meritocrat

Why is it morally dubious?

Nowhere357

By definition, it is predjudice.

meritocrat

So?

Who is to say a person cannot be prejudiced?

Nowhere357

Who said anyone said a person cannot be prejudiced?

What was said is the behavior is morally dubious.

long winded fool

A person can be prejudiced. The point is that a person ought not be prejudiced. A person ought not be prejudiced because passing judgment without examination of the facts is irrational. It is immoral because it is detrimental to society.

If it is not detrimental to society, (i.e. you believe it but never act on or communicate this belief in any way,) then it might not be considered "immoral," however it is still irrational and must, along with all other logical fallacies, be objectively understood as incorrect thinking. While we may be legally entitled to wrong beliefs, we can't mistake this as implying that moral beliefs like these are all relative and subjective. Beliefs are right or they are wrong. While we can be wrong without legal punishment, we ought never be wrong without being labeled wrong.

pariah

Yes, it is logically wrong. And yes, it is morally wrong imo. However, I read meritocrats post as asking whether it was intrinsicly wrong...I dont think there are such things as inherent right or wrong. In a society where racism is common and held by the majority, it is morally correct (by their standards). Morality is not a concrete thing. As for logically right/wrong, it is always logically wrong but I dont think thats what the question was.

Dr Rick

Most prejudices are not detrimental to society, immoral, or logical fallacies. One's favorite hairstyle or devotion to a spouse may be prejudicial, but it would be difficult to demonstrate how either is morally wrong, detrimental to society, or fallacious. Acting upon such prejudices, such as offering employment to one person over another based upon his/her hairstyle may be morally wrong, but that doesn't make the actual preference wrong.

Prejudices are not logical fallacies: a personal preference for green-eyed blondes is a prejudice, but it is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is a technical flaw in an argument which makes it invalid, but most prejudices are preferences, not arguments. The justification for such a prejudice may or may not be fallacious. "I prefer skirts over pants because I think the former are prettier" is not a logical fallacy even if it is not necessarily rational, and again, there is no relative immorality or detriment to society in holding such a belief.

Morals are relative constructs, not logical conclusions. "Thou shalt not kill" is not a logical conclusion drawn from a set of premises; the edict itself is a precept. There are arguments in favor of the principle (ie. killing harms society) but there are also arguments against it (killing leaves more resources for others). In the final analysis, we say killing is wrong because we say killing is wrong.

How we judge prejudice is no different from any other moral determination. Prejudices are either wrong or right because we say they are wrong or right. It is wrong to be prejudiced against ethnic groups, it is not wrong to be prejudiced against mullets (they look really stupid), and yet it is wrong to prejudicially not hire someone because he wears a mullet. Most of us in Western societies with some fashion taste would agree with all three of these judgements, not because they are logical, but because that's what we believe. This is not an exercise in logic; it's an ethical determination.

So is prejudice wrong? The answer depends upon the specific prejudice and the ethical system one employs.

long winded fool

So prejudice is equivalent to personal preference?

prejudice: An opinion or judgment formed without due examination; prejudgment; a leaning toward one side of a question from other considerations than those belonging to it; an unreasonable predilection for, or objection against, anything; especially, an opinion or leaning adverse to anything, without just grounds, or before sufficient knowledge.

Predjudice is formed with the logical fallacy of categorical composition. Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, (one or some unreliable asians,) the whole is argued to have that property. (All asians are unreliable.)

What is "intrinsically wrong" if it's not logically wrong or morally wrong? What other kind of wrong is there?

Dr Rick

Strawman.

Prejudice is a subset of personal preference; nowhere on this thread is an argument of the kind made-up here.

Prejudice is not necessarily formed from logical fallacies or a lack of evidence; logic is a tool, not a universal descriptor of right behavour or thought. Prejudice is a form of belief, not an opposite to logic.

A preference for blondes is not a logical fallacy; logical fallacies are flawed arguments, not beliefs or opinions.

There are no logical wrongs in an ethical sense; logical errors and fallacies are flaws in argumention, not moral omissions or failures

contracycle

Dr Rick wrote:
But specifically, it is PRE-judice; i.e. the assumption of a position BEOFRe examining the argument. With your hairstyle, yuo probably considered others. With your spouse, you probably considered others. I'm not sure that applies to most of the '..isms'.