Philosopher Miranda Fricker

Question: How might a reasonable person disagree with either the philosophical concept or with how you have applied it? Answer: Philosopher Miranda Fricker brings to light the truth about testimonial injustice (Fricker, 2007). Testimonial injustice presents a situation where an informant is reduced to the state of a source of information. In testimonial injustice, a person is wrongfully denied of his or her capability as an informant. The hearer is either prejudiced enough to offer excessive credibility to the informant and base his or her entire view on the information provided or the hearer undermines the speaker leaning on predisposed prejudice about his or her stand in the society. Miranda Frickers revelations coincide with the common findings regarding testimonial injustice. Testimonial injustice has a tendency to lean towards the theory of legal practice (Frank, 2013). This happens more often in the courts of law because testimony is often considered to be a proof of something that happened or something that did not occur. The question here is that why a person is considered capable of giving a testimony and why are others deemed incapable of the same. These practices are present both formally and socially. The same prejudice that is active in case of testimonial injustice can be present for the same individual on other platforms as well; such an instance is called systematic injustice. The speaker suffers from a credibility deficit when a case of testimonial injustice presents itself. The words of the speaker being disregarded in spite of ample proof supporting the testimony because of social and individual prejudice are a common occurrence. Fricker brings forth the example of Tom Robinson of "To kill a Mockingbird to the forefront. Tom Robinson was a black man who was accused of assaulting a white woman. There was ample amount of evidence pointing towards his innocence. For example, it was proved that the assailant was a left-hander, but Robinson had a handicapped left hand, which could not have led the assault. However, the white jurors could not believe any of Robinson's explanations or reasoning as to why he visited the victim in the first place because the jurors were prejudiced due to Robinson's skin color coming in the way of the trial (Wanderer, 2012). To cite an example, the indigenous group of people can be brought in. If and when a native group presents a proposal to increase political recognition or when such a group claims that a particular sacred place should be protected as a TCP or Traditional Cultural property they have to attain credibility that they are in fact a merited indigenous group whose views cannot and should not be disregarded (Pohlhaus Jr, 2014). Moreover, an expert who can rightly recognize them and their practices is brought in to give their case some weight or rather to prove that their case exists. They alone cannot pull the act together because of the prevailing prejudice against them. The tribal members with expert knowledge and credibility are not considered for their opinion irrespective of what position they hold in the society. Some argue that testimonial injustice of these sorts can be avoided simply by elevating the awareness of how courts work with native indigenous groups. Some people are of the opinion that the situation can be altered by modifying the legal infrastructure in particular part of the society to minimize judicial unfairness (De Bruin, 2014). However, years of repeated practice makes it difficult for the justice system to change as per the changing needs of the society. People fail to notice legal and societal bases of testimonial injustice because they are nothing out of the ordinary. Some people may argue with the fact that indigenous people are not being subjected to injustice any longer as there are specific laws to support their case. One such law is the Indian Claims Commission Act, which was coined and started in the year 1946 (Kwong, 2015). The law allowed tribal applicants to give their testimony basing on the conventional tribal pattern of land use and abuse when considering a case of wrongful distribution of land by the government without the tribe's consent. This is an example of change that is happening in the legal world to let in and help the indigenous groups. While the world might be changing for the indigenous people, not everything is all right. They are still being denied their rights just because of their origin. Miranda Fricker's idea of testimonial injustice rightly explains their state as information sources for their condition rather than being informants themselves, which demeans their worth and disregards their position in the society. The scenario is changing but the change is slow, and there are several more obstacles to overcome before the next level can be reached. References De Bruin, B. (2014). Self-Fulfilling Epistemic Injustice. Frank, J. (2013). Mitigating against epistemic injustice in educational research.Educational Researcher,42(7), 363-370. Fricker, M. (2007).Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing(p. 7). New York: Oxford. Kwong, J. (2015). Epistemic Injustice and Openà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ Mindedness.Hypatia,30(2), 337-351. Pohlhaus Jr, G. (2014). Discerning the primary epistemic harm in cases of testimonial injustice.Social Epistemology,28(2), 99-114. Wanderer, J. (2012). Addressing testimonial injustice: Being ignored and being rejected.The Philosophical Quarterly,62(246), 148-169.