The Deep Roots of Human Prejudice

Source: buzzfeed.com

Source: buzzfeed.com

The roots of human prejudice are so deep, and it is so pervasive, that it almost feels like second nature to man.

While it is widely believed that men are born free of prejudices, you would find it hard to believe just how naturally they come to us. It almost is the best, most suitable reasoning shortcut.

What if prejudice were an inseparable trait of an intelligent species? And if it isn’t. Why do people continue to indoctrinate their children with prejudiced ideas and undoubtedly have been doing so for centuries? And does prejudice go beyond nationalistic, ethnic, and religious boundaries? Apparently, it does.

What if prejudice is a problem that possibly cannot be separated from the act of thinking?

We are surely the only prejudiced species, or so we believe.

 

Is liberal education enough to get rid of prejudice?

Liberal education may or may not cure someone hellbent on antisemitism give up support for Nazism, for instance, but it certainly does improve the odds of minimizing that.

One way or the other, you would be shocked and surprised at how deep the roots of human prejudice go. It’s a huge challenge.

And is training for critical reasoning enough to get rid of our intrinsic, deeply embedded prejudice and biases? Even despite learning about all the logical fallacies, biases, and flaws?

 

Are we really free of prejudice when helping others escape it?

And do we really when we think that we have escaped it? Judging others for it?

 

So how deep are the roots of human prejudice?

Guess we’ll never know.

We Are All Guilty of Tribalism

Source: Dawn/AFP

You can’t help suppressing your anger when seeing hypocrisies such as the concern for the Rohingyas abroad but no love for the Hazaras and Shias locally, and outrage at Israel bombing Gaza, but silence on Saudi air strikes on Yemen, but is any of this surprising in the least bit?

As a matter of fact, you can easily see where they are coming from. The fact of the matter is that we are all guilty of tribalism one way or another.

You hardly notice any outcry when Muslims are massacring other Muslims, but our nation becomes totally protective and defensive when a third party is involved, such as India, Israel or the United States. When that happens, the problem immediately becomes an Ummah problem, and Muslims are lamented to be the perpetual victims.

It’s the same kind of tribalism that united the world against aliens in the hypothetical scenario in the movie The Independence Day, and it is more common than you think it is. After all, non-Muslims are sort of aliens to the Ummah.

Whether it is our reaction to the positions of the leaders and political parties we support, or an issue that we conveniently want to ignore, we choose what to speak out about. And also what to be upset about.

And how could we not?

What sort of a person remains perpetually outraged at every damn single thing on this planet?

I know the walls of many of your facebook and twitter friends look like that. I guess to a great extent my wall looks like that. But still that is not actually the case.

The simple fact of the matter is that we just don’t get upset at everything, at least not as much as we do on others. Because most of the time we would conveniently overlook any problems or wrongdoings from a party that shares our political cause.

We may acknowledge it, but it would hardly make us abandon supporting our party or the side of the cause.

For those of us who lean toward Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif completely ignore if there were a serious power outage crisis throughout Pakistan in the recent days that the government was supposed to fix, considering that the party won a landslide for its promise to solve this very problem.  For those who support the PPP may conveniently overlook the responsibility of the government in providing emergency relief during Sindh famine and heat wave. And so on.

There certainly is no surprise if you see Democrats conveniently overlooking the drone warfare of Obama administration, or if you find Republicans ignore how torture could have been used under the Bush administration. Liberals and conservatives would both gladly overlook the problems in the administrations they support as long as their supported policies are being propelled.

You would find politically devout Sunnis failing to acknowledge the brutal Saudi authoritarianism and the politically devout Shias looking the other way when you mention the Iranian regime trampling on their citizen’s rights.

There is no limit or end to this list. It happens every day, and practically everyone is experiencing it in one way or another. Almost human nature. But it is important to take it in a healthy manner, instead of further freaking out in moralist rage and calling for everyone’s heads.

Nobody is perfect, and we cannot possibly agree with each other on everything. So instead of looking for that perfect Messiah, hell even Imran Khan is not that perfect, we have to learn to live with the people we are stuck with in this world.

To be honest, I cannot say that I am equally outraged by every piece of news of oppression and carnage, and I am not ashamed of that. I am not even sure that is something that you should feel guilty about, because it’s hard to say if even Gandhi experienced such universal human pain. Most of the time, you are going to be more upset about people emotionally closest to you. But as long as your political stance is correct, and you are not supporting any such nonsense as ISIS, I guess you can live with it.

So I do think twice before I criticize people’s support for the Rohingyas, because when we do so, we are kind of doing the same thing we accuse them of.

Though this doesn’t mean that you should stop trying changing people’s minds.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.

 

The Only Ideology You Really Believe in

Source: RedGranite/Appian/Paramount/Youtube

Source: Red Granite/Appian/Paramount/Youtube

Throughout the course of your life, you go through many learning and unlearning experiences.

You are brought up with certain sets of beliefs and you end up figuring out a lot of things for yourself.

You are shocked and you are disillusioned. You think you know a lot. But then sometimes you move on in your own bubble, ignoring the rest of the world and the way it works.

So it is no surprise to see a lot of people confused about what they really want to believe in. It’s OK to have doubts.

I would like to think I have been one of them and still wonder if I am. You never can tell.

But it is dangerous when your confusion takes the form of convictions.

Whether it is the ever confused Islamist zealots looking for Shariah half heartedly, or champagne socialists too desperate to change the world, we have a lot of people who don’t know what they are talking about. Who would not even live up to their words for a single day. But not to say that there are not people around who actually live their beliefs.

A lot of people who are contradicting the very values that they live everyday.

But idealism is good. You need to dream. It helps you live. And there is nothing to judge about aiming for something that you are not.

But there is no harm in growing tired of it either.

There is no harm in coming to terms with the fact that you could try not to lie to yourself.

So what’s the harm of believing in how you live.

Because the only ideology you really believe in is your lifestyle.

How about switching your ideology to that?

About Injustice

Source: theviewspaper.net

Source: theviewspaper.net

Injustice is a human invention.

 

A matter of social sophistication and intellectual aesthetics.

It is non-existent in the natural world. It is arguably incompatible with the principles of evolution over billions of years.

 

There is no such thing as injustice. It is not the absence of something.

Just another false promise. A utopian dream, for one thing.

 

It is just an abstraction. It is just an expectation.

A fragment of your imagination.

 

But perhaps not.

 

Injustice is just another word for the condition of life.

 

Isn’t an Agnostic an Atheist Without Balls?

Source: quotes.lifehack.org

Source: quotes.lifehack.org

Stephen Colbert is a comedian and I take the statement as a joke. Though it does possibly translate the opinion, if not malice, of a lot of atheists, and probably his own toward people identifying as agnostics.

Professor Dawkins has referred to “permanent” agnostics as fence sitters and has accused them of intellectual cowardice. (Agnosticism)  He has proposed his useful atheistic scale that goes from 1 to 7, depending on how people perceive their belief pertaining to a supernatural being. But he is speaking in more practical terms to someone who has just had the revelation of the absence of a deity after reading “The God Delusion“.

Colbert’s statement is an idea that many people hold probably because agnostics are perceived to be less confrontational than a lot of new atheist converts. That is not necessarily true. An agnostic can be antithetical too. But if you are not being disrespectful to someone, that not necessarily may be a sign of lack of guts, but of good manners.

There are agnostics that tend to believe and agnostics that tend not to believe, bust mostly fall into the disbelief zone for their skepticism. Agnosticism, to a lot of people, like Bertrand Russell, is simply a more accurate philosophical and logical position than atheism. For others, it could be a transitional stage from belief to disbelief, and that is probably what Dawkins refers to as “temporary agnosticism”.

The agnostic is just conceding that they don’t know and that they cannot know. While an atheist thinks that there is no supreme being simply because there is no evidence at hand. Though this does not mean that agnostics do not agree to the lack of evidence. To different people, either positions can make sense, and not much to others, who would see it as splitting the hair.

Source: Telegraph

Source: Telegraph

But to settle the matter, let us examine the quote of the philosopher that I personally consider the greatest authority on skepticism, Bertrand Russell, (No, Dawkins is not half as much brilliant or even sensible) from his 1947 pamphlet Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?.

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

I just think agnostics are philosophically and logically more correct than atheists, not lacking balls or any other round objects.

However, you can come up with more accusations if they did not even appreciate or understand the Russell’s teapot analogy.

Quick Web Reference: Agnosticism
Quick Web Reference: Russell’s teapot

———-

Answer to the Quora Question:

Atheism: What do you think about this quote: Isn’t an agnostic just an atheist without balls?

The Message of the Film

From the film “I Clowns” or “The Clowns” (1970)

© 1970 RAI – RadioTelevisione Italiana, Compagnia Leone Cinematografica

On Objective Morality

Sacrifice of Isaac by Caravaggio - Source: Wikimedia Commons

Sacrifice of Isaac by Caravaggio – Source: Wikimedia Commons

In my opinion, there is no such thing as an objective system of morality, at least for an (intelligent and) emotional species such as human beings. I would not even consider a single value to be universally agreed upon, no matter how morally correct or incorrect it may seem to any person. Not even instincts of self interest in nature guarantee an objective system of morality.

Ayn Rand called her philosophy of preserving self interest and individual liberty “moral objectivism“. People find her philosophy immoral, but I like it and rather admire her for challenging moral conventions. However, I consider it a bit arrogant and naïve of her to call her philosophy moral objectivism. It is not moral objectivism in the true sense, because it is not objective, you may go with the name, but by her own definition, a more appropriate title would be “rational morality” or “moral rationalism”. Though people would even dispute that, on the count of rationality. I don’t have enough sympathy for the philosophy to even defend that label though.

Even if there is a God, and has ordered a certain set of morality, there is no reason for humans to accept it. God’s opinion is just an opinion and humans may find no reason to find it superior to theirs. And since humans have enough intelligence to reason for themselves, they do not need to follow the opinion of an alien entity, even when enslaved.

Somebody asked me that if there were no objective morality, would it allow people to rape babies. This question has nothing to do with the idea that there is no such thing as objective morality, because this tells more about the person committing the act. While a lot of people may commit the act considering it something wrong, while going on with it, while others would not consider it immoral at all, even if it kills the baby. Take righteous and honor killing for an example. An apparently very wrong act committed for very moral and noble reasons.

There can possibly be a moral system in which even eating the babies would not be considered wrong. On the lighter note, it actually calls to mind Jonathan Swift‘s satire “A Modest Proposal“. But consider someone actually following the outrageous idea for moral reasons

So there is only one explanation of subjective morality systems around the world. Humans came up with it themselves and almost all of them have some sort of contradiction at some point.

—-

Answer to Quora Question: If there is no God, then how can there ever be any sort of objective system of morality?