What is a speaker owed?

Suppose someone tells you something. Under what conditions do owe it to her accept she's said? I will call this The Question. Question raises an issue of philosophical significance. For one thing, the appears be at heart #BelieveWomen, that part #MeToo movement focusing on proper way respond allegations sexual harassment. Do we women who tell us they have been assaulted believe them? How should accommodate fact that, rare as these examples are,11 According Claire E. Ferguson and John M. Malouff, “Assessing Police Classifications Sexual Assault Reports: A Meta-Analysis False Reporting Rates,” Archives Behavior 45, no. 5 (2016): 1185–93, all reports harassment, only percent are such either false or there is not enough evidence support a criminal charge. everyone having does so truthfully? These important questions; addressing them requires taking up But importance transcends #BelieveWomen. Speakers feel characteristic sting when their word repudiated. Elizabeth Anscombe notes can “an insult injury” believed.22 Anscombe, “What Believe Someone?” in Rationality Religious Belief, ed. C. F. Delaney (South Bend: University Notre Dame Press: 1979), 9. Miranda Fricker argues certain ways disbelieving another person—namely, those manifesting credibility deficit driven by identity-prejudice—are tantamount committing “testimonial injustice” against her.33 Fricker, Epistemic Injustice: Power Ethics Knowing (Oxford: Oxford Press, 2007), 1. Other writers, too, recognize least undeserved, rejecting speaker's say-so “slights” “abuses”44 Both terms used Ted Hinchman, “Telling Inviting Trust,”Philosophy Phenomenological Research 70, 3 (2005): 565 & 568. constitutes “offense”55 Richard Moran, “Getting Told Being Believed,” Epistemology Testimony, eds. Jennifer Lackey Ernest Sosa 2006), 301. “special insult”66 Allan Hazlett, “On special refusing testimony,” Philosophical Explorations 20, 1 (2017): S39. her. Each forgoing authors would appear committed idea audience speaker said—on pain slight abuse offense etc. By illuminate characterize scope phenomenon. Reflecting Question, however, make uneasy. Presumably sense “owing” play, ask owes speaker, matter ethics justice.77 There also line argument which relationships intimacy, friendships, generate obligations bearing acceptance another's say-so. literature here vast; see e.g. Simon Keller, “Belief for Someone Else's Sake,” Topics 46, (2018): 19–36; “Friendship Belief,” Papers 33, (2004): 329–51; Sarah Stroud, “Epistemic Partiality Friendship,” 116, (2006): 498–524; Luxury Understanding: On Value True Belief 2013); Paul Morton, “Believing Others,” 75–96; Berislav Marušiç Steven White, “How Can Beliefs Wrong?—A Strawsonian Epistemology,” 97–114. criticism Jason Kawall, epistemic norms,” Studies 165, 2 (2013): 349–70; Katherine Hawley, “Partiality Prejudice Trusting,” Synthese 191, 9 (2014): 2029–45; Nomy Arpaly Anna Brinkerhoff, “Why Overrated,” 37–51; Sanford Goldberg, “Against Friendship: Value-Reflecting Reasons,” 176, 8 2221–42; Cathy Mason, “The demands friendship: friendship inherently knowledge-involving,” 199, (2021): 2439–55. return, briefly, end paper. At same time, bears traditionally has thought exclusive domain epistemology: namely, another. And seem though presupposes ethical justice-based constraints standards acceptance. Insofar allegation highly controversial,88 To sure, proponents constraints. doxastic wronging “moral encroachment” full proposals sort: e.g., James Fritz, “Pragmatic Encroachment Moral Encroachment,” Pacific Quarterly 98, S1 643–61; Rima Basu, “Can Wrong?” 1–18; “Radical Encroachment: Stakes Racist Beliefs,” Issues 29, (2019): 9–23; Moss, “Moral Proceedings Aristotelian Society 118, 177–205; Mark Schroeder, “When Wrong,” 115–27; Basu “Doxastic Wronging,” Pragmatic Epistemology, Brian Kim Matthew McGrath (New York: Routledge, 2019); Renée Jorgensen Bolinger, “Varieties Perspectives 34, (2020): 5–26. controversial: Endre Begby, Morality: Moderately Skeptical Perspective,” 155–72; Georgi Gardiner, “Evidentialism Believing Accordance with Evidence, Kevin McCain Springer Publishing: 2018), 169–95; Robert Carry Osborne, epistemically each other? reply Basu,” 178, 1005–22. return sort treat worthy being addressed risks oneself outset controversial assumption. Given topic, most curious perplexity raised received significant attention literature.99 Kimberly Ferzan, “#BelieveWomen Presumption Innocence: Clarifying Questions Law Life,” Truth Evidence: NOMOS LXIV, Melissa Schwartzberg Philip Kitcher NYU 2021), 65–108; 109–44, two excellent recent discussions. speculate because simple strategy avoid controversy. involves articulating justice demands—what speaker—in distinctly terms. view, (morally speaking) doing sanctioned epistemology. Interestingly, insofar she addresses all, herself follow strategy. She represents audience's “obligation” “match[ing] level [the audience] attributes interlocutor he speaker] offering truth.” 1010 Injustice, 19 (italics added). If proposal could made work, no need worry about impinging standards; contrary, then appeal very articulate audiences.1111 Geoff Pynn Ferzan defend positions demand articulated exclusively See Pynn, Degradation Testimonial Injustice,” Applied 151–70; Innocence.” discuss views below. hope, then, able answer invite This where start, candidate answers while question—what speaker—is justice, content owed One key points wish paper work. Before proceeding our several preliminary comments order. First, language Question—Under said?—uses “accept” rather than “believe.” order dispute insist belief control, thing “owed” Acceptance control,1212 Indeed, was basis notion originally introduced into literature. L. Jonathan Cohen, Acceptance,” Mind 391 (1989): 367–38. even if think control requirement another, good Question.1313 Holton, “Deciding Trust, Coming Believe,” Australasian Journal Philosophy 72, (1994): 63–76 relevant issue. Second, said, assuming address question without any concern is, saying. Not agree: perhaps said (or it) some significance—to relationship, well-being, what-have-you.1414 Many papers partiality precisely point; references footnote 8. world difference, after between cases victim assault morning's weather. Still, deep insights reject out identity-prejudice wrong “in capacity knower,” whatever said.1515 5. Following assume makes generality, attending content—recognizing might further depending whom.1616 Compare Belief.” distinguishes question, What entitlement believed?, from sorts arise context closer relationships.” Third, many big deal distinction accepting says believing them.1717 Someone?”; Edward Craig, Knowledge State Nature: An Essay Conceptual Synthesis 1990); Trust”; Believed”; Faulkner, Telling 464 (2007): 875–902; Benjamin McMyler, “Obedience Person,” Investigations 39, 58–77; interesting critical discussion, Finlay Malcolm, Insult Compliment Testifier,” Episteme 15, 50–64. person, action event) imbued interpersonal normativity, whereas humdrum affair understood antiseptic my purposes here, am happy grant distinction, and—modulo first clarificatory point, above—I them. continue speak “acceptance” “belief,” reason indicated above. Fourth, account whether something entitled place.1818 deserves much more received. Conversational Pressure: Normativity Speech Exchanges 2020), chap. 2. It may not: consider unwelcome verbiage garrulous seat-mate international flight, colleague suffers logorrhea, neighbor indulges salacious gossip, acquaintance drones inconsequential matters. Perhaps anything were place. Perhaps. want take stand this. read qualified: given under attention, Those hope making commitment attempt provide answer. Such characterizes epistemological In section argue correct: focus condition audience, both, face insurmountable problems. (KSP) When something, just case spoke knowledge. Of course far speaker-based We arrive other, weaker variants replacing talk knowledge other property, justified rational belief. Alternatively, stronger version certainty Happily, differences irrelevant say While (KSP), naturally apply Mirroring rule assertion, suppose acceptance, enjoins assertion known speaker.2121 161. initial difficulty arises Pynn's suggestion regarding permitted assert (namely, knows), states obligation. As Goldberg Bolinger argued, clear how get former latter.2323 “Anti-Reductionism Expected Trust,” 100, 4 952–70; My brief suggestions above go distance direction, but filled in. serious problem facing circumstances (i) (albeit misleading) untrustworthy; (ii) violate obligation decline evidence. Since satisfied speaks knowledge, false. Consider familiar children's tale involving boy cried wolf. well-known history lying townspeople, claiming wolf not, merely sport it. time actually sees it, believes him. Nor him occasion. tale's lesson seems lose believed—to one's accepted—if abuses others' trust. falsifies (KSP): true knowledge.2424 42 brings car salesperson: wronged lot. himself aware concern. thinks appearances deceiving here: his report track record notwithstanding. impression contrary explained away norm violating blameworthy. particular, enjoined cries occasion (as requires), blamed failure so, (our of) record.2525 161–62. unpersuasive, serve aim preserving purely unpersuasive. recognizes boy's lies previous occasions (epistemically morally) regard violated way, claim moral word, implausible. theme trust: trust itself affective state relies will.2626 classics Annette Baier, “Trust Antitrust,” 96, (1986): 231–60; “Trust,” n Tanner Lectures Human Values, Volume 13 (Salt Lake City: Utah 1992); Karen Jones, “Second-Hand Knowledge,” (1999): 55–78; Affective Attitude,” 107, (1996): 4–25. Even doubtful nature trust,2727 Onora O'Neill, Autonomy Trust Bioethics (Cambridge: Cambridge 2002); Terror,” Psychology: Feminist Social Theory, Peggy DesAutels Margaret Urban Walker (Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield, 2004), 3–18; “Trust, Distrust, Commitment,” Noûs 48, 1–20, among others. cannot denied implicated relations reason, wrongheaded principle trust, thereby generating strongly negative reactive attitudes yet still expect trusted knowledgeably. met. After blame past wrongs—wrongs trust—without undermining present them.2828 thank anonymous referee example. point. insisting inconsistent untrustworthy. cast requiring accept/believe patently irrational fashion.2929 response recast rationality never conflict justice. effect so-called encroachers.” position below, V. spirit since acknowledges (JBAU) total supports hypothesis last topics importance, audience-based rendered particularly plausible anti-reductionism testimony. basic behind this: (by own lights) adequate said. Combining anti-reductionism, view long reasons doubt. audience's] judgement issued well-trained sensitivity salient features testimonial performance context…then justified.3232 77. #BelieveWomen through prism uses respect both them.3333 Innocence,” non-reductionism [= anti-reductionism]. That start baseline justify them.3434 Ibid. Unfortunately, faces insuperable difficulties.3535 objection using speakers existence lacuna noted connection Injustice”: postulate permission, claims obligations. Though bring difficulties incorporates testimony—call “(JBAU+AIT)”—what holds every (JBAU+AIT) misfires different ways: yields positives (cases predicts accept, so), interestingly negatives well does). interesting, teach concerns inadequacy Question—including audience.3636 worth noting “assurance view” testimony hold Question—one condition. Person.” do, targeted follow. (JBAU+AIT)'s easy come by. exceptionally talented liar, happen possessed speaking Whatever situation he's harder by, illumination shed submit meets following specification: (a) knowledge;3737 Here throughout description, free substitute your favorite here. (b) untrustworthy, knowledge; (c) real task showing sometimes Inspired reflections injustice, show needs shown norms themselves. unbeknownst one, body shaped distorting factors racism sexism pernicious -ism) prevalent community, disbelieve reject) Black female unjustly. clear, mind manifests prejudice reaction exist, course, uninteresting perspective. Rather, reacts competent fashion evidence, reflects prevailing prejudices rationally discern possible, save Question: background provides doubt reliability testimony, sanction cases. Why possible?3838 Arguments possibility found Kristie Dotson, “A Cautionary Tale: Limiting Oppression,” Frontiers 24–47; 2021); Emmalon Davis, “Typecasts, Tokens, Spokespersons: Case Credibility Excess Hypatia 31, 485–501; Wrongs no, 2497–515. addition, empirical actual presented Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Racism Racists: Color-blind Persistence Racial Inequality America, 3rd (Lanham: 2009). Well, begin, large source insidious effects -isms affect testimonies encounters community. score, decidedly unhelpful prospects answer, lowers bar belief, easier young children acquire beliefs racist sexist communities. independent grounds thinking themselves or…, rejec