EPAF PhD Students Defenses
Congratulations to our students who completed the PhD in Ethics and Public Affairs this past term. Your hard work and dedication paid off, and we look forward to seeing you cross the stage next year!
Read through their abstracts below.
Andreanne Veillette, “Conspiracies, Contempt and Care: Rethinking Solutions to Belief in Conspiracy Theories through Intergroup Dynamics”
Conspiracy theories—i.e., irresponsible epistemic beliefs characterized by a refusal of relevant expertise, the attribution of nefarious motives to an individual or group, and a preoccupation for socially or politically important events (Chapter 1)—are linked to serious consequences such as epistemic failings, acrimonious intergroup relations, individual psychological difficulties, and, most importantly, threats to democracy through their links to authoritarianism (Chapter 2).
As such, I argue that reducing belief in conspiracy theories is important. The most common solutions that seek to reduce belief in conspiracy theories are fact-based approaches which focus on rational presentation of true information, usually delivered by experts or science communicators (Chapter 3). Although these methods are somewhat effective at reducing irresponsible epistemic beliefs, their effectiveness depends heavily on emotional components that are often incorporated into the interventions accidentally or as an afterthought. This being the case, I argue that to devise more effective solutions to the problem of belief in conspiracy theories, its emotional components must be better understood and incorporated into the interventions as a focal point, rather than an afterthought. To properly understand emotion-based solutions (Chapter 4), it is necessary to understand the power of group affiliation and intergroup emotions.
One intergroup emotion that I hypothesize plays a particularly important role in driving adherence to belief in conspiracy theories is outgroup contempt (Chapter 5)—i.e., a negative intergroup emotion elicited by evaluating a group (appraisal of status) as composed of subpar human beings (involving a comparative or reflexive element and a globalist response), followed by a tendency to withdraw. The results of two original empirical studies suggest that we have good reason to believe that perceived outgroup contempt contributes to political conspiracy mentality.
Considering the detrimental effect of contempt, I argue that solutions should not rely on outgroup contempt. As an alternative, I suggest trying to eliminate outgroup contempt from front-facing interventions by relying on safe spaces. Additionally, I offer a framework inspired by care ethics within which we should elaborate future solutions (Chapter 6).
Sophia Sideris, “The Concept, Ethics, and Policy Challenge of Climate Migration”
Migration driven by anthropogenic climate change is increasingly being discussed as a distinctive and pressing ethical and policy problem of our time. However, research on the topic has been hampered by epistemic and practical difficulties with disentangling climate-related factors from other migratory pressures, along with the apparent urgency to fit climate migrants into the constraints of already-established migration pathways and regimes.
This dissertation investigates how a nuanced understanding of the difficulties of identifying climate migrants can fruitfully inform theoretical work on climate migration, as well as migrant-receiving states’ policies.
The first article (Chapter 3) argues that extant typologies of climate migrants fail to capture an essential normative dimension of the concept, which pertains to migrant-receiving states’ moral culpability as contributors to climate change. This makes it difficult to identify climate migrants as climate migrants, and it results in policies that fail to recognize their claims to “restorative” justice.
The second article (Chapter 4) borrows insights from James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State (1998) to explore how the bureaucratic infrastructure of migrant-receiving states has made them functionally blind to climate migrants’ distinctive claims to protection and pushed them into other ill-suited migration pathways. The result is an example of epistemic injustice, in Miranda Fricker’s (2007) terminology, since climate migrants themselves also lack the conceptual resources to express their experience and claims in terms that appeal to the role of climate change.
In the third article (Chapter 5), I apply Iris Marion Young’s (2011) “social connection model” of moral and legal responsibility to climate migration considered as an instance of structural injustice, for which a number of actors bear collective responsibility. I extrapolate a concept of collective remedy which I apply to the case of prima facie refugee status determination (PFRSD). While PFRSD has historically only been used in cases where there is a lack of capacity for individual status determination, I argue that group-based determination represents an appropriate policy option for addressing some of the challenges posed by climate migration.
Benjamin Segobaetso, “Ethical Governance of Outer Space: An Engaged Philosophical Inquiry”
This thesis examines the ethical challenges posed by the accelerating expansion of human activities in outer space. While the governance of outer space has traditionally been shaped by international legal instruments most notably the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, adopted during the Cold War to promote peace, non-appropriation, and international cooperation these frameworks have become increasingly inadequate in addressing the complex realities of contemporary space activity. The current landscape is defined by rapid commercialization, growing private-sector involvement, intensifying geopolitical rivalries, and the cumulative threat of environmental degradation. These developments expose significant normative gaps and regulatory ambiguities within existing governance structures, thereby underscoring the urgent need for renewed international accords grounded in robust ethical reasoning.
In response to these challenges, the thesis employs Jonathan Wolff’s methodology of engaged philosophy, particularly its first three steps, which involve: (1) identifying real-world public concerns; (2) analyzing them through appropriate normative frameworks; and (3) developing plausible ethical responses that resonate with widely accepted values. This methodology enables a critical engagement with both the practical dilemmas and the normative dimensions of space governance, ensuring that philosophical analysis remains grounded in the lived realities of policy formation and global justice.
Through this approach, the research identifies and interrogates key ethical and public concerns including sovereignty and property rights, distributive inequality, epistemic injustice, planetary environmental harm, and intergenerational responsibility as they arise in contemporary space policy discourse. These concerns are examined in relation to evolving legal instruments such as the Artemis Accords and national space legislation, which often reflect and reinforce commercial and strategic interests.
Building on this analysis, the thesis proposes a normative framework for ethical space governance grounded in the principles of human security, the right to development (RTD), intergenerational justice, and environmental sustainability. This framework not only critiques current trajectories but also offers a constructive, ethics-based orientation for future policy formulation.
Ultimately, this dissertation contributes to the emerging field of space ethics by demonstrating how engaged philosophical reasoning can illuminate the moral dimensions of outer space activities and inform the development of inclusive, precautionary, and just governance structures for the human future beyond Earth.
Timothy Grainger, “Journalism Through a Feminist Relational Lens: Addressing Epistemic Injustice and Exploitation”
The institution of journalism is recognized as playing a crucial role in democratic societies, yet its function as an epistemic institution, one that shapes whose knowledge is legitimized and whose voices are heard in public discourse, remains undertheorized. This dissertation investigates how journalism participates in epistemic injustices and explores how feminist relational theory can provide frameworks for understanding and addressing these harms.
This dissertation is written in an “integrated article” format, consisting of three main body chapters that are written in the style of stand-alone journal articles. They are preceded by an introduction and literature review and followed by a conclusion that reflects on the contributions made by the dissertation as a whole.
The first article (Chapter 3) argues that accounts of epistemic injustice must examine institutional structures that systematically determine whose knowledge is considered legitimate. Through a case study of media coverage of the Grassy Narrows mercury poisoning crisis (1970-1975), I argue that journalism functions as an epistemic institution that has actively marginalized Indigenous epistemic resources while reinforcing colonial stereotypes, showing that structural rather than individual virtue-based approaches are necessary for addressing knowledge-based harms.
The second article (Chapter 4) challenges journalism’s traditional emphasis as a supposed pillar of objectivity by demonstrating that journalists engage in (reconstructive) memory activities at every stage of their work. Drawing on Sue Campbell’s relational account of memory, I argue that good journalism requires a “faithfulness to the past” through accuracy and integrity rather than a disconnected objectivity. Using Joe Sacco’s comic journalism as an example, I show how respectful relationship-building with sources and communities enables journalists to fulfill their normative responsibilities as agents of memory.
In the third article (Chapter 5), I apply Nora Berenstain’s concept of epistemic exploitation to journalism, arguing that efforts to increase representation of marginalized voices can paradoxically perpetuate injustices (without structural institutional change), I demonstrate how both marginalized sources and journalists face double binds that demand uncompensated educational labor, and propose that feminist relational approaches emphasizing care, attentiveness, and solidarity offer pathways for building more just relationships between journalism institutions and marginalized communities.