prejudice A *judgment, or *opinion, formed prior to due consideration of adequate evidence. It is often suggested, implicitly or explicitly, that this is not *rational or *moral. But this seems mistaken for several reasons. 1) As *belief-formation is automatic, rather than a choice, most prejudice is inevitable and part of the intellectual process. 2) Contra *political correctness, on the basis of any kind of judgment people have a *right to take any actions they deem appropriate within the rules of *anarchic, *private-property ownership. They do not *proactively impose on anyone by such *libertarian behavior. 3) It is not always *economic, or possible, to obtain and duly consider adequate evidence. 4) It is a matter of considerable conjecture when this has been done. In fact, it will be a *critical-rationalist quest that is ultimately stopped for *economic reasons.
That said, a lot that is alleged to be prejudice is not prejudice at all but either, 1) a considered view that is merely at odds with the observer’s different view, or 2) a matter of personal preference or taste where further evidence would be irrelevant. It might overthrow the prejudices of some people to realize that it is both possible and popular to have an ‘anti-*racist prejudice’ and an ‘anti-sexist prejudice’. Generally, allegations of prejudice—as with those of *bigotry and *dogmatism—are pejoratives that may apply as much or more to the person that is making the accusation. Thus, outside legal contexts, the word is possibly best avoided except perhaps in retaliation against such charges.
See *discrimination; *stereotypes.A Dictionary of Libertarianism