Philosophy on Prejudice

There is no "nature". That is a fallacy. It is behavior produced from the environments we already have, and start to change into something else.

Money and religion is the biggest propogandist of this type of separation. "Good" and "evil," "Criminal" and "justice."

We've deluded ourselves into it for false reasons. Either by manipulation or misunderstanding and fear.

 

They believed that the Africans were sub-human, yes, but by the scientific techniques of the day, they had no way of knowing they weren't right. The post-Renaissance idea of medicine was to cut off an injured limb, or to bleed a patient with leeches. They had virtually no anatomical knowledge, and for a long time, that knowledge was considered, at the least, uncivilized and not fit for man to study.It wasn't ignorance in their eyes, which is how it must be measured.

And African slavery was more... humane than European slavery. Typically, African slavery was not hereditary. You were not born a slave. Also, you could work your way out of slavery, or have a benevolent master grant you freedom, or you could be recaptured by your former tribe. Also, slaves in Africa were kept in MUCH better conditions, comparatively. They lived much like the other members of a community (albeit with less freedom), not shoved into a toolshed with 40 other slaves, chained and beaten.

 

Umm, there is? The previous environments that have existed while humans (and our genetic ancestors) were evolving are what turned us into a species that is suspicious of outsiders for the simple reason that we survived better this way.

 

what experiments? ^^ glad u asked promiscuos virgin

Locksley, Oritz and Hepburn (1980) asked people to divide poker chips between members of their own group and another group, some people divided the chips evenly between both groups, some gave more to their own group. the fact that there is a difference in behavior shows its not genetic.

Tajfel, Et al 1971.
the sample consisted of bristol school boys aged around 13-14 set into 2 groups and each group was told they supported a particular artist. when they had to assign points to other anonymous people in their group and the other group. the same results occured as in Locksley, Oritz and Hepburn (1980)

both the experiments also support peer pressure too

In Abu Gahrib (a prison) soldier brutally tortured and humilated prisoners. When questioned in court about their actions they said they were simply following orders from senior officers. The soldiers had no particular prejudice towards the prisoners and yet they didnt argue about theyre orders. this is called an Agentic state as in Milgrams Agency theory where a person who sees someone as an authorative figure and therefore obeys them. However this can also be applied to a person seeing a group as having authority and therefore following their orders. A.K.A peer pressure

 

Hierarchical structures in societies are well documented in the animal kingdom also. They prevent the amount of fighting in the group overall thereby increasing the chance any one gene might survive through the generations. All of this behaviour can be easily explained by the fact that it helped our ancestors survive (and by ancestors I mean thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years ago).

Also, a difference in a small sample of people proves little. As has been said, current environmental factors can also have an impact. I am just making the point that the origin of prejudiced behaviour is genetic.

 

origin of prejudice? lol is the lion prejudice to which animal it eats? is the ape partial to which fruit it devours? does the cat care whether is has a companion? does the rat favour the way in which it dies? no of course they dont. prejudice isnt something that occurs in the pimitive society but has developed along with greed and hunger for power in the way in which people manipulate others to get what they want in this case its less of one attitude and more of another. in the animal kingdom anything that would seem prejudice is simply because of convienience and efficient and prejudism is not in anyway convienient or efficient. also, if your way of thinking is to be understood then we must take evolution in all species into relevence. Attitudes dont just change with social surrounding but with time too, just as a herbivore today may have a carnivore as an ancestor millions of years back.

EDIT: This will be my last post for the day peeps so i may as well make my reasons for being here clear ^^. A friend of mine informed me of the arguement happening in this forum so i thought id have a shout in it lol ^^ as for my choice of what to support and what not to support, i flipped a coin tbh ^^ lol the only reason i was here argueing is shearly out of boredom at this time of day. hope u all had as much fun disagreeing or agreeing with me as i did argueing lol. g'night n have fun all.

 

Wait, who said anything about efficiency or convenience? I'm talking about survival. It didn't matter how efficient or convenient the effects of a gene were, if the host animal was consistently being killed because of it that gene ceased to be a major influence.

Genes are not conscious, just as animals are not sentient. This does not mean there is no prejudice. The environment introduces a prejudice in that if someone does not aid survival it tends to be avoided more and more over time. Not by conscious choice, but because the alternative kills off the genes that do otherwise. This is not efficient by any stretch of the imagination, all it does is ensure that the fittest in that particular environment survives. This can quite easily introduce prejudice.