This Hypothetical case concerns a hypothetical Jeremy. Jeremy was brought up in such an environment that some form of discrimination became an inherent part of his psyche, in short he is a product of his environment.
The question to go along with this hypothetical case is: Can we blame Jeremy for his bias/prejudice? Does Jeremy have a moral obligation to try to correct his bias?
I think that we should make responses 4 sentences or less at a time, cut to your points, and remember, just because one argues for/ against a point does not mean that that is what they believe, oftentimes the best way to jump start a discusion is to argue exactly the opposite of what you believe. I'm excited to see how this goes. :-)
Jeremy should try to change himself because no on should discriminate against one another. True he grow up in that environment but he and only he can be in charge of his own school of thought. The only thing is that because he was brought up in this environment he has been instilled with certain core values that he believes in so unless it goes against one of his other values he may have a hard time changing but if he can change he should.
ReplyDeleteIt depends.
ReplyDeleteJean Piaget developed a theory of the stages of morality. The last stage called, "Postconventional Morality," is characterized by a personal, moral code that one develops. Although attainable, this level is not guarenteed. Some people never develop their own moral codes due to a number of circumstances.
It really depends if Jeremy realizes the faults in the societal prejudice. If he notices, then yes, he has an obligation. Otherwise, he is too close minded to see the flaws and no, he does not have an obligation.
i actually like the first question better, is is his fault that he is how he is, and therefore a blamable offense? he is skirting the line between being an asshole and just being uninformed is it our job to put him in his place? how much can we say that his views are his fault?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not think Jeremy has an objective "universal moral obligation" to be nonprejudicial. Why? Because we cannot prove it to be correct or false.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I subjectively believe he should correct his bias as a personal moral obligation. If he does not, he will not make many friends and will most likely be become very spiteful and unhappy. However, if he chooses not to, then he chooses not to, however disagreeable it may be.
I do not think it is our obligation to force him to change his ways either, as I am a proponent of the non-aggression principle. Coercion is counterproductive.
To answer Karl: It is partly his fault that he is the way he is. Haha, there are many components that make up a human. There is the societal influence, which, in Jeremy's case, probably has a strong influence on his prejudice. The important figures in his life probably have similar views. He's probably not able to change his prejudice because he doesn't have the intelligence necessary to think logically and morally as opposed to being a devout listener.
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not our job to change him. It is a lost cause to change him because only he can change his views. The best we can do is provide information.
As much as I disagree with the notion of "genetic determination," I am also highly opposed to someone being "a product of their environment."
ReplyDeleteEveryone has free will. Whether a person accepts that fact is a choice in itself; whether that person is free to express free will is another issue altogether (repression of women in some third world cultures, for example). Because Jeremy has free will, he also possesses the power to at least ATTEMPT a change in his life. There is NOT, however, an obligation; just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is moral action. His obligation is merely to fulfill his full potential, and much of that "full potential" relies on his perspective. If he thinks that being discriminatory is part of his full potential, then no, I think there is no obligation for him to change.
I would disagree with the word "blame" here, because again, as much as I personally disagree with discrimination and it is a commonly accepted practice to be anti-discrimination (still very ironic), the sense of discrimination being "wrong" is still subjective. So substituting the words "blame Jeremy" with "hold Jeremy accountable for", then yes, I think to some degree we can. As a child, one has little control over his influences, and it is in these influences (as well as the genetic preprogramming--nature AND nurture) that morals are formed. As we grow older, though, and are exposed to more of the world and simply become capably of higher level brain functioning, we understand the power of FREE WILL and therefore he is responsible for PERPETUATING his biases, NOT for creating them.