Why Predudices are so dangerous?

[Vinayaka]

Yes, of course, I agree with your point. However, when unbiased minds conclude that A. Hitler's regime was morally corrupt, they are doing it on the basis of the evidence. If we call their negative opinion prejudice, the word loses its power to imply unfairness.

Churchill and several others were anti-Semitic as well. But 'unbiased minds' as you put it seemed to let those guys off the hook.

 

[joe1776]

All judicial law is human and thus a bias. Some people can't see their own cultural bias, but it is there. E.g. cold-blooded murder as for cold-blooded is a bias. Now it is one that I share, but it is still a bias.

Criminal laws do contain some cultural biases but they are mainly built on conscience. Conscience is an intuitive function of our unconscious brains. When we intentionally harm an innocent person, our conscience signals us with a feeling of wrongness. Our criminal laws are built on those intuitive feelings.

 

[joe1776]

Churchill and several others were anti-Semitic as well. But 'unbiased minds' as you put it seemed to let those guys off the hook.

Most Christians were anti-Semitic but hating isn't a crime. Killing those you hate is.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Churchill and several others were anti-Semitic as well. But 'unbiased minds' as you put it seemed to let those guys off the hook.

Hitler was also inspired by American racism, imperialism and eugenics. America was very racist towards the Japanese, dehumanized them and put them in internment camps. US soliders also mutilated dead Japanese soldiers and would send body parts back home as trophies, like mail skulls back to their girlfriends as presents.

Let's not even get started on what our ally, Stalin, was doing to his people. He killed millions more than the Nazis. But I digress.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Criminal laws do contain some cultural biases but they are mainly built on conscience. Conscience is an intuitive function of our unconscious brains. When we intentionally harm an innocent person, our conscience signals us with a feeling of wrongness. Our criminal laws are built on those intuitive feelings.

No, some people wouldn't intentionally harm a guilty person. What you describe is a general biological "block" against harming other humans. Only around 1 in 10 green soldiers aim and fire to kill if given the chance. One of problem finding snipers, is to find a human willing to kill in cold blood.

 

[joe1776]

No, some people wouldn't intentionally harm a guilty person. What you describe is a general biological "block" against harming other humans. Only around 1 in 10 green soldiers aim and fire to kill if given the chance. One of problem finding snipers, is to find a human willing to kill in cold blood.

What I describe is conscience (moral intuition). It's conscience that discerns that the harmful act must be intentional to be morally wrong. That's why accidental traffic accidents that cause harm are considered negligence under the law but intentional acts of road rage are punished as criminal offenses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, of course, I agree with your point. However, when unbiased minds conclude that A. Hitler's regime was morally corrupt, they are doing it on the basis of the evidence. If we call their negative opinion prejudice, the word loses its power to imply unfairness.

No, unfair would still be unfair to some and fair to others. We are in the end debating moral realism versus anti-realism. As far as I can tell you appear to be a variant of realist, sort of. I am a die hard anti-realist, when it comes to the reality we share. The first step to do something about prejudice and bias, is to recognize we all have. The next is to learn to try to walk in the other human's shoes and then treat him/her as a human.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What I describe is conscience (moral intuition). It's conscience that discerns that the harmful act must be intentional to be morally wrong. That's why accidental traffic accidents that cause harm are considered negligence under the law but intentional acts of road rage are punished as criminal offenses.

So link to a study that shows that All humans have the same conscience. They don't, otherwise you wouldn't have anti-social behavior.
Psychopaths in biological terms are in a niche of survival. All humans can't be psychopaths, but a small number can and there is still a society. You can't derive morality in a universal sense from biology. Evolution takes place on the level of the individual human and groups of humans in some sense, but we are not the Borg. We don't have a hive-conscience.

 

[LuisDantas]

Prejudice, I would think, is dangerous because it brings unwarranted certainty and motivation.

Interestingly, the suspicion or reputation for prejudice also often qualifies as prejudice, and even when it does not it has many of the same dangers and drawbacks.

 

[joe1776]

No, unfair would still be unfair to some and fair to others.

What I said was that we don't want the word prejudice to imply both fairness and unfairness. Do you disagree with that?

We are in the end debating moral realism versus anti-realism.

I'm not debating moral philosophy because philosophy is the exercise of reason while morality is the province of intuition (conscience).

The first step to do something about prejudice and bias, is to recognize we all have. The next is to learn to try to walk in the other human's shoes and then treat him/her as a human.

I think the first step is to figure out the cause of prejudice -- which I did to my satisfaction in Post No. 3.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What I said was that we don't want the word prejudice to imply both fairness and unfairness. Do you disagree with that?

...

You and I are at the end. There is no universal we. I get what you are saying. I also get that you get me differently, because you speak for a "we". I don't.

 

[joe1776]

So link to a study that shows that All humans have the same conscience. They don't, otherwise you wouldn't have anti-social behavior.

Conscience is a moral guide. We have anti-social behavior because people often ignore it.

Psychopaths in biological terms are in a niche of survival. All humans can't be psychopaths, but a small number can and there is still a society. You can't derive morality in a universal sense from biology. Evolution takes place on the level of the individual human and groups of humans in some sense, but we are not the Borg. We don't have a hive-conscience.

Harvard's Moral Sense Test has been online now for a dozen years. It's intent is to find out if we have a cross-cultural conscience. There's other science support my position but I figured it out logically by beginning with the axiom that all knowledge begins with a sensation. And since, we can't see, hear, taste or smell the difference between right and wrong morally, we must feel it.

In other words, if we didn't first feel the difference between right and wrong, our reasoning minds would know absolutely nothing about morality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Conscience is a moral guide. We have anti-social behavior because people often ignore it.
...

Or there are different moral guides in humans. All humans have an individual moral guide, but it is not exactly the same.
Studies show that some people envoy other humans suffer. I don't think they ignore your moral guide. They have another.

 

[joe1776]

You and I are at the end. There is no universal we. I get what you are saying. I also get that you get me differently, because you speak for a "we". I don't.

If it ticks you off, forget the "we." Do you think the word prejudice should imply unfairness in one usage and fairness in another?

 

[joe1776]

Or there are different moral guides in humans. All humans have an individual moral guide, but it is not exactly the same.
Studies show that some people envoy other humans suffer. I don't think they ignore your moral guide. They have another.

Conscience is aligned with surival of the species. For example, killing innocent people is wrong. But killing in a clear case of self-defense is not. That aligns well with the survival off our species.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If it ticks you off, forget the "we." Do you think the word prejudice should imply unfairness in one usage and fairness in another?

I think the word should reflect reality. And yet you keep using a "we":

Conscience is aligned with surival of the species. For example, killing innocent people is wrong. But killing in a clear case of self-defense is not. That aligns well with the survival off our species.

BTW killing to a pacifist is always "wrong".

I will repeat myself. There is no "our" species. Evolution takes place on the level of the replication of the fittest gene. The human species don't not share the exact same genes and competition for mates and resources also take place within the human species.
So back to this:

"Do you think the word prejudice should imply unfairness in one usage and fairness in another?"

A bias is a bias, whether it is positive or negative. And one human's fairness is another human's unfairness.

I get you now. You think, that morality is about the species. It is not. The natural size of a human group is around 150 humans. Any larger (a society) and the natural conscience you speak of, is in part replaced power structures, armies, the law, strangers and what not. That leads to an imbalance. You don't notice it, but I know it. A part of my brain is different than a regular human. I experience what they perceive as fair as unfair and in reverse.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

BTW:
Evolution
abyss.uoregon.edu

In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits.

There is no "our" species.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Are you saying that God loves me?

Very much so. The Message of Christ, to me, was to show us that love is all encompasing. The only way to know how great is this love, is to be immersed in a matrix that develops the understanding. God knows all our thoughts and what we will choose, thus there is nothing we face that can not help us grow the required spiritual limbs.

It could very well be that nothing can happen to us, that an individual as part of humanity has in the past inflicted upon a Messenger from God. We are never teates beyond our capacity.

Now it gets complicated, how much are we willing to let go of what is this material world, to give all we can back to our fellow human family? To do this we require what is Godly and that is all the virtues, our spiritual limbs required to progress in all the worlds of God.

One would be a fool to say they have grasped any idea of what is to come and I see NDE events as a gift for all to consider, as long as we underatand that any explanation of those events will be clouded in material thought.

It is a topic that can not be exhausted and has many facets, I always wish you well and happy in this journey of life. Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg As I understand it, your intentions for the topic of this thread were for it to be about people feeling alienated from each other, and with their hearts hardened against each other, over lines they draw between themselves and others, and what to do about that. Am I understanding that right?

Jim - What I love about any topic is that it brings in the many diverse thoughts that can then clash to be discussed. We know then the spark of truth is lit and we all learn.

You have hit the nail on the head with one result of what it is to hold predudices. You will note with what is already posted, that predudices can go so deep, that we will offer argument that is already highly based in predudices without even considering we have done so.

A good example is bringing Hitler into this conversation. The whole Nazi ideal was based on extreme predudices and brought a war to the world. Yet some mentioned that Justly trying to stop this cancer, was in itself a predudice, without at all considering, or at least offering, it was a just action to stamp out such cancerous predudices.

Thus to me it is to try to see in each comment, what predudice is driving us to such a view, or is the view free of predudice and fair and balanced? To make us aware of the danger of predudices, to consider how many are still within us.

I hope that helps, you have a very analytical mind and I had an uncle who was very special, that was very much the same.

Regards Tony

 

[joe1776]

I think the word should reflect reality. And yet you keep using a "we":

I asked you to forget the 'we' and just answer the question.

BTW killing to a pacifist is always "wrong".

SO? What point are you making? The pacifist is wrong. He has allowed his reasoning mind to create a rule that ignores the judgments of his conscience.

I will repeat myself. There is no "our" species. Evolution takes place on the level of the replication of the fittest gene. The human species don't not share the exact same genes and competition for mates and resources also take place within the human species.

I'm human. You're human. It is our species.

A bias is a bias, whether it is positive or negative. And one human's fairness is another human's unfairness.

You're right that biases can be positive or negative. That's why, if we want a fair sentence for a convicted rapist, we don't give the job to the mother of the rapist or the father of the victim. Instead, justice is the product of unbiased minds.

I get you now. You think, that morality is about the species. It is not. The natural size of a human group is around 150 humans. Any larger (a society) and the natural conscience you speak of, is in part replaced power structures, armies, the law, strangers and what not. That leads to an imbalance. You don't notice it, but I know it. A part of my brain is different than a regular human. I experience what they perceive as fair as unfair and in reverse.

I didn't understand what you said except that I think that our moral intuition is linked to the survival of our species -- which is true.