Moral Error, Power, and Insult

Abstract

Defenders of Aboriginal rights such as James Tully have argued that members of majority populations should allow Aboriginal peoples to argue within their own preferred intellectual frameworks in seeking common moral ground. But how should non-Aboriginal academics react to claims that seem insufficiently critical or even incoherent? This essay argues that there are two reasons to be especially wary of attacking such errors given the historical injustices perpetrated by settler states against Aboriginal peoples. First, attempts to root out error will often be misplaced, because they will fail to consider the full range of possible reasons for particular kinds of social practices. Second, such attempts will often have counterproductive social effects in disrupting conversations and prolonging Aboriginal alienation. This essay thus argues that non-Aboriginal academics should be willing to exercise considerable self-restraint toward apparent intellectual errors, because such a strategy will be most conducive to realizing justice over the long term.

Playing for the Future: Using Codesign Games to Explore Alternative Sanitation Systems in London

“…A second problem with citizen control at the top of the ladder is that it presumes that the majority view has the best interests at heart for all members of the public. All types of people and majorities can all hold views that if upheld, damage environments and other groups of people (Hendrix, 2007). Regardless of socio-economic position, the majority may want to maintain the status quo because the effort, expense, and uncertainty of change are too great in comparison to anticipated benefit (Subašić, Reynolds, & Turner, 2008).…”

Testing the limits of the politics of recognition: Fox hunters in the United Kingdom

“…The claim of indigenous peoples to have their distinctive moral understandings of the relationship between humans and animals treated respectfully owes far more to their remarkable achievement in living sustainably from time immemorial within the limits of particular ecosystems (Hendrix, 2007; Weir, 2009). This feat contrasts impressively with European colonists’ subsequent rapid depletion of resources and eco-destruction.…”

An Australian Indigenous Advancement Agenda

“…The non-Indigenous may not always be able to understand the full range of Indigenous reasons for particular kinds of social practices; attempted critiques might prove counterproductive by disrupting conversations already occurring in Indigenous communities. Some non-Indigenous argue that, given "the unreliability of moral judgment and the dangers of power," 2 self-restraint "will be most conducive to realizing justice over the long term"; 3 we should limit ourselves to supporting policies that recognize that "Aboriginal communities will fare best when allowed extensive degrees of self-determination." 4 318 PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY I will, however, proceed, though I do so mindfully, cautiously, and respectfully, not wishing to offend or cause harm, but with the conviction that sometimes moral philosophers renege their responsibility when they refuse to engage.…”

“…Some non-Indigenous argue that, given "the unreliability of moral judgment and the dangers of power," 2 self-restraint "will be most conducive to realizing justice over the long term"; 3 we should limit ourselves to supporting policies that recognize that "Aboriginal communities will fare best when allowed extensive degrees of self-determination." 4 318 PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY I will, however, proceed, though I do so mindfully, cautiously, and respectfully, not wishing to offend or cause harm, but with the conviction that sometimes moral philosophers renege their responsibility when they refuse to engage. We should not be too quick to accept the "unreliability" of moral judgment, despite its challenging and sometimes indeterminate nature.…”