If you are asking whether much of our cognitive processing is "pre-formatted" then the answer is most certainly yes. Presumably the goal of things like mindfulness, or philosophy, or even education in general, is to lead us down the path of managing our own prejudices, even the pre-conscious ones.

I'm not sure I can comment on our autistic/normal debate example. I would hope my own respect for the inherent value of truth would protect me from any normative prejudices in this case.

If an autistic person engages in a debate with an allegedly "normal" person, — Mark Dennis

Somebody's been reading thephilosophyforum.com

"Presumably the goal of things like mindfulness, or philosophy, or even education in general, is to lead us down the path of managing our own prejudices, even the pre-conscious ones."

I'd agree to this. Does this mean that amongst people who have the opportunity to simply know better, even the pre-conscious discrimination should be treated with the same intolerance as racism?

I don't understand what you mean? I'm new to this forum.

Ironically, some of the most well-educated people can have the biggest blind spots. Subject-matter experts can become siloed in their specialties and lose touch with the need to stay relevant with and to the rest of humanity.

In principle, I'd agree that our prejudices, both conscious and pre-conscious, should be rooted out, but many cognitive biases are very deep-seated indeed. I do think that the first step towards managing such biases is understanding them.

I think Terrapin was making a joke to the effect that a lot of dialog on this forum seems like it is between an autistic person and a normal one. I'm new to the forum too, so I'm not sure where (s)he fits in that humorous equation.... :)

In principle, I'd agree that our prejudices, both conscious and pre-conscious, should be rooted out, but many cognitive biases are very deep-seated indeed. I do think that the first step towards managing such biases is understanding them. — Pantagruel

I think our prejudices form a central part of who and what we are. To blithely state that they should be rooted out shows a belief that this is even possible, never mind desirable. Our prejudices, beliefs, biases and opinions are the things that distinguish us, one from another. What remains is mostly what we all have in common.

Thoughts? :chin:

Well, a prejudice could be accurate or valid in the sense that you prejudge something and it turns out to be correct. In general though, the terms "prejudice" and "bias" are usually applied with a negative connotation, a prejudice that is unhealthy, a bias that is incorrect. I do think it is possible to differentiate and select between erroneous cognitive tendencies and valuable ones.

I think your view is quite widely shared, especially amongst those keen on science and analytic philosophy. But I'm not addressing that view directly. I'm suggesting that these qualities you seem to despise are just part of us; an intrinsic part of us. I am not Spock or Data; I am only me, a human. I have feelings and emotions, prejudices, biases and opinions. Take those away, and I am just Spock or Data. That which is me would be gone.

I understand, you have a unique perspective. But there are aspects of reality which are common, and it is our misconceptions about these which need to be brought into line. As George Eliot wrote, “We have all got to exert ourselves a little to keep sane, and call things by the same names as other people call them by.” Or, when the Transcendentalist Margret Fuller proclaimed "I accept the Universe," Carlyle sardonically remarked, "Gad, she had better."

Yes, we are all unique, but we also must acquiesce to agree upon what we have in common, and sometimes that entails "correcting" our own opinions, no?

It is my belief that the greatest unity is the one which supports the greatest diversity. It is one of my core precepts.

Mark Dennis, discrimination and racism has nothing to do with ethics or morals. It has to do with unjust cruelty.

Which moral precept is vaginized by discrimination? By racism?

I think discrimination a racism are both despicable and avoidable, attitudes, which must be forsaken, but they have nothing to do with ethics.

In what world do they not have anything to do with ethics? If we are asking whether or not there is a right or wrong statement to be made by either discrimination and by extension racism then are we not talking about ethics?

Justice, right and wrong, value, all are parts of ethics and I should know, I specialised in Ethics and I work in ethics!

Also "Vaginized?" I've never heard this term before and can't find how it relates to philosophy or ethics, just an entry in the urban dictionary. "A male that is just a pussy, and his little bitty balls are found in his wife's purse"

If I ask the simple question, Is it good to be prejudiced? Then I have just entered into the realm of ethics. Whenever we are studying our values, we are studying our ethics as Ethics is largely the study of value theory.

Don't even get me started on Metaethics!

"Presumably the goal of things like mindfulness, or philosophy, or even education in general, is to lead us down the path of managing our own prejudices, even the pre-conscious ones." I'd agree to this. Does this mean that amongst people who have the opportunity to simply know better, even the pre-conscious discrimination should be treated with the same intolerance as racism? — Mark Dennis

Intolerance is precisely what opens the door to discrimination. Having the opportunity to know better and making use of that opportunity do not necessarily go hand in hand, unfortunately. You can lead a horse to water, and all that. To discriminate against ignorance is the same as discriminating against autism, in my opinion.

I think any form of intolerance is destructive - including ‘justifiable intolerance’. Meeting pre-conscious discrimination with justifiable intolerance doesn’t fix the problem - all it does is promote intolerance in general. The solution to intolerance/discrimination is compassion and connection, collaborative achievement and increased awareness - all of which require tolerance in the face of intolerance.

Not everyone sees the world the same way as I do. That doesn’t make them wrong, although it does render at least one of us unaware of information - usually both. Intolerance is a refusal to be open to new information from a particular source.

The way I see it, I can’t change their mind if I don’t know how their mind works.

I'd agree that our prejudices, both conscious and pre-conscious, should be rooted out — Pantagruel

I agree with @Pattern-chaser that a large part of who I am, or who you are, consists of a long list of attitudes, prejudices, biases, preferences, likes, dislikes, antipathies, and so forth. Purging every bias would be impossible and would, as the man said, make me like Lieutenant Commander Data.

I'm old and tame now, but I remember being a fire-breathing SJW decades ago and making the demand that attitudes, prejudices, biases, etc. that I didn't like should be rooted out. I was, back in my days of confident righteousness, quite willing to expect compliance with my definition of what was just and good.

I was a pain in the ass--because I felt entitled to tell other people how their personhood should be remodeled to suit my standards. This imperious attitude is often a characteristic of people when they are young and burning with righteousness.

So, age has snowed white hair on my head and taught me that I was just as prejudiced, biased, discriminating, and hateful back then as anybody else--maybe more than many. Now I am suspicious of the people who are quite confident in their entitlement to tell me how I should think, feel, and act. I understand where you are coming from -- I've been there. \\

See below.

I'm not very interested in personal biases and prejudices, any more, because the real damage that is done to the victims of systemic bias, prejudice, and discrimination is carried out by powerful institutions and actors, not by fellow members of the working class.

Take racial prejudice. Racial prejudice applied to housing policy in real estate, mortgage banking, and government policy was a juggernaut, a giant steam roller, compared to the petty prejudices of ordinary folk. The FHA (a federal program) instituted a scheme of deliberate exclusion of blacks, hispanics, jews, and asians from the program's inception in the 1930s into the 1980s. By the time the official policy of suburban housing with low interest mortgages for whites and rented housing projects in the city for blacks (if anything) was abandoned, the damage was done. White suburbanites had been granted the opportunity for significant wealth accumulation and blacks had been denied it.

Housing policy segregated blacks in slums, contract-for-deed buying plans, or rental housing (where equity could not be reliably accumulated). Job discrimination--not by individual workers, but by Fortune 500 corporations--further sidelined the advancement of blacks and other minorities. School districts -- tied to local housing patterns -- again limited black opportunities. Concentrating poor disadvantaged children in 1 school pretty much guarantees poor results.

Whites should not be blamed for taking advantage of the good deal in housing offered them between the mid 1930s on into the present. Blacks should not be blamed for being the recipients of the extremely inferior deal which they received from the 1930s forward. The advantages of whites and the disadvantages of blacks are quite explainable as the result of official policies carried out with the support of governments, financial institutions, and major corporations--much, much more so than individual prejudices.

As a gay man, I can say that if you [hypothetically] hate fags and beat me up, that's a result of your bias. But if because I am gay I can not serve in the military, rent or buy decent housing for myself and my partner, get a decent job commensurate with my education and skills, and so on, that isn't your fault. That's the fault of large scale institutions who have set discriminatory policies. I want those policies to be changed. You can continue to hate fags [hypothetically], if you want. If you beat me up, I will definitely report the crime against my person.

This was very well said! Rest assured I have no issues with homosexuality.

How would you respond to the justifiable intolerance of dangerous criminals, murderers, rapists, child molesters and the like? Or my biological intolerance of things that may make me ill?

For me, being open to communication with racists just provides a platform for their ideology to reach others and it is a risky thing to engage in.

I do however agree with the notion that institutions are largely to blame. However doesn’t that mean our intolerance should be directed towards those institutions?

How would you respond to the justifiable intolerance of dangerous criminals, murderers, rapists, child molesters and the like? Or my biological intolerance of things that may make me ill? — Mark Dennis

As you say, intolerance of criminal behavior and disease is justifiable. The community and individuals can and should protect themselves from these potential harms, which may be preventable through good policy.

Our concern is when intolerance or discriminatory policy/behavior is not justifiable, by current standards. Standards change over time, but we have to deal with what we have today.

For me, being open to communication with racists just provides a platform for their ideology to reach others and it is a risky thing to engage in. — Mark Dennis

I understand there is risk. It’s risky to engage in anything. It’s risky to value freedom of speech. If your aim is to avoid racism, then your intolerance for racists may achieve this in your limited perspective, but it achieves little in reducing hatred and intolerance, in eradicating racism. It only helps you to feel more in control of your ‘safe’ little world. Combating intolerance with intolerance is small thinking.

How would you respond to the justifiable intolerance of dangerous criminals, murderers, rapists, child molesters and the like? Or my biological intolerance of things that may make me ill?
— Mark Dennis

As you say, intolerance of criminal behavior and disease is justifiable. — Bitter Crank

There is a difference between intolerance of criminal behaviour and disease, and intolerance of criminals, murderers, rapists, etc. One involves calling out the behaviour and insisting on alternatives - the other involves labelling a person and vilifying or discriminating against them based on this label. This second behaviour is not justifiable, and understanding the difference is important in relation to policies.

As for institutions being to blame - it’s a convenient barrier we hide behind so discriminatory behaviour can’t be attributed to us as individuals - “I’m just following policy/doing my job”. You can direct intolerance towards institutions as a scattered effect or as an organised resistance, but you can also get informed and connected, and effect change from the inside.

Fear of being enticed to the ‘dark side’ by engaging with those with whom we disagree highlights the weakness of our convictions. Understanding where someone is coming from in their discrimination is not siding with them - it’s recognising that the issue is not as ‘black and white’ as we like to think it is.

As for institutions being to blame - it’s a convenient barrier we hide behind so discriminatory behaviour can’t be attributed to us as individuals - “I’m just following policy/doing my job”. You can direct intolerance towards institutions as a scattered effect or as an organised resistance, but you can also get informed and connected, and effect change from the inside. — Possibility

Attributing blame to institutions may be a dodge to avoid personal blame, true enough. Nonetheless, the many individuals in concert who operate institutions are much more powerful than scattered, disconnected individuals. This is true across the board. Individuals working closely together for some purpose (good or bad) are vastly more powerful than 10 times, or 100 times as many scattered uncoordinated individuals.

In addition, "the institution" may behave like a large solid entity, rather than just an agglomeration of individuals. That's why armies are much more powerful than civilians, or the government is more powerful than citizens, or the church hierarchy is more powerful than believers who vastly outnumber them.

"Change from within" is sometimes possible, but I would say less often than would-be internal change agents would like to think. For one thing, it is quite easy for institutions to identify and shaft internal change agents who have the potential to be dangerous. There is also the matter of size: An institution composed of 100 people is more easily subverted (or reformed) than an institution of 10,000. It's the difference between a high school with 100 employees and a university with 10,000 employees. Large institutions are generally fairly successful In maintaining their raison d'être and modus operandi. Change happens when the cost of maintaining the status quo is greater than the cost of change, and it takes 'tectonic shifts' for that to happen.

A good example of the tectonic trouble needed for change would be the Catholic Church. Dioceses and archdioceses have been bankrupted because they had refused to change the status quo of protecting priestly misbehavior. Being busted by court settlements is the sort of tectonic event it has taken. (Time will tell how much change has or will take place.)

Another example is Deutsche Bank; it was fined many billions of dollars by several different national regulatory systems because they flouted national laws. They were finally compelled by tectonic failures to close their speculative investment division and lay off 18,000 people -- all at great cost--but less cost than continuing on the way they had been.

Deutsche Bank wasn't alone, of course. Banks like Wells Fargo were also playing loose with regulations and were fined substantial penalties.

Agreed. And many of these instances of tectonic trouble or failure originate from within - someone working from the inside is fast positioned outside the organisation when their efforts to effect change or accountability threaten the status quo, as you suggest. But then that’s the price of change. It’s rare that anyone working for change emerges from it unscathed, but it’s also rare for these tectonic shifts to occur without clandestine support from within, whistleblowers, etc.

In my view it isn’t power or influence that topples institutions or changes the status quo: it’s awareness, connection and collaboration - capable of transcending borders and infiltrating the hierarchies that work to protect those in power.

, I specialised in Ethics and I work in ethics! — Mark Dennis

What's the precept of ethics? What is it, in its most basic?

Ethics, in the sense that it is most often employed, "normative" ethics, is the study what people "ought" to do. What is "right," what is "wrong." Usually camps tend to divide over the notion of actions that are good "in themselves" (deontology) or actions that are good because of the consequences or outcomes of actions (teleology).

Thanks for the answer, Pantagruel.

Your answer hinges, it seems to me, what's "good" or "right" and what's "wrong".

What's good in and by itself? Love of your country? Love of your mother? Love of your spouse? Then you get into immediate contention of what's good if someone has a different coutry of his or her own, or differnt mother, or different spouse, and you at the same time have to share resources that are not enough in quantity for all involved.

I contest therefore, based on the above, that there can be a uniform deontological agreement, This renders deontology useless.

Outcomes? I save my country, my mother, my spouse. Even at the detriment of your country, your mother, your spouse.

Again, teleology can't have a uniform agreement. This renders teleology useless.

I deny the valildy therefore, on philosophical grounds, of any ethical finding, as they are all useless..

I therefore have the ideological right to deny any value in the work of people who work in ethics because their findings can't be anything but useless.

I especially detest those who boast of their ethical know-how gained through education or practice.

Ethics is nothing but a highfolutin ideology for hiding the self behind a complex set of ideas for the sole purpose of being completely selfish.

Well, you are essentially espousing psychological egoism, which is the belief that human beings are so constructed as to always act in a way which is self-referential, that is, to always maximize personal benefit.

All I can answer to that is that it seems not to be so to me. I routinely put the needs of others ahead of my own. I have seen examples in the world of others who do so. And perceived the lasting value of actions that enact such values. Arguably, they form part of the core and essence of what we call culture.

Pntagruel, I wish you to consider this point in my thiniking, which I hadn't mentioned until now.

People do unselfish, so-called good things for others. I do too, make no mistake. You, I and most of humanity put the needs of others ahead of our and their own, in many-many expressions and acts in their lives.

These acts are still self-referential. I can't say any more than that NOW, because I worked it out in a paper which no sensible academic publisher wants to publish. That's so, I beleive, because 1. I don't have qualifications, which ab ovo stops them form publishing my writing, and 2. my idea is an original, creative idea, not based on the classics (modern or ancient) and therefore they get panacy, like every time they don't want to see and understand that it's a brand new idea.

How can a layman have a workable original idea? They ask themselves, incredulously of my theory.

But I will keep on trying to pubish the paper somewhere. Until then I'd rather keep my ideas to myself. Thanks.

“I therefore have the ideological right to deny any value in the work of people who work in ethics because their findings can't be anything but useless.

I especially detest those who boast of their ethical know-how gained through education or practice.

Ethics is nothing but a highfolutin ideology for hiding the self behind a complex set of ideas for the sole purpose of being completely selfish.”
Hahaha! Without ethics none of us would be safe enough to even talk about these things. Also, Saul Kripke was self educated when he published his earliest works.

“There is nothing so profound and original that it hasn’t been said by a philosopher before.” - Descartes

That humans use ethics is a fact about our society, that you benefit from this use is also a fact. So complain all you want but even your approximation that ethics isn’t valuable is an ethical statement in and of itself as you’re talking about value.

If you really think ethics is so useless then you won’t be able to complain if you feel someone has wronged you.

Did it ever occur to you that you aren’t getting published because your methodology is full of bias and assumptions and that your idea isn’t workable? But sure, let’s all just blindly believe your idea you’re too frightened to share. It’s from you, so it must be right!

“What's the precept of ethics? What is it, in its most basic?” - Value theory! Jesus Christ, this is starting to get old. If you have no care for ethics then why are you commenting? You don’t accept deontology or teleology so how can you yourself ever claim to be ethical and why should we not judge you as unethical for being so arrogant as to think it doesn’t apply to you?

You don’t accept deontology or teleology so how can you yourself ever claim to be ethical — Mark Dennis

I don't accept deontology or teleology. I don't think that either are required to be ethical of course.

I’m an espouser of pragmatic ethics so I see some justification for aspects of both views. There is a distinct difference however between disagreeing with those views and condemning ethics in its entirety and that is exactly what God must be atheist is doing. For no other reason than he is mad that he was corrected for his false claims on multiple threads and can’t take honest appraisal and he flips out when he is called out for telling lies.

It would be so easy for us all to just say “that which we do not understand has no value.” But it doesn’t make it true. I don’t understand how Medical Drs do everything that they do but that doesn’t mean I’m going to say “I therefore have the ideological right to deny any value in the work of people who work in medicine because their findings can't be anything but useless”.

It would be so easy for us all to just say “that which we do not understand has no value.” — Mark Dennis

Well, valuing is something that individuals do. Things don't have value "on their own." They're valued by individuals, as much as the individual in question values whatever it is.