
Whose Account Gets Believed? Start by Examining the Credibility Test
Testimonial injustice asks whether prejudice, rather than evidence, is reducing the credibility given to someone’s account.
Untangle an everyday disagreement by identifying the factual claim, the value at stake and the decision people are trying to make.

Testimonial injustice asks whether prejudice, rather than evidence, is reducing the credibility given to someone’s account.

A lottery can distribute a scarce opportunity impartially only after the group has examined eligibility, equal chances and the fairness of the process.

Separate a prediction about what may happen from a promise someone is being invited to rely on.

Permission to take a photograph does not answer every question about sharing it. Consider audience, context and the expectations of the people pictured.

Think through the privacy choices involved in returning a lost wallet, from minimal identification to handing it to an appropriate service.

A borrowed object can create a second request: may you lend it to somebody else? Separate possession from permission before answering for its owner.

Examine a small resource-sharing decision by separating equal amounts, different needs and the reasons a group can explain publicly.

Examine the time costs hidden inside a supposedly free request, and design choices that let other people decline without friction.

Designing a fair queue starts with deciding what arrival means, how exceptions work and what happens when someone loses their connection.