What Goes Wrong in Debates over Public Monuments

S. Brian Hood

Social Science Quarterly, 2021, vol. 102, issue 3, 1074-1083

Abstract: Objective This essay aims to explain the impasse in debates concerning Confederate monuments in public spaces by noting a difference in unstated philosophical assumptions. Method I examine two positions in this debate, offering an explanation for the inability for opposing sides to engage. The analytical framework has its basis in philosophical debates regarding objectivity in scientific theory selection. Results Arguably, the impasse in this debate concerns underlying ethical principles: one that assesses morality based on intentions that motivate actions (namely, the motivation for erecting a monument) and one that assesses morality based on consequences of actions (namely, the consequences of removing monuments). Conclusions The locus of discussion can shift to these philosophical principles, offering a novel avenue for discussion and, hence, reconciliation. I suggest a fate for Confederate monuments that is responsive to both sides’ concerns and is informed by another country's attempt to reconcile with its troubled past.

Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12967

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:3:p:1074-1083

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0038-4941

Access Statistics for this article

Social Science Quarterly is currently edited by Robert L. Lineberry

More articles in Social Science Quarterly from Southwestern Social Science Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().