Institutskolloquium

The Causal Theory of Slurs

18:15 - 19:45 Uhr

Language can be used in highly destructive ways. One such way is the usage of slurs. These are expressions that are used to refer to the members of a given group, the target group, in a derogatory, pejorative or otherwise insulting way because of their race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc. As a consequence, slurs primarily have two functions. First, they can be used to offend or psychologically harm the members of the target group. Second, slurs can be used to create or reinforce negative attitudes towards them. For example, most uses of slurs for Jewish people in Nazi propaganda had mainly the purpose to create and reinforce anti-Semitic attitudes that would lead to increasing discrimination and violence against Jews, to their expulsion or incarceration in concentration camps, and, ultimately, to genocide. Similarly, Tirrell argues that the massive use of the slur ''Iyenzi'' (cockroaches) for Tutsis in broadcasts from a Hutu radio station played a crucial role in inciting the genocide of Tutsis. As Tirrell points out, slurs ''regularly enact power, incite crimes, and rationalize cruelty'' (Tirrell 2012, 192).

In the philosophy of language, the question then arises how derogation by means of slurs is accomplished. A satisfactory answer to this question should explain both the offensiveness of slurs and the fact that slurs can be used to create and reinforce negative attitudes. As Caroline West and others point out, answering the question how derogation by means of slurs is accomplished may have implications for the legal question of whether there should be restrictions on hate speech involving slurs. Furthermore, the question is also of particular interest for philosophy of language in general, since it puts our existing tools of understanding language to the test.

In this talk, I put forward and systematically develop a new explanation of the derogatory force of slurs, taking as a starting point a causal account of their referential properties. On the view on offer, slurs are derogatory because, unlike their neutral counterparts, they have been grounded in the target group by speakers who have negative attitudes towards its members. I will argue that such a causal theory of slurs does better than virtually any of its competitors and that, for the first time, it offers a complete account of the referential properties of slurs, i.e. of the fact that slurs can be used to refer to the target group. By extending the causal theory to other referring pejoratives, the proposed explanation promises not only a better understanding of slurs, but of pejorative language in general, opening up new ways of investigating evaluative terms.

Uses and Misuses of Scientific Models in Pandemic Policy Advice
18:15 - 19:45 Uhr

Luise Müller
(Humboldt Universität zu Berlin)

Abstract

One fundamental puzzle in the philosophical study of authority is to explain why one person may make a decision over another even though persons are moral equals to one another in democratic societies. If it is the case that as citizens, we are all free and equal, how is it possible that others can make decisions over us that deeply influence, and often stifle, our autonomy, wellbeing and life plans? Why are we – as moral equals – dependent on other people’s decisions and control when it comes to, for example, school and university admission, grades, job applications, pay rises, criminal sentencing, or academic funding decisions?

Many of those relations of authority are constituted by social asymmetries: between teacher and student, employer and employee, judge and defendant, administrator and petitioner, and so on. On the face of it, these social asymmetries – in power, status, or knowledge – seem incompatible with our equal moral status, because they enable some to control, or dominate, others. In the paper, I first explore what, if anything, makes these asymmetric relations morally problematic. I argue that we should be fundamentally concerned about the unequal distribution of benefits and burdens within these relationships, instead of others metrics like contestability, accountability, transparency, or consent.

Second, I ask whether substituting human judgement and decisionmaking with algorithmic decision-making – ‚rule by automation‘ (Sparks & Jayaram) – can alleviate the normatively problematic nature of some of these social asymmetries. Can algorithms free us from morally problematic relationships of control and authority? I argue that merely substituting human decisionmaking with algorithmic decisionmaking cannot free us, as long as it reproduces the unequal distribution of benefits and burdens. Instead, we need to think about in which contexts deploying algorithmic decisionmaking can equalize the distribution of benefits and burdens (or advantages and disadvantages) within socially asymmetric relations.

As an example, I discuss the relationship between physician and patient, which is traditionally characterised by an asymmetry of knowledge between both parties that potentially translates into a morally problematic asymmetry: physicians are able to influence, manipulate, and effectively control patients in virtue of their expert knowledge. Importantly, while consent is an important precondition of physician intervention, its capacity to ameliorate what is morally problematic about the asymmetry is limited. In such cases, algorithms can potentially free us if (and only if) they are deployed with the aim of balancing the distribution of burdens and benefits to the advantage of the patient. However, where this is not the case, algorithmic decisionmaking is no improvement on the status quo – in fact, it often leaves those disadvantaged in social asymmetries worse off.

Vulnerable Epistemic Identities
18:15 - 19:45 Uhr

Mere Permutations of Individuals
18:15 - 19:45 Uhr