Maxime Lepoutre
Biographic Data
| ID | 1490309 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Maxime Lepoutre |
| GIVEN NAMES | Maxime |
| FAMILY NAME | Lepoutre |
| SIGNATURE | LEPOUTRE M |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Reading |
| ORCID | 0000-0001-7573-8585 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 16 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 35 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 16 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2017 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2026 |
| H-INDEX | 3 |
Affirming democracy: Should we exaggerate support for democracy to save it?
Democracies around the world have increasingly faced concerted efforts to dismantle democratic institutions. How should public speakers respond to such attempts at democratic backsliding? A widespread rhetorical strategy is to affirm democracy —that is, to publicly invoke the value of democracy and vigorously insist on the need to defend it. I argue that this practice gives rise to an underappreciated democratic dilemma. On one hand, distinctive …
Educational Falsehoods
Responsible policymaking often relies on esoteric scientific knowledge. Yet, in a democracy, policymaking also requires support from laypeople who lack this knowledge. Is it permissible for experts to communicate falsehoods about esoteric matters to bolster this public support? The standard answer is “no.” A near-consensus view, in democratic theory and philosophy of science, holds that experts should be honest. The present article challenges thi…
Introduction—The Moral and Political Philosophy of Risk
Moral and political philosophers are increasingly putting issues of risk and uncertainty at the forefront of normative thinking. This turn to risk in moral and political philosophy is exposing deep conceptual and theoretical puzzles, some of which have only recently received extended attention. For example, how should we conceptualise ‘risk’ for the purposes of normative theorising? Can the risk of harm itself be a harm? When is it morally permis…
Mobilizing Falsehoods
Public speakers often use their speech to mobilize their audience—that is, to motivate their audience to take action, collectively, in support of a political cause. But successfully mobilizing a group can be extremely difficult. To overcome this difficulty, mobilizers frequently resort to deploying falsehoods, for example by exaggerating the odds of success associated with political action, downplaying the costs of political action, or idealizing…
Hateful Counterspeech
Faced with hate speech, oppressed groups can use their own speech to respond to their verbal oppressors. This “counterspeech,” however, sometimes itself takes on a hateful form. This paper explores the moral standing of such “hateful counterspeech.” Is there a fundamental moral asymmetry between hateful counterspeech, and the hateful utterances of dominant or oppressive groups? Or are claims that such an asymmetry exists indefensible? I argue for…
The Red Mist
An influential critique of anger holds that anger comes at an important epistemic cost. In particular, feeling angry typically makes risk less visible to us. This is anger’s "red mist." These epistemic costs, critics suggest, arguably outweigh the epistemic benefits commonly ascribed to anger. This essay argues that the epistemic critique of anger is importantly misleading. This is not because it underestimates anger’s epistemic benefits, but rat…
Democratic speech in divided times: An introduction
This is the introduction to the symposium on Maxime Lepoutre, Democratic Speech in Divided Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021). The symposium contains articles by Paul Billingham, Rachel Fraser, and Michael Hannon, and a response by the author
Discursive optimism defended
This article defends the democratic ideal of inclusive public discourse, as articulated in Democratic Speech in Divided Times, against the critiques offered by Billingham, Fraser, and Hannon. Specifically, it considers and responds to three core challenges. The first challenge argues, notably, that the “shared reasons” constraint should either apply everywhere or not at all, and that, if this constraint is to apply in divided circumstances, its j…
Teaching & Learning Guide for: Counterspeech
Counterspeech is communication that tries to counteract potential harm brought about by other speech. This might involve, for example, vocally criticising a hateful tirade, or publicly correcting misinformation. The appeal of counterspeech stems partly from considerations of free speech, and partly from considerations of effectiveness: unlike legal restrictions, counterspeech aims to prevent speech-based harms without prohibiting speech; moreover…
Political Understanding
Public opinion research has shown that voters accept many falsehoods about politics. This observation is widely considered troubling for democracy – and especially participatory ideals of democracy. I argue that this influential narrative is nevertheless flawed because it misunderstands the nature of political understanding. Drawing on philosophical examinations of scientific modelling, I demonstrate that accepting falsehoods within one's model o…
Counterspeech
Counterspeech is communication that tries to counteract potential harm brought about by other speech. Theoretical interest in counterspeech partly derives from a libertarian ideal - as captured in the claim that the solution to bad speech is more speech - and partly from a recognition that well-meaning attempts to counteract harm through speech can easily misfire or backfire. Here we survey recent work on the question of what makes counterspeech …
Narrative Counterspeech
The proliferation of conspiracy theories poses a significant threat to democratic decision-making. To counter this threat, many political theorists advocate countering conspiracy theories with ‘more speech’ (or ‘counterspeech’). Yet conspiracy theories are notoriously resistant to counterspeech. This article aims to conceptualise and defend a novel form of counterspeech – narrative counterspeech – that is singularly well-placed to overcome this r…
Democratic Group Cognition
Citizens of contemporary democracies are famously uninformed about politics.They typically know little about who their representatives are, what policies those representatives support, or how the political system works. 1Social scientists and political philosophers alike often worry that this jeopardizes the normative ideal of democracy.Democracy matters, in significant part, as a way of holding policy-makers accountable to the interests and conc…
Can "More Speech" Counter Ignorant Speech
Ignorant speech, which spreads falsehoods about people and policies, is pervasive in public discourse. A popular response to this problem recommends countering ignorant speech with more speech, rather than legal regulations. However, Mary Kate McGowan has influentially argued that this "counterspeech" response is flawed, as it overlooks the asymmetric pliability of conversational norms: the phenomenon whereby some conversational norms are easier …
Rage inside the machine: Defending the place of anger in democratic speech
According to an influential objection, which Martha Nussbaum has powerfully restated, expressing anger in democratic public discourse is counterproductive from the standpoint of justice. To resist this challenge, this article articulates a crucial yet underappreciated sense in which angry discourse is epistemically productive. Drawing on recent developments in the philosophy of emotion, which emphasize the distinctive phenomenology of emotion, I …
Hate Speech in Public Discourse: A Pessimistic Defense of Counterspeech
Jeremy Waldron, among others, has forcefully argued that public hate speech assaults the dignity of its targets. Without denying this claim, I contend that it fails to establish that bans, rather than counterspeech, are the appropriate response. By articulating a more refined understanding of counterspeech, I suggest that counterspeech constitutes a better way of blocking hate speech’s dignitarian harm. In turn, I address two objections: accordin…
Rage inside the machine: Defending the place of anger in democratic speech
According to an influential objection, which Martha Nussbaum has powerfully restated, expressing anger in democratic public discourse is counterproductive from the standpoint of justice. To resist this challenge, this article articulates a crucial yet underappreciated sense in which angry discourse is epistemically productive. Drawing on recent developments in the philosophy of emotion, which emphasize the distinctive phenomenology of emotion, I …
Democratic Group Cognition
Citizens of contemporary democracies are famously uninformed about politics.They typically know little about who their representatives are, what policies those representatives support, or how the political system works. 1Social scientists and political philosophers alike often worry that this jeopardizes the normative ideal of democracy.Democracy matters, in significant part, as a way of holding policy-makers accountable to the interests and conc…
Political Understanding
Public opinion research has shown that voters accept many falsehoods about politics. This observation is widely considered troubling for democracy – and especially participatory ideals of democracy. I argue that this influential narrative is nevertheless flawed because it misunderstands the nature of political understanding. Drawing on philosophical examinations of scientific modelling, I demonstrate that accepting falsehoods within one's model o…
Counterspeech
Counterspeech is communication that tries to counteract potential harm brought about by other speech. Theoretical interest in counterspeech partly derives from a libertarian ideal - as captured in the claim that the solution to bad speech is more speech - and partly from a recognition that well-meaning attempts to counteract harm through speech can easily misfire or backfire. Here we survey recent work on the question of what makes counterspeech …
Narrative Counterspeech
The proliferation of conspiracy theories poses a significant threat to democratic decision-making. To counter this threat, many political theorists advocate countering conspiracy theories with ‘more speech’ (or ‘counterspeech’). Yet conspiracy theories are notoriously resistant to counterspeech. This article aims to conceptualise and defend a novel form of counterspeech – narrative counterspeech – that is singularly well-placed to overcome this r…
Mobilizing Falsehoods
Public speakers often use their speech to mobilize their audience—that is, to motivate their audience to take action, collectively, in support of a political cause. But successfully mobilizing a group can be extremely difficult. To overcome this difficulty, mobilizers frequently resort to deploying falsehoods, for example by exaggerating the odds of success associated with political action, downplaying the costs of political action, or idealizing…
Hate Speech in Public Discourse: A Pessimistic Defense of Counterspeech
Jeremy Waldron, among others, has forcefully argued that public hate speech assaults the dignity of its targets. Without denying this claim, I contend that it fails to establish that bans, rather than counterspeech, are the appropriate response. By articulating a more refined understanding of counterspeech, I suggest that counterspeech constitutes a better way of blocking hate speech’s dignitarian harm. In turn, I address two objections: accordin…
Rage inside the machine: Defending the place of anger in democratic speech
According to an influential objection, which Martha Nussbaum has powerfully restated, expressing anger in democratic public discourse is counterproductive from the standpoint of justice. To resist this challenge, this article articulates a crucial yet underappreciated sense in which angry discourse is epistemically productive. Drawing on recent developments in the philosophy of emotion, which emphasize the distinctive phenomenology of emotion, I …
Can "More Speech" Counter Ignorant Speech
Ignorant speech, which spreads falsehoods about people and policies, is pervasive in public discourse. A popular response to this problem recommends countering ignorant speech with more speech, rather than legal regulations. However, Mary Kate McGowan has influentially argued that this "counterspeech" response is flawed, as it overlooks the asymmetric pliability of conversational norms: the phenomenon whereby some conversational norms are easier …
Democratic Group Cognition
Citizens of contemporary democracies are famously uninformed about politics.They typically know little about who their representatives are, what policies those representatives support, or how the political system works. 1Social scientists and political philosophers alike often worry that this jeopardizes the normative ideal of democracy.Democracy matters, in significant part, as a way of holding policy-makers accountable to the interests and conc…
Narrative Counterspeech
The proliferation of conspiracy theories poses a significant threat to democratic decision-making. To counter this threat, many political theorists advocate countering conspiracy theories with ‘more speech’ (or ‘counterspeech’). Yet conspiracy theories are notoriously resistant to counterspeech. This article aims to conceptualise and defend a novel form of counterspeech – narrative counterspeech – that is singularly well-placed to overcome this r…
Hateful Counterspeech
Faced with hate speech, oppressed groups can use their own speech to respond to their verbal oppressors. This “counterspeech,” however, sometimes itself takes on a hateful form. This paper explores the moral standing of such “hateful counterspeech.” Is there a fundamental moral asymmetry between hateful counterspeech, and the hateful utterances of dominant or oppressive groups? Or are claims that such an asymmetry exists indefensible? I argue for…
The Red Mist
An influential critique of anger holds that anger comes at an important epistemic cost. In particular, feeling angry typically makes risk less visible to us. This is anger’s "red mist." These epistemic costs, critics suggest, arguably outweigh the epistemic benefits commonly ascribed to anger. This essay argues that the epistemic critique of anger is importantly misleading. This is not because it underestimates anger’s epistemic benefits, but rat…
Democratic speech in divided times: An introduction
This is the introduction to the symposium on Maxime Lepoutre, Democratic Speech in Divided Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021). The symposium contains articles by Paul Billingham, Rachel Fraser, and Michael Hannon, and a response by the author
Discursive optimism defended
This article defends the democratic ideal of inclusive public discourse, as articulated in Democratic Speech in Divided Times, against the critiques offered by Billingham, Fraser, and Hannon. Specifically, it considers and responds to three core challenges. The first challenge argues, notably, that the “shared reasons” constraint should either apply everywhere or not at all, and that, if this constraint is to apply in divided circumstances, its j…
Teaching & Learning Guide for: Counterspeech
Counterspeech is communication that tries to counteract potential harm brought about by other speech. This might involve, for example, vocally criticising a hateful tirade, or publicly correcting misinformation. The appeal of counterspeech stems partly from considerations of free speech, and partly from considerations of effectiveness: unlike legal restrictions, counterspeech aims to prevent speech-based harms without prohibiting speech; moreover…
Political Understanding
Public opinion research has shown that voters accept many falsehoods about politics. This observation is widely considered troubling for democracy – and especially participatory ideals of democracy. I argue that this influential narrative is nevertheless flawed because it misunderstands the nature of political understanding. Drawing on philosophical examinations of scientific modelling, I demonstrate that accepting falsehoods within one's model o…
Counterspeech
Counterspeech is communication that tries to counteract potential harm brought about by other speech. Theoretical interest in counterspeech partly derives from a libertarian ideal - as captured in the claim that the solution to bad speech is more speech - and partly from a recognition that well-meaning attempts to counteract harm through speech can easily misfire or backfire. Here we survey recent work on the question of what makes counterspeech …
Mobilizing Falsehoods
Public speakers often use their speech to mobilize their audience—that is, to motivate their audience to take action, collectively, in support of a political cause. But successfully mobilizing a group can be extremely difficult. To overcome this difficulty, mobilizers frequently resort to deploying falsehoods, for example by exaggerating the odds of success associated with political action, downplaying the costs of political action, or idealizing…
Educational Falsehoods
Responsible policymaking often relies on esoteric scientific knowledge. Yet, in a democracy, policymaking also requires support from laypeople who lack this knowledge. Is it permissible for experts to communicate falsehoods about esoteric matters to bolster this public support? The standard answer is “no.” A near-consensus view, in democratic theory and philosophy of science, holds that experts should be honest. The present article challenges thi…
Introduction—The Moral and Political Philosophy of Risk
Moral and political philosophers are increasingly putting issues of risk and uncertainty at the forefront of normative thinking. This turn to risk in moral and political philosophy is exposing deep conceptual and theoretical puzzles, some of which have only recently received extended attention. For example, how should we conceptualise ‘risk’ for the purposes of normative theorising? Can the risk of harm itself be a harm? When is it morally permis…
Affirming democracy: Should we exaggerate support for democracy to save it?
Democracies around the world have increasingly faced concerted efforts to dismantle democratic institutions. How should public speakers respond to such attempts at democratic backsliding? A widespread rhetorical strategy is to affirm democracy —that is, to publicly invoke the value of democracy and vigorously insist on the need to defend it. I argue that this practice gives rise to an underappreciated democratic dilemma. On one hand, distinctive …
Law (14 works) · Political science (14 works) · Sociology (12 works) · Epistemology (11 works) · Philosophy (11 works) · Politics (10 works) · Law (9 works) · Psychology (9 works) · Democracy (7 works) · Social Psychology (7 works)