long winded fool

Prejudice is a form of belief that is opposite to logic and therefore wrong. Prejudice is always formed from logical fallacies. The op is not about personal preference.

So then you do see personal preference and prejudice as equivalent. If you don't, why make this statement in a thread about prejudice?

I think any objective person would agree that logical errors lead to moral omissions. And I think that moral omissions always stem from logical errors. We argue with our own conscience about what to do or what to think about a certain thing. When we act immorally, or think irrationally, it is because there is a logical fallacy in our argument defending our behavior or beliefs against our conscience. (Because this Jewish person was ignorant, therefore all Jewish people are ignorant. This means I am justified in my prejudice.) When we find the fallacy, we can correct the behavior and act morally and think rationally.

Dr Rick

Please take the time to read an introductory book on logic; too many of your posts like this one are filled with logical fallacies and misconceptions about logic. In the meantime, try to understand that a preconceived preference or idea is not the opposite of a method of reasoning, and the use or non-use of logic is not a moral issue. Furthermore, morals do not arise from logic; one can be very logical and be immoral, and another can be illogical and still be good.



See, now here's another example. I've made it very clear that prejudices are preferences, but not all preferences are prejudices, so what you've created here is a fallacy of the undistributed middle. A crucial part of logic is being able to identify the actual arguments and definitions one is using and employ them in a consistent and rational way

A person who understood logic would never say something like this. One can make a logical argument about why one should kill another, but that wouldn't make it moral. One may not be able to logically explain why he thinks it's wrong to kill someone, but that doesn't make him any less moral.

Ethics are not logical constructs. You're really hung-up on the idea that the only "right" thinking is logic and that if something is right, then it must be logical, but if you understood logic, you'd realize that this is not so. Logic is not an absolute law which governs the universe, nor is it a set of rules which govern human behavior. It's a method of reasoning, not a law, rule, or moral imperative. Most human thinking is not logical, nor should or even can be. Love, devotion, empathy, and happiness as well as ethics do not lend themselves well to logic

This specific example does involve fallacious reasoning, but it's a non sequitur that completely misses the point. How do you know it is immoral to draw a conclusion such as the one the hypothetical person here did? We judge this type of prejudice to be wrong not because it's illogical, but because we believe it is wrong. One cannot through logic show that such prejudice is immoral even though the conclusion was drawn fallaciously. Point out the fallacy, and the person could still ask, "why is it immoral to believe my conclusion, even if it is wrong?" Using logic may show that person that his thinking is incorrect, but it doesn't show him that it is immoral. Morality does not derive from logic, nor does logic form the basis of morality.

long winded fool

But we aren't talking about a "preconceived preference or idea." We are talking about: 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.

I see. So your argument is that not all preferences are illogical. I agree and never claimed otherwise. All prejudices are illogical. The middle seems to be distributed nicely to me. Careful with that logic of yours! It can bite back.

One can make a valid argument about doing something immoral. I don't think one can make a sound argument about doing an immoral thing. The very label of "immoral" implies that it is illogical. Remember, for an argument to be logical, it must be both valid and sound. "All cats are green, I have a cat, therefore my cat is green," is perfectly valid. Because it is unsound, (false premise) it is not logical. Altering or omitting premises may make an argument valid but it does not make it sound.

I don't claim that human behavior is logical. In fact, I claim the reverse. So why don't we agree? Because I am labeling a moral imperative "illogical" and you think that it is logical. Why then do you defend it by claiming that it shouldn't be logical? I'm not claiming that it should be logical, I'm recognizing that it is illogical.

Slippery slippery. I don't think it is immoral to draw said hypothetical conclusion. I think it is illogical to draw said conclusion. I don't care if you think that this doesn't make it immoral. It is illogical. It becomes immoral when said illogical conclusion affects society in a negative way. (Whether it be giving offense to a neighbor or the vigilante murder of an innocent man under the justification of the illogical conclusion.)

It is not immoral to believe a certain thing. As Pyrrho points out, your beliefs affect your actions. Your actions can be immoral. Your beliefs can be illogical. As is clearly stated, prejudicial beliefs are illogical and prejudiced actions are immoral.

Dr Rick

Then show us the logical fallacies in the following:

"I will not befriend atheists because they reject Christ"

"I will not date Blacks because it wrong to mix the races"

"I love my wife and will take her over any other woman."

Then show us the logical fallacy in the following:

P1) Resources are limited.

P2) My neighbors use resources

P3) I need resources

P4) I will only be punished if I get caught committing a crime

C) It would be good to kill my neighbors if I don't get caught because then there will be more of the limited resources left for me.


You've contradicted your previous argument.

It's not the illogic of the belief that makes it wrong, but it's affect, according to this line of reasoning. To be consistent, it must follow that an illogical belief or prejudice that is beneficial to society must be good in this ethical system you are now proposing. What makes a thing moral or immoral here is its affects, not its reason or lack of logic.

Immoral beliefs are immoral; I believe it is immoral to be a racist even if one does not act on the racist beliefs, and logic has nothing to do with that judgement. I am perfectly comfortable holding that belief, you could not dissuade me from it by telling me that it is not logical, and it is a moral determination.

Morals do not arise from logic, and logic can lead to immorality

long winded fool

None of these things are examples of prejudice. They are personal beliefs. Prejudice is an opinion formed without due examination and without just grounds. All of these beliefs have just grounds.

I will not befriend those who reject Christ
Atheists reject Christ
Therefore I will not befriend atheists.

Maybe I disagree, but this still is not prejudice. It is an opinion formed with sufficient previous knowledge, preventing it from falling under the definition of prejudice.

Prejudice would be:
An atheist I once knew is adamantly against the golden rule
I see an atheist
Therefore he is adamantly against the golden rule

It's not prejudice unless it is based on the logical fallacy of compostition. (PRE-JUDICE) You can call personal preference prejudice if you think it'll help you win arguments, but you will always be wrong.

lol. Fallacy of exclusion? Choosing your premises wisely results in a valid argument, not necessarily a sound one. (see the green cat syllogism.) I'm not going to argue utilitarian morality with you. This thread is about prejudice and I'm sticking with my argument that it is immoral and illogical.

Doesn't this mean I've contradicted your argument? Maybe you could tell me what my argument was exactly so we can make sure you know what it is that I'm contradicting? And aren't all illogical beliefs less beneficial in the long run than the correct beliefs? Why waste energy?

Well, not a well thought out position, but fair enough.

Dr Rick

Prejudice is a preconceived preference or idea; one can be prejudiced by adhering to the original notion after seeing an argument and weighing the evidence. Most bigots have heard the arguments against racism, but they still hold their beliefs. I've seen other hairstyles and other wives; some may have advantages over what I have, but even so, I'm sticking with my preconceived preferences about both of them even if I'm presented with data that suggests my preferences may be erroneous.

Prejudices are preferences, but not all preferences are prejudices. If I've looked at various sports cars and analyzed thier strengths and weaknesses, and have decided I want a Lamborghini instead of a Ferrari based on the evidence, that 's a preference, not a prejudice.

contracycle

Dr Rick - the inital post used "prejudice/bigotry". I read your post as a criticism of the non-technical use of the term prejudice to describe bigotry. Would your qualifacation still stand if was the only term employed to date?

Dr Rick

I'm not sure what your asking here, but I think you're asking me if prejudice which involves antipathy towards groups or individuals is bad, and my answer is yes. It's bad not because it's irrational, but because it's immoral. Not all irrational thinking is unethical, and not all rational thinking leads to ethical conclusions, however.

Is that what you're asking me?

contracycle

Not exactly. I mean, I take your point about the term prejudice, but in the vernacular this does imply that the pre judger has made an illegitimate judgement, one which they are not in fact qualified to make. Which is more or less how I used it.

Bigotry seems more explicit. Would your objection to the use of the term prejudice in this sense extend to the use of the term bigotry?

Dr Rick

The title of the thread poses the question: Is prejudice/bigotry necessarily a bad thing? to which you replied:

You're definition of prejudice is not the one I've been using but if we use yours then the answer to the question is still "maybe" in my opinion because illegitimate jugdements are not necessarily evil, and also because prejudicial judgements can sometimes still be valid conclusions. On the other hand, if we use Professor Gordon Alport's definition, who wrote the seminal work, The Nature of Prejudice almost fifty years ago and defined prejudice as "an antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group or an individual of that group" then the answer to the question is "yes," imo, not because the prejudice is faulty, but because it's immoral as it's defined here.

The morality of a concept is not determined by it's legitimacy or it's rationale; many legitimate and rational conclusions can be immoral, and irrational conclusions can be moral. If we define prejudice in a way that makes all prejudice immoral, then we well find all prejudice immoral.