In defense of dependence on moral testimony

In this dissertation, I defend dependence on moral testimony. To that end, against pessimistic views regarding dependence on moral testimony I argue that moral testimony can confer epistemic warrant and that dependence on it is not at odds with good moral agency. I show how going defenses of dependence on moral testimony have portrayed it as second-best by centering on how and why it is an important means to overcoming our defects. I argue that the value of dependence on moral testimony goes beyond this: it is not only our flaws and limitations that justify our dependence on moral testimony, but also the importance of such dependence for the flourishing of our intimate relationships. On my view, dependence on moral testimony is not simply for those who cannot realize the ideals of moral agency; it is among those ideals.