Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:11:51.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

JUSTICE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF KNOWLEDGE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2016

Faik Kurtulmus  and
Gürol Irzik
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article we develop an account of justice in the distribution of knowledge. We first argue that knowledge is a fundamental interest that grounds claims of justice due to its role in individuals’ deliberations about the common good, their personal good and the pursuit thereof. Second, we identify the epistemic basic structure of a society, namely, the institutions that determine individuals’ opportunities for acquiring knowledge and discuss what justice requires of them. Our main contention is that a systematic lack of opportunity to acquire knowledge one needs as an individual and a citizen because of the way the epistemic basic structure of a society is organized is an injustice. Finally, we discuss how our account relates to John Rawls's influential theory of justice.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 129 - 146
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. 2011. ‘Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony.’ Episteme, 8: 144–64.Google Scholar
Angell, M. 2005. The Truth about the Drug Companies. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Bagdikian, B. 2004. The New Media Monopoly. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Bok, D. 2003. Universities in the Marketplace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bucchi, M. and Neresini, F. 2008. ‘Science and Public Participation.’ In Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., and Wajcman, J. (eds), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edition, pp. 449–72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1993. ‘Freedom of Expression.’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22: 207–63.Google Scholar
Fallis, D. 2007a. ‘Toward an Epistemology of Intellectual Property.’ Journal of Information Ethics, 16: 34–51.Google Scholar
Fallis, D. 2007b. ‘Epistemic Value Theory and the Digital Divide.’ In Rooksby, E. and Weckert, J. (eds), Information Technology and Social Justice, pp. 29–46. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnis, J. 2011. Natural Law & Natural Rights, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Justice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldacre, B. 2008. Bad Science. London: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. 2001. ‘Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63: 85–110.Google Scholar
Hotez, P. 2009. ‘Neglected Diseases Amid Wealth in the United States and Europe.’ Health Affairs, 29: 1720–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, M. 2009. ‘On Commodification and the Governance of Academic Research.’ Minerva, 47: 392–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E. and Freeman, M. 2008. ‘The Organisation of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Skepticism.’ Environmental Politics, 17: 349–85.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimsky, S. 2004. Science in the Private Interest. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, W. 1989. ‘Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality.’ Ethics, 99: 883–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucchi, N. 2011. ‘Access to Network Services and Protection of Constitutional Rights: Recognizing the Essential Role of Internet Access for the Freedom of Expression.’ Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 19: 645–78.Google Scholar
Mathiesen, K. 2012. ‘The Human Right to Internet Access: A Philosophical Defense.’ International Review of Information Ethics, 18: 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McChesney, R.W. 2008. The Political Economy of Media. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Meiklejohn, A. 1948. Free Speech and its Relation to Self-Government. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Mettler, S. 2010. ‘Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era.’ Perspectives on Politics, 8: 803–24.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1989. On Liberty and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. 2008. ‘Livin’ with the MTA.’ Minerva, 46: 317–42.Google Scholar
Mooney, C. and Kirshenbaum, S. 2009. Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 2010. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Norton, M. I. and Ariely, D. 2011. ‘Building a Better America – One Wealth Quintile at a Time.’ Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6: 9–12.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2010. Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. M. 2011. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2010. Little Change in Opinions About Global Warming. http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/669.pdf.Google Scholar
Radder, H. 2010. ‘Mertonian Values, Scientific Norms, and the Commodification of Academic Research.’ In Radder, H. (ed.), The Commodification of Academic Research, pp. 231–58. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1996. Political Liberalism, paperback edition . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice, revised edition . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. 1998. The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. 2010. ‘Financial Interests and the Norms of Academic Science.’ In Radder, H. (ed.), The Commodification of Academic Research, pp. 65–89. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treanor, N. 2013. ‘The Measure of Knowledge.’ Noûs, 47: 577–601.Google Scholar
US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. 2010. National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.health.gov/communication/hlactionplan/pdf/Health_Literacy_Action_Plan.pdf.Google Scholar
van den Hoven, J. and Rooksby, E. 2008. ‘Distributive Justice and the Value of Information: A (Broadly) Rawlsian Approach.’ In van den Hoven, J. and Weckert, J. (eds), Information Technology and Moral Philosophy, pp. 376–96. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waring, M. 1988. If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.Google Scholar