Could this be generalized to asking why it's ethically wrong to consider one group of people better or worse than other groups based on some biological factor like gender or ethnicity?

We could take height. Anyone above or below a certain height is somehow lesser. Why is that? Well, because seven feet tall people should rule the world, because they can see farther. Or something.

That sounds dumb, but little people have faced discrimination. If you're under four foot something, then society has had a tendency to think less of you. And the seven footers were probably treated like freaks at some point (before modern sports).

I will be honest, this idea came from are morals come from the God of Abraham (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). Then when the "secular era" came we keep the idea but change the arguments (wich happens more often then people think). Thinks like all people matter, but if you push enough for most people the argument will not stand up on its own like people believe it does.

Besides according to the modem people defending this principle say racism is when you offend a minority. The problem with this thinking it is subjective.

Racism is supposed to be unfair or unethical treatment based on genetics that you can't control.

So why it's unethical variety from person to person but are based in the idea that all people matter.

Could this be generalized to asking why it's ethically wrong to consider one group of people better or worse than other groups based on some biological factor like gender or ethnicity? — Marchesk

is it always the reason for racism? That one group is better?

I think it is more to do with feelings of hatred.

And I think some of the reasons can be found in the cross-race effect, which has the effect of making it harder to distinguish individuals in another group, from others in the group, which can lead to a feeling of distrust, in members of that group, and then those feelings of fear morph into feelings of hatred in some people's minds.

Let's say a postman is a member of race A. Someone on his delivery round is a member of race B...The member of B can't easily tell the difference between members of race A, which leads to a feeling that that the postman could be anyone from group A; are they even a real postman, or a fraud; is the postman someone who has been in the news for a crime, also committed by a member of group A?....this can lead to a feeling of distrust, paranoia and fear....whereas another regular postman who is a member of group B, is easier to recognise, creates a greater gestalt, in the person who is being delivered to, and so they find it easier to trust that person, and in general, easier to trust members of his own group.

Racism is nothing more than discrimination, I am part of the in group you are not, but on a larger scale. But it works from both sides equally.
Most of the time it is caused not by hatred as someone said but by ignorance. Hatred is caused by one group of people discriminating against another.
Many times the difference between the two groups is nothing more than the resources they possess, one group wanting what the other has can be a powerful motivator to hate someone. And it is even worse when the haves start to think that the havenots are coming to take away their possessions.

Think about it, what is the most discriminated racial group in the USA? What do people say about them? They are bring down the value of our neighborhood.
They want to steal our daughters.
You cannot leave your car outside without it being stolen.

They don't hate them for the color of their skin, they hate them because they think they are going to lose something.

society for the most part considers racism wrong because it causes harm. — Anaxagoras

Perhaps you'd expand on this for the sake of your discussion. What is it that you say racism is? And how do you say racism hurts anyone?

I'm pretty sure that once you covered this ground, you will have comprehensively answered your own questions.

Flomot

I think that racism is a subgroup of a type of thinking which makes assumptions about people that are not only unsubstantiated in any acceptable way but are inherently detrimental. It's a hateful and ignorant way of looking at people which is based off nothing rational or reasonable, at least most of the time.
I think racism stands out above other categories of this way of thinking because of its destructive history.

The real question isn't whether racism is wrong but being able to decide what is and what isn't racism. For example, I don't dislike Chinese people but I seriously dislike mainstream Chinese culture. The collectivism, materialism, racism, shallowness and rigidness towards discipline and image over freedom, I hate it. If I said I didn't want any Chinese immigrants because there's a high probability of them subscribing to that detestable culture, am I a racist?

If people want to retain their nations previously unambiguous ethnic identity are they still racist if they associate that with the retention of their culture and national attitudes? Is it actually untrue that immigration from different cultures won't disrupt that? Is it unfair for them to feel that way? When ethnic minorities are celebrated for wanting to preserve their own cultures?

I have my own answers to these questions but I don't think others do and that makes it very difficult for them to actually argue against what they perceive as racism. Hypocrisy is rampant, we're encouraged to celebrate ethnic histories but told it's the worst thing possible for white people to want to defend their ethnic heritage. Ethnic groups are taught to be proud of their heritage but white people bringing it up is considered racist in of itself. Other ethnicities in other countries wanting to preserve their ethnic identity aren't criticised.

Flomot — TheMadFool

Was ist das?

Some people are obsessed with racism, sexism, various ------phobias, isms, diets, and what not without it improving their ethical framework, as far as I can tell. It's just their specialty. They could have been civil war buffs, or been fanatics about the Victorian novel, fungi, Nazi uniforms, raising orchids or canaries, or whatever. It just that raising canaries isn't much of a platform from which to pontificate, whereas racism or veganism and the like are superb soap boxes.

Marxism was my favorite platform from which to criticize other people, so I'd rather talk about class than race. Gender fluid sounds more like some sort of exudate than anything else. Here's a tissue - wipe it up. Actually, in the real world, most people do not go about their day obsessing over oppression, racism, sexism, homophobia, decolonizing science, straight white males, gender identity, the ethics of a lamb chop, or class warfare.

Some people, though, live in an echo chamber where their private concerns get amplified. The amplification can be (isn't always) unhelpful. Excessive amplification (like, from one's marxist study group or the local antiracism club) can produce an unhealthy hyper vigilance, where one sees racism or predatory capitalists behind every tree and under every bush.

First, I wouldn't say that any belief or expression is unethical.

But in general racism is considered unethical because it's conflated with actions rooted in racial discrimination--actions of unfair treatment based solely on mistaken beliefs about "race."

...racism is a subgroup of a type of thinking which makes assumptions about people that are not only unsubstantiated in any acceptable way but are inherently detrimental. It's a hateful and ignorant way of looking at people which is based off nothing rational or reasonable....
I think racism stands out above other categories of this way of thinking because of its destructive history.

The real question isn't whether racism is wrong but being able to decide what is and what isn't racism. — Judaka

An excellent start, in my opinion. It seems to me that the "hateful and ignorant" are not after-the-fact-judgments, but rather ingredients of the original enterprise. It may well be that racism "stands out" because of its destructiveness, but that from an empirical view. From the logic, reason, and rationality of the thing, or to be precise, its illogic, unreason, and irrationality, it stands out as plain mean stupid ignorance right from the git-go.

And the entire "preservation of culture" idea is a tar-trap and delusion. Things change and evolve. They always have and always will, whether at times quickly or slowly. Just because it was then, does not mean it should be now; and if it was valuable then, then that value will be re-assessed now and kept if still valuable.

Racism poisons its own well, fouls its own nest. That alone should condemn it in any thinking person's mind.

most people just get on with life probably....

But this just leads them to develop very basic world views I would guess...a world view like a shed, partly made in a factory by the media...compared to something more fleshed out, strong and useful like a house.

Take the idea that too much salt in your diet, is bad for you. I read an article in Scientific America* which basically said this claim "has little bases in science"...based upon bad science, and a discussion about this on another forum someone said it was a myth that perpetuated because it was a simple thing to say, believe, and a simple thing to change about one's diet.... a nice simple message for politicians to preach etc...

most people are quite happy to parrot this myth, and it even gets to the point where major medical organisation pedal this myth, like the NHS.

To over turn this myth in the population there has to be some scepticism about how society is presented as working....how certain narratives in mainstream media perpetuate the idea that governments are actually competent; that democracy is somehow a real thing, rather than just another myth with hints of something real to them, that the media itself presents actually what is going on in the world.
If myths as simple as the salt one go unchallenged, and can't be overturned, because most people just get on with life..then what else can't be overturned?
The article(been a while since I read it all) states that too little salt can actually lead to heart attacks, and yet the NHS is quite happy to tell people to cut down on salt who every they are, without even an individual consultation.


*
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt/

Why wouldn't you say it's unethical?

The question is not for myself as I made this perfectly clear in the beginning.

Because in my view no beliefs or expressions of beliefs, preferences, etc. are unethical. I see that as a category error.

What do you mean by category error

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Ok, so why is the expression of racism a category error?

As something moral/ethical. Because morals/ethics aren't about people merely having beliefs or expressing things. They're about performing actions on each other, directly or indirectly, actions that "do something" to someone else (as in "physically" or practically affecting them) or their situation.

I get that but to put it in context, can you demonstrate here that the expression of racism is a category error? Can you give me an example in context please?

can you demonstrate here that the expression of racism is a category error? — Anaxagoras

Again, I'm not saying that the expression of racism is a category error. I said that it's a category error to classify beliefs and expressions as subject to moral/ethical evaluations.

Dictionary result for racism
/ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

It's a belief too but obviously not just a belief, So, no category error, and no issue referring to it as unethical.

Just so this is crystal clear, racism refers to a set of behaviours as well as a set of beliefs. The behaviours are not some separate thing and parsing it that way so that you can say racism isn't unethical is either mendacious or ignorant.

Of course this discussion is not to "out a racist" on these boards but to discuss why in society do we hold this to be unethical in your words of course. I'm curious. — Anaxagoras

As Hakim Bey said, "I am awake only in what I love & desire to the point of terror - everything else is just shrouded furniture, quotidian anesthesia, shit-for-brains, sub-reptilian ennui of totalitarian regimes, banal censorship & useless pain."

There'e degrees to it.

Just having racist thoughts is one thing--you're probably hurting yourself more than anyone by being caught up in hate that way.

Racist words, epithets, etc. hurt people's feelings. It's wrong to hurt people's feelings. There's something doubly horrible about being told something nasty on account for something you can't change. If someone calls me lazy, that's either true or not, and I can decide to change if I want to. If someone calls me something that implies I'm less-than just because of my skin color, I can't do anything about it.

Racist actions are obvious unethical because you're treating people differently (mostly worse) on the basis of something they have no control over, and which should be irrelevant to how they are treated. There is no basis for treating black people as inherently dumber than others, as skin color simply does not affect brain function.

Was ist das? — Bitter Crank

I dunno. The word just popped in my head. I googled it and Flomot is a town in Texas. It's a portmanteau word Floyd + Motley. Floyd born 1804 died 1836 and Motley born 1812 died 1836. By coincidence ''a defining moment in racism and slavery'' was the Haitian revolution 1804.

Also by coincidence Floyd means gray and Motely means variety of colors.

:lol:

Racist words, epithets, etc. hurt people's feelings. It's wrong to hurt people's feelings. — NKBJ

I don't at all agree with this. And in my opinion, the person whose feelings are hurt is the person who needs to work on themselves more.

Racism, like all discrimination, is based on differences and like @Baden so kindly defined it, it's used to establish a superiority-inferiority social structure.

There are some things to consider. The factual and the moral or are the two related in some sorta way?

Factual: Racial differences can be physical and menal. Physical differences are there and racial ideology probably revolves around it. As for mental differences there's no proof of any race having higher/lower IQ.

So, are physical differences enough for a racist? If yes, then the racist must be a shallow person who is lacking in mental maturation, after all isn't s/he identifying him/herself with the body. I believe we're mental beings capable of complex thought and feelings. Are we simply bodies? So, no, there are no mental differences among the races.

Even physical differences are superficial. A species is identified in terms of its members being able to reproduce with each other. Inter-racial marriages don't seem to be a problem. We can also transplant organs among each other and the list goes on.

Therefore, physical/mental differences between races is a factual error unless you want to base your entire philosophy on color.

To say or demand superior status therefore has no real foundation. It's silly at best and mad at worst.

Moral: Every person is a morally relevant. Are we not all persons?

That's so obvious, I don't know why I didn't get it right away!

That's just victim-blaming and totally ignoring how humans work.

As social beings, we care about how others view us, speak to us, and treat us.

I do not think people need to grow insensitive because there are jerks in the world--it's the jerks who need to change.