The Cognitive Barrier of Prejudice

PDF Copy. A.04 The Cognitive Barrier of Prejudice

“Prejudice is a mist, which in our eyes, obscures the truth and prevents us from seeing the real worth of others.” – Lord Shaftesbury

Prejudice is one subject where we are all subject, where the observation is the hermeneutics. That is, everyone is subject to the prejudiced rules of interpretation. That in itself does not defeat hermeneutics, but provides the way to the critical glaze that can aid the minimisation of the  pre-judgement. That is, up to the point that the critical glaze becomes the pre-judgement for a context. The critical glaze is the layer(s) of cognition which is critical thinking.

Definition and Nature of Prejudice:

One source notes that “prejudice is a powerful and ambiguous word” (1) . It has been used in the Cartesian tradition to refer to any belief lacking a foundation, in which sense everything, including science and ethics, can be considered a prejudice (1). Another sense of prejudice is “any belief one holds only because one has not reflected on it” (1) . While we may inevitably hold such prejudices, the reflection needed to evaluate them does not necessarily come from ethical theory (1).

A narrower, more common understanding of prejudice, like racism or sexism, is “a belief guarded against reflection because it suits the interests of the believers that it be held” (1). This type of prejudice often involves irrationality (1) . One source introduces the concept of “the human prejudice,” questioning the basis for giving moral consideration to human beings over other creatures (2) . It suggests this might be a deep-seated prejudice as reasons supporting it are hard to articulate (2). Critics might argue that the readiness to profess humanism without needing justification to non-humans highlights this prejudice (2). Density debates are often shaped by “social and cultural perceptions and prejudices” rather than purely technical analyses (3) .

Prejudice and Ethical Theory:

Ethical theories can be seen as “offensive weapons, aimed against prejudice” (4) . If a style of prejudice is immune to an ethical theory, the theory might be replaced by one with more “firepower” (4) . Some ethical theories, like utilitarianism with its “Ideal Observer,” aim to combat prejudice by advocating for equal consideration, extending beyond humanity (5). The Ideal Observer model tries to correct “parochial biases” in sentiments like compassion based on factors like spatial distance, family, nationality, race, or species (6).

However, one source questions whether relying solely on “intuitive” ethical beliefs risks being based on “unreflective and uncritical immersions in our local prejudices” (7). It suggests that reason should play a role in justifying ethical beliefs (7). The method of seeking “reflective equilibrium” in moral philosophy, which starts from people’s “moral intuitions,” is criticized by R. M. Hare (1919-2002), as dealing with “mere prejudices” because they lack a foundation (8). One source suggests that while ethical theories might aim to criticize and replace some intuitions, they must initially impose a coherent structure that “preserves as many of them as possible” (9) .

Examples of Prejudice:

Racism and sexism are presented as examples of prejudices that are often protected from reflection because they serve the interests of those who hold them (1). The source notes that justifications for racism and sexism often involve attributing negative characteristics to the targeted groups, even if these reasons are untrue and products of “false consciousness” (11) .

The concept of “ingroup bias” and “classic ethnocentrism” is mentioned in one of the bibliographies (12). Another bibliography lists “Trump, Propaganda, and the Politics of Ressentiment,” suggesting a more than usual connection between political discourse and prejudice (13). Algorithms can replicate and amplify existing biases and discrimination in society, potentially “disproportionately flag and remove content from marginalized communities” if trained on biased datasets or programmed with biased algorithms (14). This is linked to the concept of “algorithms of oppression” (15). Search engines can reinforce “racism” through their algorithms (15). A.I. (artificial intelligence) can be “sexist and racist” if it is not designed with fairness in mind (16). The Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of “rabid feminist” is cited as an example of how language can reflect and reinforce prejudice (17).

Combating Prejudice:

The first countermeasure against bias, which is closely related to prejudice, is “awareness – to understand what is represented—so that we may identify what is not” (18). Ethical reflection can play a role in understanding and potentially overcoming prejudice (19). Reflection can draw on human experience and interests to evaluate prejudices (5).

In summary, the sources define prejudice in multiple ways, highlighting its connection to unexamined beliefs, self-interest, and social biases. They discuss how ethical theories engage with prejudice, sometimes aiming to overcome it, and provide examples of prejudice in various forms, including racism, sexism, and algorithmic bias. The importance of reflection and awareness in addressing prejudice is also emphasized.

ENDNOTES

1. One source notes that “prejudice is a powerful and ambiguous word” .
2. Another sense of prejudice is “any belief one holds only because one has not reflected on it“.
3. A narrower, more common understanding of prejudice, like racism or sexism, is “a belief guarded against reflection because it suits the interests of the believers that it be held“.
4. One source introduces the concept of “the human prejudice,” questioning the basis for giving moral consideration to human beings over other creatures.
5. Density debates are often shaped by “social and cultural perceptions and prejudices” rather than purely technical analyses.
6. Ethical theories can be seen as “offensive weapons, aimed against prejudice“.
7. Some ethical theories, like utilitarianism with its “Ideal Observer,” aim to combat prejudice by advocating for equal consideration, extending beyond humanity.
8. However, one source questions whether relying solely on “intuitive” ethical beliefs risks being based on “unreflective and uncritical immersions in our local prejudices“.
9. The method of seeking “reflective equilibrium” in moral philosophy, which starts from people’s “moral intuitions,” is criticized by Hare as dealing with “mere prejudices” because they lack a foundation.
10. One source suggests that while ethical theories might aim to criticize and replace some intuitions, they must initially impose a coherent structure that “preserves as many of them as possible” .

Racism and sexism are presented as examples of prejudices that are often protected from reflection because they serve the interests of those who hold them.

12. Algorithms can replicate and amplify existing biases and discrimination in society, potentially “disproportionately flag and remove content from marginalized communities” if trained on biased datasets or programmed with biased algorithms.
13. This is linked to the concept of “algorithms of oppression“.
14. Search engines can reinforce “racism” through their algorithms.
15. AI can be “sexist and racist” if it is not designed with fairness in mind.
16. The Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of “rabid feminist” is cited as an example of how language can reflect and reinforce prejudice.
17. The first countermeasure against bias, which is closely related to prejudice, is “awareness – to understand what is represented—so that we may identify what is not“.
18. Ethical reflection can play a role in understanding and potentially overcoming prejudice.

Links of works to Endnotes

1. (Bernard Williams)Ethics and the Limits .pdf
2. (Bernard Williams)Philosophy as a Humanistic .pdf
3. Raynor, Katrina, et al (2018). Do City Shapers Support Urban Consolidation.pdf
4. (Bernard Williams)Ethics and the Limits .pdf
5. (Bernard Williams)Ethics and the Limits .pdf
6. (Bernard Williams)Philosophy as a Humanistic .pdf
7. (Bernard Williams)Ethics and the Limits .pdf
8. (Bernard Williams)Philosophy as a Humanistic .pdf
9. (Bernard Williams)Ethics and the Limits .pdf
10. [not listed]
11. (Bernard Williams)Philosophy as a Humanistic .pdfXxx
12. (Neville Buch)Historical Bibliography.pdf
13. (Neville Buch)Historical Bibliography.pdf
14. (Hannes Werthner et al)Introduction to Digital Humanism.pdf
15. (Hannes Werthner et al)Introduction to Digital Humanism.pdf
16. (Hannes Werthner et al)Introduction to Digital Humanism.pdf
17. (Hannes Werthner et al)Introduction to Digital Humanism.pdf
18. (Hannes Werthner et al)Introduction to Digital Humanism.pdf
19. (Bernard Williams)Ethics and the Limits .pdf

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bloomfield, P. (2019). Epistemic Temperance. American Philosophical Quarterly, 56(2), 109–124. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48570832

Crisp, R. J., Birtel, M. D., & Meleady, R. (2011). Mental Simulations of Social Thought and Action: Trivial Tasks or Tools for Transforming Social Policy? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 261–264. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23045783

DeSteno, D., Dasgupta, N., Bartlett, M. Y., & Cajdric, A. (2004). Prejudice from Thin Air: The Effect of Emotion on Automatic Intergroup Attitudes. Psychological Science, 15(5), 319–324. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40063981

Erickson, B. H., & Nosanchuk, T. A. (1998). Contact and Stereotyping in a Voluntary Association. BMS: Bulletin of Sociological Methodology / Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 60, 5–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24359713

Harrington, E. R. (2003). The Social Psychology of Hatred. Journal of Hate Studies, 3(1), 49–82. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48798808

Heuer, Ulrike and Gerald Lang (eds., 2012). Luck, Value and Commitment: Themes from the Ethics of Bernard Williams, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hill, E. D., Terrell, H. K., Cohen, A. B., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2010). The Role of Social Cognition in the Religious Fundamentalism-Prejudice Relationship. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(4), 724–739. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40959059

Jost, J. T., Nam, H. H., Amodio, D. M., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2014). Political Neuroscience: The Beginning of a Beautiful Friendship. Political Psychology, 35, 3–42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43783787

Kam, C. D. (2019). Infectious Disease, Disgust, and Imagining the Other. The Journal of Politics, 81(4), 1371–1387. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26844016

Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L. (2015). The Interpersonal Consequences of Processing Ease: Fluency as a Metacognitive Foundation for Prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 143–148. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44318844

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 138–169. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48591199

Newton, A. (2014). Kant on Testimony and the Communicability of Empirical Knowledge. Philosophical Topics, 42(1), 271–290. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43932726

Potter, J. (2005). Making psychology relevant. Discourse & Society, 16(5), 739–747. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42888709

Ritter, R. S., & Preston, J. L. (2013). Representations of Religious Words: Insights for Religious Priming Research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52(3), 494–507. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24644033

Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Allport’s Prejudiced Personality Today: Need for Closure as the Motivated Cognitive Basis of Prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 349–354. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23213072

Vahid, H. (2014). Cognitive Penetration, The Downgrade Principle, and Extended Cognition. Philosophical Issues, 24, 439–459. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26611115

Williams, Bernard (1981). Moral Luck, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, Bernard (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, London: Fontana

Williams, Bernard (1995). Making Sense of Humanity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, Bernard (1995). World, Mind, and Ethics: Essays on the ethical philosophy of Bernard Williams, J.E.J.Altham and Ross Harrison (eds.), with “Replies” by Bernard Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Williams, Bernard (2002): Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Williams, Bernard (2005). Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Williams, Bernard (2005). The Sense of the Past: Essays on the History of Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Featured Image:

The following two tabs change content below.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Neville Buch

Professional Historian at Professional Historians Association (Queensland) Inc.

Neville Buch (Pronounced Book) Ph.D. is a certified member of the Professional Historians Association (Queensland). Since 2010 he has operated a sole trade business in history consultancy. He was a Q ANZAC 100 Fellow 2014-2015 at the State Library of Queensland. Dr Buch was the PHA (Qld) e-Bulletin, the monthly state association’s electronic publication, and was a member of its Management Committee. He is the Managing Director of the Brisbane Southside History Network.

Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)

• Changeling Leadership - April 21, 2025
• ‘Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?’ (David Pinder) - April 21, 2025
• Bob Dylan’s Ballad of a Thin Man - April 19, 2025