Bias: n. a subjective personal favoritism for a subset(s)
We all have a personal way of thinking and doing things which all depends on our individual experiences, beliefs, and opinions and this is called personal bias or subjectivity. Someone from a different culture or background may have many biases which are much different than our own so we should learn to respect those biases and not always try to prove that our biases are the only ones to have.
Most conflicts, arguments, and misunderstandings stem from the fact that humans have different biases which have to be dealt with in a sometimes diplomatic way and not through an outright assault on emotionally deeply felt biases. A challenge to deeply held biases will be met with sometimes ferocious defensive actions and you should learn to communicate in a way which will not inflame those biases which sometimes may also be called prejudices.
Biases not grounded in many facts but emotionally deeply felt are the hardest to deal with because reason, logic, and relevant facts will frequently not be convincing enough to change those biases. The media, politics in general, religion, and sports is frequently not something which you can talk logically about because they are strongly held emotional beliefs frequently not based on many facts and subject to very little change.
If a human has very many biases different than your own then the probability that you can have a successful intimate relationship with that human are very slim. If you have a relationship it will probably be a very tempestuous and rather unsatisfactory one.
A scientific bias is preferable to a non scientific one but you have to be careful about statistics which can lead to inaccurate conclusions because there is no one to one correspondence with frequently vaguely defined variables. The scientific method is not very useful in human affairs because empathy, anger, frustration, revenge, poverty, discrimination, love, hate, etc is poorly defined and does not lend itself to manipulation with mathematical formulas. You can’t prove morality mathematically and test it in a laboratory.
Science will never prove the necessity for a secular moral code or morality for humans so that they can peacefully interact with one another in society. A moral code for young impressionable minds is necessary so that humans react impulsively in life situations and don’t always have to be asking -is what I am about to do right or wrong?
The questioning scientific approach to situation ethics is dysfunctional because it is so relative and almost any situation can be justified under certain circumstances. The end frequently justifies the means and this is a morally corrupt way of running the world of human affairs.
Except in emergency situations it should be immoral to destroy biodiversity, lie, be inefficient, steal, be adulterous if married, and murder. Prove that mathematically and scientifically in a lab. You can’t!!!!!! But you can try to get a consensus in society that a secular moral code is a good thing to teach young impressionable minds.
If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, approximately 700 so far, and one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially COMMON SENSE, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.