Reasoning is defined as “the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way”[1] Some would say that reasoning sets us free. In particular, many might argue that reasoning frees us from bias. These same individuals would argue that reason leads us to a conclusion, which leads us to truth, which leads us to knowledge. Eventually, this knowledge is expected to leads humans to enlightenment. These ideas strongly reside in many and for a very long time have been influential to the way humans think about and evaluate situations. Amidst these individuals with these beliefs is the Universalist, Immanuel Kant. In this paper I am going to create arguments to show that we have biases relative to our own lives, experience, and cultures. I will also argue that reasoning does not free us from bias and that Universalists, such as Kant, are incorrect.

“Knowledge is power,” this is a phrase many have heard, it is a famous quote at that but it cannot even be traced back to one single source. The influential idea that knowledge is power has been prompting people to find understanding and expand what they know for ages. Many do not recognize that said knowledge is going to be used for bias. Whether it is purposeful or not, we process every bit of information using a bias that we are not even always aware is there. We have implicit bias that we do not even have control over.

Also known as implicit social cognition, implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control. Residing deep in the subconscious, these biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal for the purposes of social and/or political correctness. Rather, implicit biases are not accessible through introspection. [2]

This implicit bias makes us, as humans, incapable of truly being free from bias, regardless of the reasoning we put into every day decisions. “The implicit associations we hold do not necessarily align with our declared beliefs or even reflect stances we would explicitly endorse.”[3] That said, no matter how intricate our reasoning is, we are never able to reason ourselves out of biases we hold. This goes to show that reasoning is not a powerful enough mental tool to free our conscious from bias.

All information is processed with a bias relative to our life and experiences. This understanding of relativity is a bridge to understanding that Universalists have no true and concrete enlightenment to reach because no reasoning is concrete and “right”. This is true because all of our reasoning can relate back to our internal correlations to the life we have lived and the culture around us.

We do not any longer make the mistake of deriving the morality of our locality and decade directly from the inevitable constitution of human nature. We do not elevate it to the dignity of a first principle. We recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits. Mankind has always preferred to say, "It is morally good," rather than "It is habitual," and the fact of this preference is matter enough for a critical science of ethics. But historically the two phrases are synonymous.^[4]

Essentially, in this passage Ruth Benedict is arguing that we cannot define anything in this world as “absolute”. Our reasoning cannot be found as absolutely right and our morals are completely moldable to our surrounding society. Therefore, we are unable to state that some things simply and unconditionally are ethically wrong. As this is becoming a larger realization, Universalists such as Kant would argue that there are universal truths. For example, Kant practice the idea that lying, under every circumstance is morally wrong. Some of us on the other hand, while at first glance would agree, will more than likely move away from that idea after one or a few thought experiments. If he has an understanding that lying is always wrong under every circumstance is he even reasoning through each specific instance? Relativists would argue that Kant being so set in his ways prevents him from being free of bias and restrictions. Kant is creating bias without even reflecting back upon his original reasoning. That said, with the science of implicit bias along with his set ways it is arguable that Kant is not free of bias and has no way to be.

After reading Ruth Benedict and William Graham Sumner's arguments as well as Immanuel Kant's, I believe ethical principles are relative and particular, meaning that they are specific to a context, community, or era. That said, I have a tendency to lean towards the ideas of Benedict. Morality, as we see it today, as well as how we have seen it for hundreds of years, is culturally relative. Not only do relativists stand strongly behind the thought that moral relativism encourages people to recognize the values and traditions of others, but it is more than that. The encouragement to accept a difference is just one reason relativism makes for a better worldview. Relativists see the differences within cultures and how they can correlate to separate values. They use reasoning to see the views of others but have an understanding that their culture leads them to understand in a way that cannot lead them from bias. Each culture reasons through decisions and actions differently, these differences are a result of bias and regardless of the cognitive ability we think we hold, there are underlying cognitive biases that prevent us from ever truly being free.

Bibliography

Benedict, Ruth. "A Defense of Moral Relativism." Anthropology and the Abnormal,

Journal of General Psychology (1934): n. pag. California Lutheran University. California Lutheran University. Web. 4 Jan. 2017.

"Reasoning." English Oxford Living Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web.

3 Feb. 2017

"Understanding Implicit Bias." Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. Ohio

State University, 2015. Web. 02 Feb. 2017.

[1] "Reasoning." English Oxford Living Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 3 Feb. 2017

[2] "Understanding Implicit Bias." Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. Ohio State University, 2015. Web. 02 Feb. 2017.

[3] "Understanding Implicit Bias."

[4] Benedict, Ruth. "A Defense of Moral Relativism." Anthropology and the Abnormal, Journal of General Psychology (1934): n. pag. California Lutheran University. California Lutheran University. Web. 4 Jan. 2017.