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

it's not just colour though, is it..there are other physical differences that tend to go along with race.

eg: type of hair; curly and thick, or thin and straight.
facial differences, like the structure of the nose.

The hair type isn't so important, but facial structural differences lead to the cross-race-effect.

Is talking about race so fraught with sensitivities etc, that we can't discuss things like the cross-race-effect?

I'm not always sure that talking about the CRE will get us anywhere, but then again it might.

I think over hundreds of thousands of years, we evolved from forest dwelling chimp-type beings to the highly populated societies we have now.

In an older culture like the neolithic people may have had, one would live in a tribe..I don't know, maybe 100 people. Everyone would know each other and recognise each other, and that is the context of how the mind/brain developed.

You skip to the present and now, if you live in a town or city, if you go out you will see many people you have never seen before, and after that day, probably never see again.

So facial recognition is important in the way we interact...the inability to easily recognise someone, or get a gestalt from looking at them, I think can lead to people feeling alienated, and disconnected from society..it can lead to paranoia, fear, and then hatred..

This I think is one of the reasons for why racist behaviour arises in society; not the only reason, but an important one.

Plus it's a false dichotomy. Just because it's possible that people should learn to ignore racist words, doesn't mean that those spewing racist garbage should be let off the hook.

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

I don't think that one is a victim just because their feelings are hurt.

As social beings, we care about how others view us, — NKBJ

First, it's important to realize that no matter what you're like, no matter what you do, and no matter what we do as a culture, not everyone is going to like you, not everyone is going to respect you, be interested in you, etc. You need to be able to accept/deal with that.

Aside from that, people could be just giving their opinion, which can't be right or wrong, and you shouldn't get upset that people have different opinions than you do, or they're claiming something that can be right or wrong, in which case either they're right--and you shouldn't get upset that someone is saying something true, or they're wrong, in which case you can either try to help them not be wrong or if you realize that's hopeless, you can just let them be and move on to something else. They're going to be wrong and you can't teach them otherwise, at least not at that moment.

doesn't mean that those spewing racist garbage should be let off the hook. — NKBJ

I wouldn't put anyone on the hook for anything they can say. People can say things that we disagree with or that we think is stupid or wrong. They should be allowed to do so.

I don't think that one is a victim just because their feelings are hurt. — Terrapin Station

Where racist views predominate, it's not so much that an expression of racism hurts anyone's feelings, it's that members of the oppressed race internalize those expressions and pass them on to their children, to some extent crippling their children in the process. A racist society creates a mindset in both races. Abraham Lincoln believed that mindset is damaging to both races in that it blinds people to their freedom.

But if we call a social structure of that kind immoral, we're calling the majority of human history immoral. The naturalist in me has to agree with you: a successful social system is like a successful species. It's there because it works, not because anyone had ill will. So a person would have to embrace racism specifically in order to hurt other people in order to be evil. I think there are people who do that, and they don't really count as racists in my view, because they'll pick up whatever is available to express their malice. They might claim the end of the world is near for the malice in it rather than because it makes any sense. If they pick up racism, it's just because it's handy.

I don't think that one is a victim just because their feelings are hurt — Terrapin Station

Let me just make sure I understand your position:

1) hurting someone's feelings is never wrong.

2) since people say/do bad stuff, we should just let it go and learn to be tougher.

Sorry didn't realize people needed a definition of racism.

I apologize to everyone if I wasn't clearly definitive of the term

You don't need to apologize. For most, it's not at all confusing. A very few people might not understand what it means because they look at -ism words that are on the belief end of the spectrum, like 'atheism', and falsely generalize from those (forgetting -ism words like 'alcoholism', which are more on the behaviour spectrum). Of course, 'racism' as any dictionary will tell you covers both ends. Where a useful distinction could be drawn on actions and psychological states would be regarding 'prejudice' vs 'discrimination' where discrimination in the behaviour that expresses the attitude of prejudice. But anyway, you asked a clear question and are entitled to clear answers to it rather than confused word games.

Ok, so if I get this right, whites a getting cucked because we can no longer be sure that when we look at our neighbour if he is from good European breeding stock? :confused:

The physical characteristics of different human groups aren't determinative of any ethically relevant behaviour; ergo, racism is first and foremost a result of stupidity and ignorance (some of which is inbuilt and some of which is environmental / culturally conditioned). And is unethical, like most things, insofar as it causes unnecessary, and particularly, intentional, physical and/or emotional harm.

Let me just make sure I understand your position:

1) hurting someone's feelings is never wrong.

2) since people say/do bad stuff, we should just let it go and learn to be tougher. — NKBJ

Re (1), it's not sufficient to be morally wrong (and certainly not sufficient to suggest social action, censure, laws, etc.). Re (2), learn how to parse it better. I explained that as succinctly as it can be explained. A shorter paraphrase isn't really going to capture the idea, and I didn't say anything resembling what I'd call "tougher."

And is unethical, like most things, insofar as it causes unnecessary, and particularly, intentional, physical and/or emotional harm. — Baden

What criteria would you put on what counts as morally problematic emotional harm? Would a person experiencing emotional harm in response to any arbitrary thing count? For example, say that Joe has an emotional problem with orange striped shirts, so that when he sees someone wearing one, he experiences emotional harm. Is it then morally problematic to wear an orange striped shirt around Joe?

Or does it have to be a common reaction to be a problem? Just how common?

A very few people might not understand what it means — Baden

Not agreeing with you, or not agreeing with some particular conventional view, doesn't amount to not understanding something.

Where racist views predominate, it's not so much that an expression of racism hurts anyone's feelings, — frank

The issue there was just that he was characterizing someone with hurt feelings as a victim. I was saying that I don't consider hurt feelings to qualify for victimhood. That bit isn't just about racism. I mean in general.

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. — Terrapin Station

What that leaves is that it is not wrong to hurt people. Is that your position?

What that leaves is that it is not wrong to hurt people. Is that your position? — tim wood

Right. "Hurt" is too vague. As if "suffering," "harm," etc,

It depends on what we're talking about.

And this is the case a fortiori because someone can be hurt--especially if we're including emotional reactions--by any arbitrary thing. No one is going to argue that any and every arbitrary thing is thus morally wrong. They're going to have some sort of more qualified/restrictive criteria.

That bit isn't just about racism. I mean in general. — Terrapin Station

I agree. Hurting someone's feelings is not inherently immoral. Racism is mostly about a certain social structure. Where a people have been through hell over the issue, there is a lot of sensitivity to the still existing sources of wounding and concern about revival of racism.

Look at you getting rude again :roll:
Nevermind, guess you're never going to be able to have a civilized conversation.

Right. "Hurt" is too vague. — Terrapin Station

Hurting someone's feelings is not inherently immoral. — frank

English please. I am under the impression this is an English language site. I suspect you both are failing to distinguish between active and passive usage. It makes a difference.

Terrapin: what is vague about the word "hurt"?
frank: given your sentence above, when is hurting someone moral?

frank: given your sentence above, when is hurting someone moral? — tim wood

Digging a little pit so a previously pregnant woman can be tied face down in order to be whipped for killing her own newborn baby because she couldn't face allowing it to grow up in the world she inhabits: that's immoral.

Tying a man to a tree and cutting his penis off and subsequently burning him to death while you and your drunk buddies march around a burning cross: that's immoral.

Help me understand why we're talking about someone's feeling being hurt.

Sounds like a false dilemma fallacy there. Things can be more or less immoral. The examples you gave are extremely immoral due to the physical violence done. A white man walking up to a black child and shouting "nigger" in their face may by contrast "only" hurt the child's feelings, but anyone who thinks that's moral is living in a very perverse ethical universe. And no, @Terrapin Station, I don't care what shirt you wear.

Terrapin: what is vague about the word "hurt"? — tim wood

But I explained this already. Someone can be hurt, especially emotionally, by any arbitrary thing.

And no, Terrapin Station, I don't care what shirt you wear. — Baden

Right, but someone could be emotionally hurt by that. So, is it immoral? If not, then we'd need to qualify things better.

I totally get that you have good intentions.

You will never reach an exhaustive qualification of criteria. And there's little point in trying. The point is there are cases like the one I gave that (I claim) are clearly immoral. And there are other cases like the one you gave that (I claim) are clearly not (without further detail given). Then there are grey areas where a more granular analysis would need to be done. I recognize that. You seem not to, and, if so, you'll need to justify why you think the behaviour in the example I gave is not immoral. Can you do that?



I presume most of us do. And it's easy to back my claims up by pointing to scientific evidence of the very real psychological harm non-physical violence can do. The idea that hurting someone is only bad when it's physical, without any consideration taken of context or degree or intention, is absolutely unsupportable. And that does not imply in any way that just because someone is hurt, the one who hurt them necessarily did anything immoral.

Apropos:
General:
https://rsds.org/physical-pain-emotional-pain/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-causes-chest-pains/
https://ideas.ted.com/why-we-need-to-take-emotional-pain-as-seriously-as-physical-pain/
Scholarly:
https://www.pnas.org/content/108/15/6270.short
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-08705-001
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-2892-6_10

If morality is about intention to do harm and actual harm done, the distinction between the physical and emotional is not at all decisive in judging it.

You will never reach an exhaustive qualification of criteria. And there's little point in trying. The point is there are cases like the one I gave that (I claim) are clearly immoral. And there are other cases like the one you gave that (I claim) are clearly not (without further detail given). Then there are grey areas where a more granular analysis would need to be done. I recognize that. You seem not to, and, if so, you'll need to justify why you think the behaviour in the example I gave is not immoral. Can you do that? — Baden

The point is simply that you're not actually using a "it's immoral just in case someone's feelings are hurt" criterion then. You're also not using a simple "it's immoral just in case someone is hurt (period)."

I'm not either. I was just explicit that I'm not using that as a criterion.

I don't feel that hurt feelings is ever sufficient to make something immoral. Some examples of hurt I do think are immoral--such as frank's examples. I just don't consider hurt feelings sufficient, and I wouldn't frame it as hurt being immoral unqualified aside from that, because that would be misleading.

"You will never reach an exhaustive qualification of criteria."--I agree with that, and it's a reason that I think that "principle-oriented" approaches aren't the way to go.

Re justifying why we find anything in particular moral or immoral, as I've stated many times, it simply comes down to what we feel should or shouldn't be allowed re interpersonal behavior that we consider more significant than etiquette.

I want to speak for a moment about why Terrapin Station has brought up something that is related to a valuable perspective.

Somewhere along the journey of the oppressed, there comes a time when the down trodden needs to come up with an alternative to bitterness, and that's going to involve forgiveness and understanding. There are other reasons a person of mixed race needs to come to terms with things, but it ends up in the same place.

When we think about some cold hearted monster who committed atrocities, we might just start out with no understanding at all, but just holding out the possibility of learning more. Then little clues come along, and we'll build a working scenario that is open to revision as needed.

This is mine: people don't start off evil. They just start off with needs and a tendency to express the life within them. Sometimes it's explosive. There are some environments that turn innocent children into monsters. Getting a sense of how that happens will enhance ones understanding of evil. And there's a lot more to that issue than would fit in a thread like this.

When we think of an historic crime, say from the days of slavery in Brazil, we can see that there were many reasons it happened. Racism was one component of it. So saying that the crime itself is racism doesn't help. Seeing racism as a mindset that contributed to the emergence of the behavior: that does help because we're now in the process of understanding: not judging.

If someone says that the crime we've been talking about is racism, I understand what they mean. If someone says the crime was motivated by racism, I understand what they mean.

When someone says the crime was partly motivated by racism: I say they're right.

I don't feel that hurt feelings is ever sufficient to make something immoral — Terrapin Station

It's possible to emotionally torture someone to the point where they commit suicide. And you are saying you wouldn't consider that immoral? Simply because there is no physical contact? What about punching someone in the stomach (adult on adult)? Is that immoral? And which do you think is the more harmful?

It's possible to emotionally torture someone to the point where they commit suicide. And you are saying you wouldn't consider that immoral? — Baden

Yes, I wouldn't consider that immoral. For one, they could choose to leave the situation before it gets to that point.

Re punching someone, that's not sufficient to be immoral either. It depends on just how hard someone is punching the other person, the injury sustained if any, etc.