Are generalizations and prejudices really wrong?

[Barricade]

In the hyper sensitive culture we live in, sometimes I find it hard to tell what is truly immoral versus what is seen as unacceptable by people in society.

Now when it comes to issues of generalization and prejudice I’m finding myself a bit confused as to the moral implications of these ideas.

Prejudice, meant in the sense of “judging without experience” is something we do all the time in some form. For example, a friend may tell me that a certain film is bad, so taking his word I don’t go to see it. By not seeing it I pre-judged that film, and assumed it was bad without having seen it myself. I don’t think anyone would see anything wrong with this scenario, but what happens when we apply it to groups of people? When does such prejudging or generalized thinking become immoral?

In earlier, more dangerous times, people commonly viewed strangers with some degree of suspicion because there was a real and present danger that people outside of your community would seek to do you harm.

Think of what Europe went through with Viking raids, I’m sure when people of a particular city in those days saw strangers on the horizon who appeared to be Viking raiders, that the people of such a town fortified their cities to defend themselves. I’d imagine they did this out of a desire for self preservation and not a malicious hatred of foreigners. So is this sort of behavior wrong? If so, in what way?

We obviously don’t want to treat people unjustly, but to what extent are people morally permitted to make generalizations or pre-judge others in the interest of preserving their own safety?

Is refusing to walk through a dangerous neighborhood wrong because you are being prejudicial against the residents, assuming that some of them might want to mug or harm you?

If someone has some Church teaching or enlightening thoughts on these issues I’d appreciate them.

 

[Gorgias]

Prejudice, meant in the sense of “judging without experience” is something we do all the time in some form. For example, a friend may tell me that a certain film is bad, so taking his word I don’t go to see it. By not seeing it I pre-judged that film, and assumed it was bad without having seen it myself.

I disagree that this is an example of ‘prejudice’. You haven’t “judged without experience” – unless by that you mean “judged without first hand experience” – rather, you’ve simply taken a statement by someone, evaluated that statement on its merits, and made a decision. This isn’t immoral. Now – your evaluation might be poor, and your friend’s statement may be in error, but that’s a whole different story.

I don’t think anyone would see anything wrong with this scenario, but what happens when we apply it to groups of people?

If your friend said, “group X is this and that”, then you’d evaluate that assertion on its merits, just as you did his film review.

If someone has some Church teaching or enlightening thoughts on these issues I’d appreciate them.

Clearly, all generalizations are bad.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Maybe my worldview is shaped by life as a 5’2 woman, but I wouldn’t recommend walking through any neighborhood by yourself at night. But even by acknowledging that some neighborhoods are more dangerous than others, you aren’t saying anything about the people that live there, their worth, character, etc.

Now, let’s say you have a new coworker and he happens to live in that neighborhood. It would be wrong and unfair of you to start making assumptions about him based on where he lives.

 

[Barricade]

Clearly, all generalizations are bad.

“Italians make Italian food well.”

Bad generalization?

Clearly not every Italian person makes good Italian food, but generally speaking people of a certain ethnicity tend to make the food associated with their ethnicity well. A generalization doesn’t have to be negative it can also be complimentary; it can end up being untrue as well, but does inaccuracy necessarily mean immorality?

I’m not some closet racist seeking to justify racism, but I’m genuinely seeking some clarity on these issues. The other day I listened to a debate where the two people debated the idea of profiling at airports to prevent terrorist attacks. From a Catholic perspective, how do we handle these situations? Is it morally permissible to disproportionately select Muslims for searches at airports considering it has been Muslims committing the notable acts of terror in recent memory? Or is this not right? What are the underlying moral principles regulating how we should act in this circumstance and others?

 

[Indigo_Cardinal]

“Catholics are all drunks.”

“All Catholic priests molest children.”

“All Catholic priests are homosexuals.”

You still okay with people making generalizations?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Maybe my worldview is shaped by life as a 5’2 woman, but I wouldn’t recommend walking through any neighborhood by yourself at night. But even by acknowledging that some neighborhoods are more dangerous than others, you aren’t saying anything about the people that live there, their worth, character, etc.

Now, let’s say you have a new coworker and he happens to live in that neighborhood. It would be wrong and unfair of you to start making assumptions about him based on where he lives.

Honest question: if a neighborhood has a reputation for being rather bad, a place where robberies and murders are famous for happening, would it be irrational to believe that there is a higher chance that someone or someplace will be hostile to you? (Not all or even some of the people, but more like if there was a hostile person in the world, it would probably be here.)

I don’t think it’s wrong to make generalisations about a geographic area you do not know. I also do not think it’s necessarily wrong to make generalisations about certain groups of people - religious groups, races, classes, etc - as long as 1) we are open to exceptions (which are frequent), and 2) as long as we refine our generalisations as we go along.

 

[TarkanAttila]

“Catholics are all drunks.”

“All Catholic priests molest children.”

“All Catholic priests are homosexuals.”

You still okay with people making generalizations?

Or how about this: Most Catholics believe contraception is not a moral evil. It’s true, if the polls are correct. But what would make it “bad”?

Or take another case: most atheists are politically and morally liberal. Are all? No. But I think this generalisation is fairly accurate. That might be bad, depending on who you ask. But is it, really?

What makes a generalisation “bad” or “good”? If it’s to keep people away from a targeted group, it can be bad. On the other hand, it can be wise. (For example: “gangsters are generally bad people” is probably a wise statement.) If it’s to smear a group, that’s never acceptable. But if it is to address an actual concern, I think generalisations can be useful shorthand for statistics and research.

In short, Generalisations are like a sword. Neither good or evil. It’s how you use them.

 

[St_Francis]

I think it’s a question of definitions. For example, definitions sometimes contain a generalization, as in all bank robbers are criminals. However, Italians does not contain that within its definition, so saying all Italians are criminals would be bad logic. Saying that to others would be a form of detraction, so that would be sinful.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Prejudice, meant in the sense of “judging without experience” is something we do all the time in some form.

It also means “dislike, hostility, or unjust behavior deriving from unfounded opinions.” The two definitions are related as one can lead into the other.

For example, a friend may tell me that a certain film is bad, so taking his word I don’t go to see it. By not seeing it I pre-judged that film, and assumed it was bad without having seen it myself. I don’t think anyone would see anything wrong with this scenario, but what happens when we apply it to groups of people? When does such prejudging or generalized thinking become immoral?

I think usually when people express grief from prejudice they are concerned with the possible intended or unintended harms that a person may experience from it. Sometimes this puts people at disadvantages through no fault of their own, attributing to the person descriptions that might not be factual. Even unjustified positive sounding attributes can be disadvantageous either to the person to which it is applied or to the people that are perceived as having a lower rating on a quality.