Is It Enough to Do What Someone Else Says Is Right?

A colleague tells you that a joke demeans a particular group. Even if you do not yet grasp why, trusting her and not forwarding it may still be reasonable. Contemporary philosophers call this kind of reliance on another person's moral judgement “moral testimony”. The dispute is not simply whether we may listen to others, but what we gain by doing so.

Alison Hills distinguishes moral knowledge from moral understanding: reliable testimony may enable someone to know that an act is wrong without understanding why. Without that understanding, the person may struggle to recognise nearby cases, explain or apologise, or judge for themselves when rules conflict. Yet critics of an overly demanding ideal of independence note that affected people and those with relevant experience may possess situational knowledge we lack. Insisting that everyone reason everything out alone can preserve ignorance rather than autonomy.

My view is that moral testimony can be a sound starting point for action. When harm is imminent, pausing is more responsible than insisting, “I must work it out entirely for myself.” But where the reasons can be learned, testimony should not be the endpoint. Mature autonomy does not mean refusing dependence on others; it means acknowledging their epistemic advantage while developing an understanding that can guide new cases.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-epistemology/
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid%3A1a341a69-8cd1-47cc-8b80-884791832d2b