Analysis Of Begby's The Epistemology Of Prejudice

In Begby’s article, “The Epistemology of Prejudice”, he proposes his argument in objection of the common view on the topic of prejudices. The common view of prejudice is that: if a person holds a prejudicial claim or thought, then this person must be epistemic culpable because the common view holders take prejudice as an universal generalized claim. In contrast with the common view, Begby claims that there is no strong correlation between prejudices and epistemic culpability, and the common view is incorrect because he thinks that prejudice does not indicate an universal generalization (90). This paper will be divided in three parts: 1) the explication of the common view; 2) the explication of Begby’s distinction between prejudice and epistemic

If a person holds a prejudicial claim, then he must be epistemic culpable. The reason for the common view holders to think that because they presume the prejudice applies universally (90). So, if a prejudiced person A claims that people who belong to social group X have the trait Y, the person A literally means that every person in the social group X has the trait Y and no exception. In the Solomon example, the common view holders would think that Solomon’s belief that women is not as well as men in terms of the intelligence; this belief means that every woman in the world has less capabilities to act intelligently as well as man. The counterexample in the Solomon case is those intelligent female students that he met in university; these women, in the university, can perform intelligently as men, so this is an evidence to prove that Solomon’s belief is a prejudice. Then, if Solomon’s belief is a prejudice, based on the common view, he is epistemic culpable because he is unable to evaluate and react to the evidence correctly. In the part one of the case, he may not be epistemic culpable since every woman he has met cannot perform intelligently; this becomes the only evidence for his prejudicial claim at that time. However, when it comes to the part two of the example, new evidence comes into Solomon’s consideration. If Solomon does not change his mind on

the intelligent women). He claims that those intelligent women are not a good representative of the general intelligence of women because the women who can be accepted by the university which indicates that they have been filtered in terms on their intelligence (94). The university would only accept the women who have high intelligence, and screen out those women who do not meet their requirement of the intelligence. The women who Solomon has met must be intelligent, since they have already been selected. Therefore, the women in the college is not a good random sample to represent the general intelligence of the women (93).

These two points (noticing an unequal distribution of intelligence in a same group, and women in the collage is not a good representative) above can help one to understand Solomon’s logic, I will present Solomon’s logic in an argument form:

“Solomon’s logic:

1) Solomon believes that females are generally not as intelligent as males.

2) Solomon understands that there is an unequal distribution of intelligence in the same group. In order words, some people are more intelligent than others in the same group.

3) The university only accepts intelligent males and females, and screens out those who do not meet the requirement.

4) Some females are intelligent enough to study in the university.

5) Therefore, the females who Solomon has met must be