Abstract
ObjectiveThis essay aims to explain the impasse in debates concerning Confederate monuments in public spaces by noting a difference in unstated philosophical assumptions.MethodI 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.ResultsArguably, 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).ConclusionsThe 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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
