Yash Agarwal

This paper identifies a puzzle in Miranda Fricker's account of testimonial injustice, the puzzle of hearer culpability: how is it possible for hearers to be culpable for beliefs they form on the basis of stereotypes and prejudices that regularly bypass conscious thought? In trying to solve this puzzle, I consider one way to hold hearers culpable despite stereotypes and prejudices bypassing conscious thought, that is, by focusing on the hearer's upstream epistemic practices. I then show that even factoring in upstream epistemic practices, there are cases where the speaker sustains testimonial injustice without the hearer being culpable. To account for these cases then I suggest redefining testimonial injustice in a way that recognizes the role of wider structural factors, and not just individual failings. I sketch a view of this structural dimension of testimonial injustice, drawing on our understanding of another kind of epistemic injustice, hermeneutical injustice. Taking account of this structural dimension, I then offer a richer account of hearer culpability, one that understands culpability to fall on a spectrum.

Grounding chains are usually taken to be top-ist, grounded in the largest entity (the cosmos), or bottom-ist, grounded in the smallest entity(ies) (mereological atoms). Between these two, middle-ism, the view that grounding chains terminate in middle-sized entities (like iPhones, toasters, amoebae), is almost never considered. Sarah Bernstein in her paper Could a middle level be the most fundamental? argues for the plausibility for middle-ism. In this paper I argue against Bernstein in that middle-ism is a view much more problematic than top-ism or bottom-ism. This is shown in three ways. The paper first shows how the middle level itself is problematic. The second problem is that middle-ism leads to a contradiction with respect to the notion of relative fundamentality, and third, middle-ism creates fatal problems for the parthood relation. Through these three issues, the paper shows how middle-ism is problematic in lieu of having fatal problems which refrain it from serving as the theory to explain fundamentalia and subsequently grounding structures.