AleoMagus
09-09-2005, 06:20 PM
I think that there is a huge difference between our normal conceptions of dicrimination and racism. I think that in the politically correct society which we currently live, these terms are grouped together with the overall concept of racism or any other kind of automatically incorrect 'ism' (sexism being another good example).
The difficulty that I see is that while prejudice seems self evidently wrong, racial or gender based discrimination is a harder idea to outright dismiss as evil, or morally wrong. This is what the mainstream of ethical thinkers currently do however, and I think that at some point, if people are honest with themselves, they are going to need to think at little more academically about things and not simply dismiss these issues.
To clarify what I am saying, lets look at prejudice first.
Prejudice, is just what it sounds like; Pre-judjung. Whether an individual, or a situation, and this is not even so much morally wrong as it is first and foremost just bad reasoning. To judge an individual based upon no prior knowledge simply because of a perceived difference has no rational basis. To take a completely absurd and hypothetical ficticious example, this would be like if tommorrow an alien race arrived on earth and I though to myself something like "They look like they must be very lazy people because they are green skinned and have big purple eyes". I have no basis for this belief as I have encountered no green skinned or big purple eyed people in the past. Nobody else to my knowledge has either.
There is little doubt in my mind that many of the usual racist ideas we hear are just this sort or unsupported opinion that have become widespread. In almost all cases it is not as outright ridiculous as the alien example I gave, but is rather, a failure of reasoning that stems from a single, or extremely small sample. For example something like meeting one person or a very small group of people of a particular race or gender who displayed a seemingly common characteristic and concluding that ALL persons of that race or gender must also display that characteristic. Bad reasoning. End of story in my opinion.
My difficulty is that not all discrimination seems to be this bad. In many cases, there are valid statistics which seem to indicate one or another race or gender DO display similar characteristics even at a large scale. This may or may not be a matter of a common genetic similarity inherent to the group. This could easily be as a result or environmental circumstance etc... I am not trying to say anything about who people are essentially, devoid of their environment or upbringing. I am just saying that there ARE large scale tendencies which exist that separate one group of people from another. I will also point out that these tendencies are probably as often positive as negative.
We are in the habit, however, of forcefully ignoring these tendencies because of the assumption that discrimination in all it's forms is just the kind of prejudice I described earlier. It is not, and however much we would like to think this, many of our societal institutions already recognize this, even if they would never outright express it because of it's negative connotation.
Here are just a few examples of what I see as probably correct matters of racial/national/gender differences and tendencies. I am not rigorously citing facts or sources here. These are just examples which I believe to be true and if called upon, perhaps I will look deeper if this thread develops. I could easily be wrong, but there are also countless other examples I could include
...
The VAST majority of serial killers in North America are white males in their twenties. When a pattern of murders arises that looks like a serial killer is out there, the immediate police profiling that takes place accounts for this, and the search will definitely focus to a large part in this way.
The majority of terrorists who are politically motivated in certain specific ways are of middle eastern descent. I am sure that any middle eastern posters on this forum could attest to the difference in treatment they receive when passing through airport security (especially in the immediate post 9/11 months).
The majority of women are physically weaker than men.
The majority of Japanese, especially those educated in Japan have a higher standard of math education when compared to white americans and african americans.
The Average Canadian is a better hockey player than the average Jamaican.
The average Russian is a better chess player than the average Mexican.
(Note: Remember, I am not in any of these statements saying this is true in ALL cases, just that in our current world, many statements like this are reasonable assumptions most of the time)
...
Ok, so if we take these (or other similar) statements to true, the real question becomes how we can morally apply such knowledge.
Consider: Someone holds a gun to your head and says you have to play two on two basketball for your life. You are facing two unknown opponents. You can choose your partner from the following individuals about whom you know nothing except
One is a 25 yr old african american man
One is a 25 yr old swedish man
Would it be racist to pick the african american man in this situation. By doing this we are exercising a certain amount of racial discrimination but even if in a very small way, it might be a sound inductive inference to conclude that our chances are better with the black man because there are far more african american men in the NBA than there are swedes.
Another example:
You are thinking of going to two different poker games and neither seems any better than the other. You can't make up your mind. You are walking however, and realize that in one direction you must walk through a low income neighborhood predominantly populated by african americans. In the other, you must walk through an upscale swedish neighborhood.
Perhaps in this second example, we could say our decision is not based on racial discrimination, but rather socio-economic considerations (especially considering the 2 grand we have tucked into our sock). Still, in this case, as in the real world, whether we like it or not, racial and socio-economic circumstances often go hand in hand.
I could go on and on, and probably will because I am sure many will be offended by this post and I'll need to respond. Understand, I don't mean it to be any kind of statement. In fact, that is why I am posting it here and not in a forum like politics.
For me, this is a philosophical difficulty, and one that troubles me quite a bit. I don't like the feeling of discrimination at all, and in general, I never do it. Perhaps to the point of irrationality.
It feels immoral, but it also feel rational in a lot of cases. Under what circumstances is discrimination justifiable? Any answer that I try to come up with seems unsatisfying.
Regards
Brad S
The difficulty that I see is that while prejudice seems self evidently wrong, racial or gender based discrimination is a harder idea to outright dismiss as evil, or morally wrong. This is what the mainstream of ethical thinkers currently do however, and I think that at some point, if people are honest with themselves, they are going to need to think at little more academically about things and not simply dismiss these issues.
To clarify what I am saying, lets look at prejudice first.
Prejudice, is just what it sounds like; Pre-judjung. Whether an individual, or a situation, and this is not even so much morally wrong as it is first and foremost just bad reasoning. To judge an individual based upon no prior knowledge simply because of a perceived difference has no rational basis. To take a completely absurd and hypothetical ficticious example, this would be like if tommorrow an alien race arrived on earth and I though to myself something like "They look like they must be very lazy people because they are green skinned and have big purple eyes". I have no basis for this belief as I have encountered no green skinned or big purple eyed people in the past. Nobody else to my knowledge has either.
There is little doubt in my mind that many of the usual racist ideas we hear are just this sort or unsupported opinion that have become widespread. In almost all cases it is not as outright ridiculous as the alien example I gave, but is rather, a failure of reasoning that stems from a single, or extremely small sample. For example something like meeting one person or a very small group of people of a particular race or gender who displayed a seemingly common characteristic and concluding that ALL persons of that race or gender must also display that characteristic. Bad reasoning. End of story in my opinion.
My difficulty is that not all discrimination seems to be this bad. In many cases, there are valid statistics which seem to indicate one or another race or gender DO display similar characteristics even at a large scale. This may or may not be a matter of a common genetic similarity inherent to the group. This could easily be as a result or environmental circumstance etc... I am not trying to say anything about who people are essentially, devoid of their environment or upbringing. I am just saying that there ARE large scale tendencies which exist that separate one group of people from another. I will also point out that these tendencies are probably as often positive as negative.
We are in the habit, however, of forcefully ignoring these tendencies because of the assumption that discrimination in all it's forms is just the kind of prejudice I described earlier. It is not, and however much we would like to think this, many of our societal institutions already recognize this, even if they would never outright express it because of it's negative connotation.
Here are just a few examples of what I see as probably correct matters of racial/national/gender differences and tendencies. I am not rigorously citing facts or sources here. These are just examples which I believe to be true and if called upon, perhaps I will look deeper if this thread develops. I could easily be wrong, but there are also countless other examples I could include
...
The VAST majority of serial killers in North America are white males in their twenties. When a pattern of murders arises that looks like a serial killer is out there, the immediate police profiling that takes place accounts for this, and the search will definitely focus to a large part in this way.
The majority of terrorists who are politically motivated in certain specific ways are of middle eastern descent. I am sure that any middle eastern posters on this forum could attest to the difference in treatment they receive when passing through airport security (especially in the immediate post 9/11 months).
The majority of women are physically weaker than men.
The majority of Japanese, especially those educated in Japan have a higher standard of math education when compared to white americans and african americans.
The Average Canadian is a better hockey player than the average Jamaican.
The average Russian is a better chess player than the average Mexican.
(Note: Remember, I am not in any of these statements saying this is true in ALL cases, just that in our current world, many statements like this are reasonable assumptions most of the time)
...
Ok, so if we take these (or other similar) statements to true, the real question becomes how we can morally apply such knowledge.
Consider: Someone holds a gun to your head and says you have to play two on two basketball for your life. You are facing two unknown opponents. You can choose your partner from the following individuals about whom you know nothing except
One is a 25 yr old african american man
One is a 25 yr old swedish man
Would it be racist to pick the african american man in this situation. By doing this we are exercising a certain amount of racial discrimination but even if in a very small way, it might be a sound inductive inference to conclude that our chances are better with the black man because there are far more african american men in the NBA than there are swedes.
Another example:
You are thinking of going to two different poker games and neither seems any better than the other. You can't make up your mind. You are walking however, and realize that in one direction you must walk through a low income neighborhood predominantly populated by african americans. In the other, you must walk through an upscale swedish neighborhood.
Perhaps in this second example, we could say our decision is not based on racial discrimination, but rather socio-economic considerations (especially considering the 2 grand we have tucked into our sock). Still, in this case, as in the real world, whether we like it or not, racial and socio-economic circumstances often go hand in hand.
I could go on and on, and probably will because I am sure many will be offended by this post and I'll need to respond. Understand, I don't mean it to be any kind of statement. In fact, that is why I am posting it here and not in a forum like politics.
For me, this is a philosophical difficulty, and one that troubles me quite a bit. I don't like the feeling of discrimination at all, and in general, I never do it. Perhaps to the point of irrationality.
It feels immoral, but it also feel rational in a lot of cases. Under what circumstances is discrimination justifiable? Any answer that I try to come up with seems unsatisfying.
Regards
Brad S