From Celebrities to Ordinary Citizen. Limits of the Legitimacy of Social Punishment

Abstract

Public discourse and academic debate on the permissibility of social punishment range from strong endorsement to categorical rejection. This paper defends a moderate view: social punishment practices such as shaming, canceling, or deplatforming may be legitimate, but only under certain conditions. It focuses on one key criterion: the social status of the wrongdoer and asks whether celebrities and non-celebrities should be treated differently. I argue that the epistemic power of celebrities justifies greater exposure to social punishment, whereas non-celebrities should generally be subject only to private punishment. The paper outlines the normative implications of this distinction. Due to the subject of this paper and given that it is a work in political philosophy, the method used here is reflective equilibrium.