Slavery's absence from histories of moral and political philosophy

Robert Bernasconi
{"title":"Slavery's absence from histories of moral and political philosophy","authors":"Robert Bernasconi","doi":"10.1111/sjp.12578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At a time when many institutions of higher learning are reflecting on their past complicity with chattel slavery, either in terms of the sources of their funding or their use of slave labor, philosophy as an academic discipline has been largely silent about its own complicity. Questions surrounding the legitimacy and practice of slavery were a regular part of moral philosophy courses at universities from the sixteenth century until its abolition. However, the discussions of slavery found in the dominant textbooks tended to be deeply conservative judged even by the standards of those times. This partly explains why after emancipation the many moral questions posed by slavery are barely mentioned in survey histories of ethics or of political philosophy today: this is a context in which academic philosophy does not show itself to its best advantage. The present article explores what academic philosophers need to do to redress the discipline's past failures, including its virtual silence about slavery since the Civil War. Given today's political environment, academic philosophers need to reflect on how the discipline in its institutional form functions within a system governed by the legacy of slavery and its aftermath.","PeriodicalId":514583,"journal":{"name":"The Southern Journal of Philosophy","volume":"58 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Southern Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12578","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

At a time when many institutions of higher learning are reflecting on their past complicity with chattel slavery, either in terms of the sources of their funding or their use of slave labor, philosophy as an academic discipline has been largely silent about its own complicity. Questions surrounding the legitimacy and practice of slavery were a regular part of moral philosophy courses at universities from the sixteenth century until its abolition. However, the discussions of slavery found in the dominant textbooks tended to be deeply conservative judged even by the standards of those times. This partly explains why after emancipation the many moral questions posed by slavery are barely mentioned in survey histories of ethics or of political philosophy today: this is a context in which academic philosophy does not show itself to its best advantage. The present article explores what academic philosophers need to do to redress the discipline's past failures, including its virtual silence about slavery since the Civil War. Given today's political environment, academic philosophers need to reflect on how the discipline in its institutional form functions within a system governed by the legacy of slavery and its aftermath.
奴隶制在道德和政治哲学史中的缺席
当许多高等学府都在反思自己过去与奴隶制的共谋关系时,无论是在资金来源方面,还是在使用奴隶劳动方面,哲学作为一门学术学科却对自己的共谋关系基本上保持沉默。从十六世纪到废除奴隶制之前,围绕奴隶制的合法性和实践的问题一直是大学道德哲学课程的常规内容。然而,即使以当时的标准来衡量,主流教科书中关于奴隶制的论述也往往是非常保守的。这在一定程度上解释了为什么在解放后,奴隶制提出的许多道德问题在当今的伦理学或政治哲学调查史中几乎没有被提及:在这种情况下,学术哲学并没有展现其最佳优势。本文探讨了学术哲学家需要做些什么来纠正该学科过去的失误,包括自南北战争以来对奴隶制几乎保持沉默。鉴于当今的政治环境,学术哲学家们需要反思本学科的体制形式是如何在一个受奴隶制及其后遗症影响的体系中发挥作用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信