Abstract
Miranda Fricker has influentially discussed testimonial injustice: the injustice done to a speaker S by a hearer H when H gives S less-than-merited credibility. Here, I explore the prospects for a novel form of testimonial injustice, where H affords S due credibility, that is, the amount of credibility S deserves. I present two kinds of cases intended to illustrate this category, and argue that there is presumptive reason to think that testimonial injustice with due credibility exists. I show that if it is denied that ultimately these cases exemplify testimonial injustice without credibility deficit, then either they must be taken to exemplify a novel kind of epistemic, non-testimonial injustice, or they bring to light a significant exegetical result.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 203-211 |
Number of pages | 9 |
Journal | Thought: A Journal of Philosophy |
Volume | 5 |
Issue number | 3 |
Early online date | 25 Jul 2016 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Sep 2016 |
Keywords
- testimonial injustice
- epistemic injustice
- Miranda Fricker
- mansplaining
- credibility deficit
- due credibility
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Testimonial Injustice Without Credibility Deficit (or Excess)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Profiles
-
Federico Luzzi
- School of Divinity, History & Philosophy, Philosophy - Senior Lecturer
Person: Academic