What Goes Wrong in Debates over Public Monuments

Objective This essay aims to explain the impasse in debates concerning Confederate monuments in public spaces by noting a difference in unstated philosophical assumptions. Method I 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. Results Arguably, 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). Conclusions The 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.