Fricker contends that testimonial injustice always stems from prejudice. Here I will argue that she is right because regarding testimonial injustice, prejudice has the ability to increase or decrease the credibility of the speaker from the point of view of the listener.
Argument
In her book Epistemic Injustice, Miranda Fricker says testimonial injustice exists by reason of prejudice that cause a person to "give a deflated level of credibility to a speaker's word.” In this case, prejudice can be defined as premature opinions or inadequate judgements that are often considered principles by the person making them. Prejudices beliefs often stem from imitation, learned habits and inclinations. In relation, testimonial injustice occurs when anyone
…show more content…
In my argument I presented an example of a business woman not being seen as credible in the eyes of the listener just because she is a woman. This reenforces my original argument that Fricker is correct because prejudice has the ability to increase or decrease the credibility of the speaker through testimonial injustice. Yet, couldn't it also be true that this particular business woman may not have valid credentials or has been consistently wrong in the past making the listener questions her credibility for reasons that have nothing to do with her gender? For this reason, one might consider the idea of testimonial injustice existing on its own, with prejudice being a whole different equation. They might reenforce this objection by arguing with Fricker’s notion that testimonial injustice exists between epistemology and political philosophy. Epistemology could be defined as a theory of knowledge that sheds light on the differences between justified beliefs and opinions. Thus, separating theoretical justifiable beliefs found in testimonial injustice and the invalid preconceived opinions found in prejudice. Political philosophy in this case, could be defined as the study of questioning the fundamentals of society. Such as how a society should be created and how people should act within that society. Here, we can see testimonial injustice standing on its own with the standard of political philosophy illuminating any prejudice that could influence testimonial
In order to prove the existence of purposeful discrimination, McCleskey must first demonstrate that he belonged to a group “that is a recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment” (McCleskey v. Kemp 318). Here, McCleskey relied on the Baldus study,...
Throughout this essay, Rauch does a good job to defend prejudice. However, he makes it clear that he does not think it is right,
...hat he was completely undeserving of the inequitable allegations that the populace made toward his character. In the first sentence of the essay, Staples discusses his first “victim.” His use of this word at first provokes the reader to think that the author was a criminal, which illustrates the same mistake many other people had made in the real world. Staples realizes that, ultimately, there is nothing he can do about discrimination despite his innocence.
He does so by giving personal accounts of this horrific discrimination and utilizing descriptive vocabulary that get the audience to notice a sense of knowledge within the author. He begins to discuss the judgment he faced by stating “I grew accustomed to but never comfortable with people crossing to the other side of the street rather than pass me” (Staples, 189) which allowed the audience to step into the Staples’ shoes and somewhat experience the treatment he endured on a daily basis due to his appearance. The author also justifies his credibility by giving further examples such as when he was racially profiled in a jewelry store to the point where a woman worker brought out a red Doberman pinscher. By implementing these appeals to ethos, Staples was able to effectively convince the audience that he was a credible witness regarding these unjustifiable acts by describing to the reader events that he himself experienced. He was able to put forth this example which not only various African-American males could relate to, but also one that he himself personally endured which assisted in further strengthening his argument and successfully pulling the audience towards his
For many year humans have been trying to fight against discrimination in their communities, but it's an uphill battle that doesn’t seem like it’s been fully wiped out yet in our society. Discrimination and Prejudice has been a key issue that has affected many people around the world. In the movie that we saw in class, “My Cousin Vinny” (1992) it focused on these key issues of prejudice, discrimination, stereotypes and even eye witness testimonies. In the movie it focuses on these key issues while bringing a little humor to the viewers. In this paper I will be going into more detail of how this movie really brought to light these key issues.
When the word “prejudice” is mentioned in public conversation, undertones of anger and unfairness usually accompany it. Prejudice is often defined as a predetermined opinion not based on fact,experience, or knowledge. Many acts of inequalities and discriminative wrong-doings in history can be traced back to being a result of prejudice.So what place does a concept with such a negative connotation have in an institution of higher education where students and faculty of varying cultures and backgrounds come together to learn? Instinctively, a good number of people would answer that prejudice and its negative consequences have no place in such an environment. However, a contradicting opinion is expressed in an article written by Jonathan Rauch titled “In Defense of Prejudice” . In this article, Rauch expresses his dissatisfaction with the
Prejudice can be defined as any preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience, 2. Harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment, and due in part to the first Amendment, which gave all Americans the right of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, many Americans believe they have the right to verbally judge whomever and whatever they seem fit, to no extent. However these same American underestimate the impact prejudice can have on a person’s body and mind because as we all know prejudice grows. Prejudice can also affect all phases of life: the past, the present, and the future. Maya Angelou said, “ Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future and renders the present inaccessible.
Discrimination is known as unjust treatment of a particular group. In The Ways We Lie by Stephanie Ericsson, she discusses stereotypes and cliches (Ericsson 478). Discrimination is often a stereotypical device
Prejudice meaning pre-judging someone and having an unwarranted bias occurs often in today’s society and has been around since the beginning of time. Prejudice can effect people’s decisions and have an unfair impact on society. The text ‘To kill a mocking-bird’ written by Harper Lee and the movie ‘Philadelphia’ directed by Jonathon Demme explore this idea thoroughly.
In Begby’s article, “The Epistemology of Prejudice”, he proposes his argument in objection of the common view on the topic of prejudices. The common view of prejudice is that: if a person holds a prejudicial claim or thought, then this person must be epistemic culpable because the common view holders take prejudice as an universal generalized claim. In contrast with the common view, Begby claims that there is no strong correlation between prejudices and epistemic culpability, and the common view is incorrect because he thinks that prejudice does not indicate an universal generalization (90). This paper will be divided in three parts: 1) the explication of the common view; 2) the explication of Begby’s distinction between prejudice and epistemic
Louise Derman-Sparks and Julie Olsen Edwards, authors of Anti-Bias Education: for Young Children and Ourselves, provide a great example of an internal bias that results in unfair judgments. “One example is if you were raised to believe that being prompt is a sign of responsibility, and your family always had a car, then it might be hard for you to comprehend the experience of low-income families who chronically drop their children off late due to unreliable buses (pg. 21).” It is little anecdotes like those that make you evaluate your pure un-bias tendencies against certain social identities.
The basis for this concept, begins with the causes of prejudice. While there are many causes that relate to prejudice, the context ...
Throughout the paper, Hare reiterates the example of how sometimes people can claim that they face injustice by spouting out actions or events that they believe is an unjust to them, without providing any substantial evidence or reasons as to why these actions causes them injustice. He explains how this example construes as a bad argument with weak conclusions, providing unsubstantial ideas to society. Before Hare even goes into the rebuttal of the claim...
We see how Miss Gates, is hypocritical about what prejudice is. She insults Tom Robinson during his trial because of his skin colour, that Tom’s race, should be taught a
Prejudice and discrimination have both been prevalent throughout human history. Prejudice deals with the inflexible and irrational attitudes and opinions that are held by others of one group against those of another. Discrimination on the other hand refers to the behaviors directed against another group. Prejudiced individuals have preconceived beliefs about groups of people or cultural practices. There are both positive and negative forms of prejudice, however, the negative form of prejudice leads to discrimination. Individuals that practice discrimination do so to protect opportunities for themselves, by denying access to those whom they believe do not deserve the same treatment as everyone else. An example of discrimination based on prejudice involves the Jews. “Biased sentiments and negative stereotypes of Jews have been a part of Western tradition for centuries and, in fact, have been stronger and more vicious in Europe than in the United States. For nearly two millennia, European Jews have been chastised and persecuted as the “killers of Christ” and stereotyped as materialistic moneylenders and crafty business owners (Healey, p.65). The prejudice against these groups led to the discrimination against them.