Explain And Evaluate Fricker's Epistemic Injustice

In this paper, I will present, explain, and evaluate Fricker’s Epistemic Injustice Argument in which Fricker explains the phenomenon of testimonial injustice and how it works. I suggest that Fricker’s theory does adequately explain the phenomenon of epistemic injustice regarding testimonial injustice. I think this paper succeeds because it is based on a traditional view in philosophy, such that epistemic abilities are what make it essential to be a human being. Essential parts of an identity for human beings are a person’s beliefs and values. Epistemic harm happens in tons of cases in society where it is not easy to identify the situation as epistemic harm. There are plenty of stigmatizations of people who are overweight or men who are not very masculine that cause epistemic harm but are hard to notice. Before explaining epistemic injustice, it is important to understand what Fricker means by “epistemic”. Fricker believes that epistemology is the analysis of knowledge. Therefore, epistemic injustice is injustice having to do with the analysis of
Although credibility deficit is already harmful on its own, credibility deficit becomes an injustice when the person in question has an identity prejudice. If I experience testimonial injustice in terms of credibility deficit, then I am not treated as a reliable source of information because of a stereotype. A stereotype is an association between a group and a property. It is a judgement based on group membership or association someone might have to another property. The association is the stereotype. Some stereotypes are fine because there is no actual judgement or problems that arise and we need stereotypes to make good kinds of testimonial justification. However, problems arise in prejudicial stereotypes of bad features. Less trust and credibility is given when there is a prejudicial