• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is racism morally wrong?

MysteryMammal said:
What do I think? I think you presented one far-fetched hypothetical in hopes of garnering support for the racist ideology you've displayed in other threads.
Click to expand...

Then you would be wrong.

I can not fathom the depths of suckitude of being denied a job, a service or a domicile because of something I have no control over.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing that i don't support that kind of behavior then.
 
Skeptic said:
Yes, we do. For example, we have the duty to fight to defend our country in war. We don't have a similar duty to defend other countries in most (though not all) circumstances. We have a duty to be good citizens and be involved in our country's politics, caring for the country's welfare to a degree we do not have a duty to care for other countries. And so on.

The Talmud says it best: aniyey ircha kodmim -- the poor of your own town come first. This is not meant to forbid helping strangers. It is meant to give preference to one's own if forced to choose. "Preference", of course, is not meant as an absolute rule: it isn't that one must not give a dime to charity in other places as long as there are poor in one's hometown. It is meant to prevent ignoring one's people in favor of strangers.
Click to expand...

When was all this decided? I didn't get the memo.

I'll look after, worry about and care for whoever I see fit. I don't think nationality is a good indicator of whether I should or shouldn't.
 
Skeptic said:
It is good to chip in to care of a relative who fell upon hard times before one gives to a stranger because he is our relative.
Click to expand...

I'm struggling with this. In what way is it good to help a relative BECAUSE they are a relative? How is it better than helping a stranger?

In an objective sense if the amount of help and the outcome are the same then it makes no difference WHO you help.

In a subjective sense surely its even MORE charitable and altruistic to help a stranger (and presumably you will see no return from this) than to help someone close to you (who will have ample opportunity to repay you in kind in the future)
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Forget the moral relativism, it would be wrong to have a duty to defend something you found repugnant.
Click to expand...
.
You fail miserably here.
The people defending what -you- find repugnant don't find it that way.
Otherwise they wouldn't line up for the honor of performing the defense.
Those that come to the conclusion the "something" is repugnant will opt out.
Sometimes to their demise.
Conscientious objectors will take on other tasks than directly assist a war effort, for instance.
Or quit their job and find another. I know men who have done this.
 
Skeptic said:
The Talmud says it best: aniyey ircha kodmim -- the poor of your own town come first. This is not meant to forbid helping strangers.
Click to expand...

and I am confident some Rabbi in the Talmud countered these writings by saying "no, one should not only help out their townsfolk".
 
parky76 said:
and I am confident some Rabbi in the Talmud countered these writings by saying "no, one should not only help out their townsfolk".
Click to expand...

This doesn't mean there was no consensus in prioritizing their kin above strangers, actually it would be odd if there weren't such a consesus. But... that's often a basic problem for people quote-mining volumnous texts like the Babylonian Talmud (which is generally the one quoted from). You have statements, many times made for the purpose of displaying academic refinement in dealing with them either directly after or in other tractates elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom