with her account and which of its central claims she has to defend in particular. In the second part, we discuss whether Korsgaard can vindicate constitutivism's most central claim. To do this, we analyse two important arguments - the argument from unavoidability and the argument from the abstract constitutive principle - that have been made in support of constitutivism. We show how both these arguments go amiss and conclude that at least for now, constitutivism's most central claim has not been successfully argued for.

In recent years, a number of authors have claimed that we can wrong each other simply by having certain beliefs—in particular sexist, racist, ableist etc. beliefs—about each other. So far, those who argue for the possibility of so-called doxastic wronging have tried to defend this idea by focusing on issues of doxastic control and coordination. In this paper, I raise a distinctly moral challenge against the possibility of doxastic wronging. I show that the idea of doxastic wronging runs afoul of the liberal principle according to which all moral obligations have to be justifiable vis-à-vis those they presume to bind. In addition, I argue that there is a better way to account for the fundamental intuition driving the debate: instead of assuming the possibility of doxastic wronging and the morally grounded epistemic duty it implies, we should conceptualize what is morally problematic about bigoted beliefs in terms of the harm they constitute for their targets.

Der Liberalismus ist eine normative Theorie dazu, was sich Menschen wechselseitig schulden, d. h. was ihnen im Umgang miteinander erlaubt, ver- und geboten ist. Als solche normative Theorie des wechselseitigen Miteinanders kann der Liberalismus sowohl Aussagen dazu beinhalten, welche Rechte und Pflichten Personen gegenüber anderen Personen haben, als auch dazu, wie das politische Miteinander gestaltet sein sollte, d. h. welche Pflichten und Ansprüche der Staat gegenüber seinen Bürger*innen hat bzw. die Bürger*innen gegenüber dem Staat haben. Denn in vielen modernen Gesellschaften schreiben Personen die Regeln ihres wechselseitigen Miteinanders (etwa dass man andere nicht körperlich schädigen oder bestehlen darf) öffentlich fest, indem sie diese in kodifiziertes und vom Staat sanktioniertes Recht überführen.