Showing posts with label prejudice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prejudice. Show all posts

17 May, 2010

The Evolution of Prejudice

The other day I was voicing strong criticism of the muslim hijab. This lead to a discussion of "but forcing them not to wear it is as bad as them being forced to wear it," this lead to a ridiculous situation where both sides were using the same argument: prejudice is wrong, regardless of the message. Therefore we can't criticise people from other cultures because that's prejudice and prejudice is wrong.

This is actually a very important issue. One that Sam Harris has already brought up. People who are prejudice against prejudice like to think that they are occupying a strong moral high ground because it can not easily be attacked.

Wrong.

Fristly, prejudice is part of human nature. Everyone has prejudices. If you don't think you're prejudiced then consider that without them your sense of self must be by definition be so tenuous that you simply don't matter because you have no opinions, dreams, goals or will of your own.

Secondly, not all prejudices are bad: I hate lies. I hate liars. I hate laziness. I hate disease. I hate death. I hate religion. I hate manipulators. I hate insecurities. I hate ignorance. I hate cowardice. I hate poverty. I hate greed. I hate inequalities. I hate bullies. I hate injustice. I hate impatience. I hate intolerance. I hate defeatism. I hate disrespect. I hate stupidity.

Thirdly, prejudices could conceviably be positive (Prejudice, n, Any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative): I like life. I like people. I like Australia. I like honesty. I like self-control. I like courage. I like determination. I like kindness. I like understanding. I like independance. I like action. I like creativity.

Fourthly, prejudice is the foundation of morality. One person's prejudice is another's moral code. We can have conflicting moral feelings and that's very common. We can argue about the reasons why we have our different likes and hates. But you cannot attack me simply for having those feelings.

for example:

Person A: I hate foreigners who don't conform to our ways and culture.
Person B: You're a racist bigot.
Person C: Really? It doesn't upset me that much. Why does it upset you when foreigners don't conform to our ways and culture?

Who is more moral, person B or C?

Answer: none, they are all moral entities - one is either moral or not moral, there is no spectrum here.

Who is the more wise, person B or C?

I would argue that person C is the most wise because they have responded respectfully and honestly, while I would argue that person B is applying a very simplistic category-based system of morality because they have attacked another person for simply expressing an opinion.

I think one should consider the type of morality one has:

Is it category based? (Good guys and bad guys)
Is it value based? (Honesty, consistency, kindness etc...)
Is it reason based? (Because X = Y and then Y = Z this person should be treated like that even though usually when Y = Z we treat them like this)

If you are threatened by other people's opinions (as opposed by their actions) then remember that what a person thinks and what a person does are completely different things. If someone has opinions that upset you remember that logically you must have opinions that upset them. I suggest that we don't worry about getting upset about what other people's opinions, we just focus on getting upset with their actions.

Some food for thought:

If you don't like racism simply because it is wrong... can you still be a racist?
If you like your culture more than others are you being racist?
Can you like one thing and not hate its opposite?

20 December, 2009

Sex... Why are we so hung up on it?

Recently I saw this video clip on the Daily Beast:



Apparently, the Governor has a relationship with an escort and it's her fault.

Once again, as an atheist I feel it is my duty to strip away all of the dogma on how human beings are supposed to engage in sexual intercourse with each other and expose the prejudice here. When women label other women as 'sluts', 'whores', 'prostitutes' or whatever, they are living out what happened in the Stanford Prison Experiment. They feel once a women is publicly labelled as a slut that they can vent their repressed anger, jealously and frustration onto her. Why? Because they know they can get away with it.

This is immoral. Religious people often attack and demonise homosexuals and Jews for the same reasons. This is one of the things that upsets me most about religious people - they use the prejudices written in their dogma to justify the dehumanisation and venting of their frustration onto them.

I feel as an atheist I have to acknowledge that I have many feelings that are anti-social. Sometimes I get angry with beautiful people because they're shallow... sometimes I get angry with them because I'm very jealous. I believe that's part of being human I don't feel diminished in dignity and purity by admitting that I have destructive thoughts and feelings sometimes.

The majority of the women on this talk show appear to me to be angry with Mz. Dupree not because she had sex with lots of men but because she is beautiful, earned a lot of money doing something she enjoyed and managed to mingle with the creme-de-la-creme of society seemingly without any effort on her part. These are not good reasons to hate someone and the women on The View should feel ashamed not Mz. Dupree.

That said, I do find Mz. Dupree's sweeping generalisations about men irritating as she is only talking about her clientele and dating preferences not all men.

Conclusion, we often define mental illness as simply attributes some people have that we don't like. We invent reasons why their behaviour is bad after we've decided it is bad*. We then tell them it is their fault and their responsibility to change themselves when they can't really help being who they are. It is a twisted savage way of thinking.

* If you think that this is preposterous try this thought experiment: find a quality in a person that society considers 'good' then pretend that it's bad and think of reasons why it could be bad. You'll probably surprise yourself thinking about all the reasons why you could hate the 'good' things about some people.