Is racism morally wrong?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Humans evolved to support the group each was part of. What's the big deal?

Of course the human race is becoming more global all the time. So at some point, people will likely no longer identify with skin color and will instead view human as human.

Currently, however, we are still divided into fairly different cultural groups. This is not about genetics and/or skin color. Those are simply means of identifying one's cultural groups. This is about identifying with like minded people. I don't care what you look like, but I do care that you have similar values to mine if I am going to choose to save you and in doing so, have to let someone else die.

 

[The_Animus]

In my opinion that would be immoral behavior.

Based on what? In what way is the person obligated to save one person over another. Or in what way is a person morally obligated to feel a certain way about the person they saved vs the person they didn't?

The very concept of morality requires either:
1. Immutable moral rules handed down by god, the universe, or some other permanent all deciding source.
2. Moral rules determined by the majority of a society or by the individual

Looking at each of these:
1. There seems to be no factual evidence of any such moral guidelines, and even for those who claim there are it would seem that people cannot agree as to what those moral rules handed down by god or the universe are.
2. Which moral beliefs are the majority at any given time cannot truely be known as there is no official periodic census concerning moral beliefs. At least not that I'm aware of. Even if there was it doesn't change the fact that moral rules being determined by the majority of society or by the individual make morality subjective rather than objective and as such have no basis aside from the beliefs of an individual or group of individuals.

Some people look at religion and quite rightly make the argument that there are a buttload of religions and religious beliefs, many of which conflict, and all of which have no real factual evidence as a basis for it. Despite this religious people cry out that they KNOW their religion is right, despite a million other people with differeing religious beliefs saying the same thing.

Morality is exactly the same.

Religion is made up by people to justify whatever actions/beliefs they prefer.

Morality is exactly the same.

 

[Thunder]

This is about identifying with like minded people. I don't care what you look like, but I do care that you have similar values to mine if I am going to choose to save you and in doing so, have to let someone else die.

and of course it would be racist to assume that the dark skinned guy has more in common with your values, than the blond guy.

do we get to interview the two gentlemen before we decide who will die?

 

[bpesta22]

I say it would be morally wrong for them to both be drowning at the same time and make you have to decide..so the ethical thing to do would be to just let them both drown.

Wouldn't the best thing to do darwin wise be to take sperm samples from both so that you could carry on their genes artificially? Let em both drown if you can come back with 2 cup fulls?

I do agree, the scenario is too forced to really make it realistic enough to argue the point.

 

[MontagK505]

Suppose you wanted to be "politicly correct" and saved the Arab, while allowing the Swede to drown. Would that be moral?

 

[KingMerv00]

Seeing two people struggling for their lives, one of them a Swede and the other being an Arab...

Couldn't one be both an Arab AND a Swede?

Yes racism is immoral. Stupid too.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

and of course it would be racist to assume that the dark skinned guy has more in common with your values, than the blond guy.

do we get to interview the two gentlemen before we decide who will die?

I was under the assumption it was a snap judgment based on less than adequate information.

 

[Arcade22]

That said, racism based on skin colour or ethnicity is not a reliable moral compass, more likely to be wrong overall.

Well i disagree.
I see my people just like a family, perhaps not like a real family but pretty close.
And just like i value the members of my family above yours, and I'm sure most people value their own family above others, i value members of my people above yours.

Apparently this makes me immoral.

 

[Arcade22]

I think that in some cases it is not wrong to discriminate if the goal is to fix social disparities - see affirmative action. It seems to me this falls under your definition of racism. So my answer is that it is not always wrong, due to this specific example.

Well at least you have the balls to admit that Affirmative action is racist and discriminatory.

 

[Arcade22]

Anything prejudicial based on circumstances beyond the control of the individual is immoral.
None of us chose our parents, or where we would born.

So if I value my family above yours I'm doing something immoral?

Taking pride in one's origins is one of the stupider things people do.

Well i disagree.

 

[Arcade22]

Your entire scenario is not based on reality.
If someone is willing to jump into the water and save a drowning person then they would always go for the nearest person they could reach.
Then if they had any energy left they may try to save the other person if that person was still above water.
The chances of 2 people drowning at the exact same distance from the rescuer is highly unlikely.

Now after the rescue if the hero felt bad about who they had saved based on the persons skin color then yes that would be wrong.
So if after a black person saved a white person and the other person they could not save was black.
The black person turns to the white person and says "Why did I save whitey? I should of saved my black brother".
In my opinion that would be immoral behavior.

It was just a thought experiment used to show how my racism could have real life consequences, you don't have to think so much about it.

 

[Arcade22]

Based on what? In what way is the person obligated to save one person over another. Or in what way is a person morally obligated to feel a certain way about the person they saved vs the person they didn't?

The very concept of morality requires either:
1. Immutable moral rules handed down by god, the universe, or some other permanent all deciding source.
2. Moral rules determined by the majority of a society or by the individual

Looking at each of these:
1. There seems to be no factual evidence of any such moral guidelines, and even for those who claim there are it would seem that people cannot agree as to what those moral rules handed down by god or the universe are.
2. Which moral beliefs are the majority at any given time cannot truely be known as there is no official periodic census concerning moral beliefs. At least not that I'm aware of. Even if there was it doesn't change the fact that moral rules being determined by the majority of society or by the individual make morality subjective rather than objective and as such have no basis aside from the beliefs of an individual or group of individuals.

Some people look at religion and quite rightly make the argument that there are a buttload of religions and religious beliefs, many of which conflict, and all of which have no real factual evidence as a basis for it. Despite this religious people cry out that they KNOW their religion is right, despite a million other people with differeing religious beliefs saying the same thing.

Morality is exactly the same.

Religion is made up by people to justify whatever actions/beliefs they prefer.

Morality is exactly the same.

Good points.

 

[arthwollipot]

if i had to choose, with all things being equal, I'd have to flip a coin.

The one that was closer. Hypothetical situations do not occur in real life.

 

[Arcade22]

Couldn't one be both an Arab AND a Swede?

Perhaps, but at least not in this thought experiment.

Yes racism is immoral. Stupid too.

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well is it? [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/188094b300a2915bb7.gif[/qimg]

For simplicity's sake, let's define racism as 'valuing people differently based on their ethnicity or race'.

I am not sure that definition flies.

I had always understood racism to be a form of discrimination specifically targeted at race, with the embedded assumption of the inferiority of that race.

DR

 

[Thunder]

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

in my mind, I always understood racism to mean attributing negative qualities and behaviors to a person just because of their racial background.

"that guy is dumb..because he is black".

"that guy is cheap..because he is a Jew".

how can such attitudes NOT be bad?

 

[Roboramma]

Well i disagree.
I see my people just like a family, perhaps not like a real family but pretty close.
And just like i value the members of my family above yours, and I'm sure most people value their own family above others, i value members of my people above yours.

Apparently this makes me immoral. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/188094b2d518e35ccb.gif[/qimg]

Thing is, I don't value members of my family that I've never met over strangers, except when they have close relationships with members of my family that I do care about, and thus I worry about the feelings of the person that I do care about.

I wouldn't say that your viewpoint is immoral, I just can't understand it. You care more about certain people, because of their ancestry or their skin colour or something, but you don't really have any reason for it. I can understand that its an emotional reaction, it's just not one I share, and thus one I find hard to understand.

I care about my family, mainly because I know them well, because we've had meaningful experiences together, because they care about me, etc.

To each his own, though.

 

[Roboramma]

Well i disagree. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/188094b2d51a947b60.gif[/qimg]

Why? What is it about your origins that you think justifies your pride in them?

 

[Roboramma]

Perhaps, but at least not in this thought experiment.

Within the thought experiment, how do you know? I mean, do you ask first:
"Excuse me, are you a Swede?"
"What? I need help, I'm drowning!"
"Yes, I know, but are you a swede."
"No!"
Third person: "I am."
"Ah, thanks."
*goes to help the swede*

 

[Francesca R]

As a thought experiment[ . . . ]

Please remove the highly distracting moral act (saving a life) from your thought experiment, which serves no purpose but to decieve

Imagine you are in the presence of a Swede and an Arab. If you treat both of them equally with respectful indifference, all is moral and fine. If you treat one of them (the Swede) that way, yet in some small way you infringe the due respect, rights or liberty of the Arab . . . because she is an Arab . . . then that's immoral and racist.

It would be immoral even if she was not an Arab. Making it racist doesn't make it moral. Why would it?