Epistemic Complicity

Episteme (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX


There is a widely accepted distinction between being directly responsible for a wrongdoing versus being somehow indirectly or vicariously responsible for the wrongdoing of another person or collective. Often this is couched in analyses of complicity, and complicity’s role in the relationship between individual and collective wrongdoing. Complicity is important because, inter alia, it allows us to make sense of individuals who may be blameless or blameworthy to a relatively low degree for their immediate conduct, but are nevertheless blameworthy to a higher degree for their implication in some larger (or another person’s) wrongdoing. In this paper, I argue that there is a distinctively epistemic kind of complicity. First, I motivate the distinction between direct and vicarious responsibility with three interlocking arguments, respectively appealing to: i) the structure of rational agency; ii) linguistic considerations; iii) the role of “principal vs. accomplice” in legal doctrine. I show how these arguments naturally extend to the epistemic domain, motivating an epistemic form of vicarious responsibility. I then examine complicity as a mechanism of vicarious epistemic responsibility. To fill this out, I engage with an epistemic analogue of the debate about the role of intention versus causal contribution in complicity. I propose a Casual Account of Epistemic Complicity, arguing that it accommodates a wide range of cases, and enables fine-grained explanations of degrees of culpability for epistemic complicity. With an adequate account of epistemic complicity on hand, we can explain what is objectionable about an important class of epistemic agent who, on an individual level, may be epistemically blameless or blameworthy to a relatively low degree, but whose relation to other individuals or collectives nevertheless makes them epistemically blameworthy to a higher degree. I explore some broader implications of this result.



External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On complicity and compromise: a précis.Chiara Lepora & Robert E. Goodin - 2017 - Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (4):269-269.
Exploring Complicity: Concepts and Cases.Michael Neu, Robin Dunford & Afxentis Afxentiou (eds.) - 2016 - Rowman & Littlefield International.
Exploring Complicity: Concept, Cases and Critique.Michael Neu, Robin Dunford & Afxentis Afxentiou (eds.) - 2016 - New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Individual Complicity in Collective Wrongdoing.Brian Lawson - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (2):227-243.
Women’s Complicity.Ana Maskalan - 2022 - Filozofska Istrazivanja 42 (1):165-187.
Standing to epistemically blame.Cameron Boult - 2021 - Synthese 199 (3-4):11355-11375.
Individual Complicity: The Tortured Patient.Chiara Lepora - 2013 - In On complicity and compromise. Oxford United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Complicity.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2017 - In Marija Jankovic & Kirk Ludwig (eds.), Routledge Handbook on Collective Intentionality. Routledge University Press.
Institutional Evils, Culpable Complicity, and Duties to Engage in Moral Repair.Eliana Peck & Ellen K. Feder - 2018 - In Criticism and Compassion. Oxford, UK: Wiley. pp. 171–192.


Added to PP

392 (#48,218)

6 months
146 (#20,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Cameron Boult
Brandon University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

What we owe to each other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Moral dimensions: permissibility, meaning, blame.Thomas Scanlon - 2008 - Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

View all 55 references / Add more references