Reply With Quote
The rational pathologies might be epiphenomenal rather than causative. That's really all I was trying to say there.
No and we're all prejudiced in some way shape or form. But there's a fundamental difference between making poor assumptions about say - the way a brand of soda tastes - or an entire race of people.
I may be misunderstanding you here, but I have to ask why? I think holding someone to a reasonable expectation of not forming assumptions of others based upon skin color is fair as . Someone who cannot abide by that is bigoted.Dunno. I tend to doubt the connection between unexamined premises and racism is necessary. Racism is customary in addition to being ideological and rationalized. Might be a sufficient condition, tho.
If the premise is unexamined then you can simply say "I don't know" but if you assume an unexamined premise leads you to a conclusion then I don't see how you could defend that.
Ignorance is fine. We're not all supposed to know everything. Opinions based upon ignorance are not, however.
The rational pathologies might be epiphenomenal rather than causative. That's really all I was trying to say there.
Sure - I think its rationalization but not necessarily a logical conclusion. You made me go to a dictionary, btw.
Morality enters into it when the subject of judgment is people. No doubt.
Then there's social mores. It's no longer socially respectable to be openly bigoted.
But I totally disagree it's reasonable to expect people to be strictly reasonable, or to expect them not to have formed assumptions beforehand about race.
You don't kick them all into the same ditch. Some are better, some are worse.
So go to town, Manny.
WC is way overdue an epiphany then.
Not until he stops buying his own bs.
Why do you disagree?
WH, do you think there are a large segment of people who form predisposed opinions of someone based upon the color their eyes?
So I kind of see what you mean, Teysha
Green eyes =spawn of Satan.
I think people are basically irrational. Reason appears post facto to neaten up.
I think you believe it unreasonable (I could be wrong) because the paradigm we've had is that we've always had judgment of people based upon the color of their skin. We have steadily moved away from that paradigm, however, and just as it doesn't even cross our mind to judge someone based upon a large amount of physical traits we may one day reach the point where skin is among those.
I know we're not there but I don't think its unreasonable to expect people to continue to move in that direction.
If humans were irrational we would not have survived as a species. People do irrational things, but as a whole we are a very rational species.
Sure. Social disapprobation will continue to push people in that direction. Others will get religion all on their own.
WW I and WW II say hi.
Individually, we are not.
I don't know if I'd call WWII completely irrational. You may not agree with the goals of nations like Germany and Japan but I don't know if that inherently makes them irrational.
I would say probably yes, but I know nothing about it. Do you?
For someone with such a large vocabulary that is an awfully incorrect usage of the word religion. I get that you frown upon social norms but that hardly makes them a religion.
Completely false. I'm not saying that we don't have instances of irrationality as individuals but to say that we're largely irrational is bogus. A small minority of our decisions and actions are irrational.
Social propriety can be an idol too.
Ok, we disagree on this. I'm cool with that.
Everything can be an idol. That doesn't inherently make it so. Your use of the word religion there is only to paint it in a negative light. Where do you believe most social norms come from?
I don't hate social norms.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions