El presente artículo interroga la posibilidad de que la justicia, entendida como institución, se transforme al reconocer como injusticias estructurales las injusticias epistémicas relacionadas con el abuso sexual. Para ello analizaré la decisión de la jueza Rosemary Aquilina de invitar a más de 150 sobrevivientes de abuso sexual a dar su testimonio en el juicio a Larry Nassar. Sostengo que este acto de escucha y acompañamiento de las sobrevivientes durante las audiencias reconoce el valor de narrar la experiencia de abuso (...) sexual, muestra el daño de la injusticia epistémica por los prejuicios que interfieren con la credibilidad de las víctimas y las estructuras de poder que silencian los testimonios. En un segundo momento, analizo las audiencias donde hay una participación colectiva de las sobrevivientes como un espacio de acompañamiento que las empodera en tanto sujetos epistémicos y agentes morales. (shrink)

In 1970 the voting age in Canada changed from 21 to 18. Since then, there have been calls to lower it further, most commonly to age 16. Against the motion, however, it has been argued that youth may lack the ability to exercise a mature and informed vote. This paper argues against that worry and shows how restricting youth from voting on the basis of a misbelief about their abilities amounts to an epistemic injustice.

This paper will highlight how the existing approaches to the Strawman Fallacy and the Principle of Charity are unable to fully accommodate the problems of interpreting children’s arguments. A lack of charity is as problematic as an excess of charity when arguing with children, and can contribute to misinterpretation of arguments. An application of moderate charity avoids the pitfalls of misrepresenting children. However, interpreting children’s arguments with the appropriate amount of charity is a challenging task. The argumentative context is relevant (...) in determining the interpretive approach and the extent of charity that can be justified. The context of arguing with children necessitates an Ethics of Care-based approach to interpretation. Michael Gilbert’s concept of coalescent argumentation exemplifies how Ethics of Care can be realized during argumentative exchanges involving children. (shrink)

Several recent authors have argued that children are subject to testimonial injustice in the same way as are women, Blacks, and several other social identity groups. Testimonial injustice is standardly conceptualized, following Miranda Fricker’s seminal account, as a wrongful credibility deficit. I argue that this concept of testimonial injustice is too narrow to capture testimonial injustice against children. There is good reason to think that children are less reliable testifiers than adults, so it is not necessarily wrong to assign a (...) credibility deficit to a child speaker, in the way it is wrong in the case of a female or black speaker. However, I argue that children are nevertheless subjected to testimonial injustice. Testimonial injustice against children is constituted primarily by a failure to actively inquire into assertions by children — that is, by a failure to patiently and reflectively engage in discourse with the child to discover what they may know. (shrink)