What's wrong with anything morally is that someone disapproves of it as interpersonal behavior.

Do you understand this? — Terrapin Station

Yes, I understand this. and that within your thinking are the graves of every thinker on ethics/morality from before Aristotle to Kant. Fortunately we do not have to resort to abstractions or absurdities for examples to work with, because we have the century just past. From that, then, did the Nazis do anything at all immoral?

From that, then, did the Nazis do anything at all immoral? — tim wood

In my opinion, sure.

In my opinion, sure. — Terrapin Station

Only in your opinion? There's no accounting for opinions. The question was, did they or didn't they. What say you?

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. — wax

But that is a weak argument concerning the existence of racism however, because as many scientist have stated, it's (racism) a social construct. Was James Watson correct when he premised the idea that different races of humans exist and that their inborn (genetic) qualities determine their intelligence and ability to create and sustain great civilizations? Watson stated that there are some dogs more intelligent than "negroes" was he right? That to me isn't neolithic tribal thinking, that to me is a learned idea founded by him living in a segregated society that had a certain mentality and a way of thinking not based on reality.

Only in your opinion? There's no accounting for opinions. The question was, did they or didn't they. What say you? — tim wood

There are only individual opinions in this realm. There are no moral/ethical truths with respect to particular stances. Various people can have the same opinion, of course, a la there being many people who feel one shouldn't put ketchup on hot dogs versus many people who feel it's okay to put ketchup on hot dogs. Opinions in this sense can't be correct or incorrect.

because as many scientist have stated, it's (racism) a social construct. — Anaxagoras

It's a construct based on appearance. And the fact that a genetic merging between whites and blacks eliminates whites is one of the sources of racial angst.

Let's not pretend that social constructs can't be incredibly powerful.

But that is a weak argument concerning the existence of racism however, because as many scientist have stated, it's (racism) a social construct. — Anaxagoras

well, if it is a social construct,then what motivates its construction?

I think one of the things is facial recognition, which is part of the so called 'cross-race effect'.
The cross-race effect isn't just about facial recognition, it is about being tuned into one's own culture, and not so tuned into another culture.
Within your own culture, you may notice nuances in things, like ideas, perspectives, tastes in music, and more basic stuff like accents.
With a different culture, which is often associated with different races, people are less tuned into those things...think of some strong accent, like German..it might be harder to tell people with a German accent apart, which is part of the inability to form recognition and differences between people.

The inability for people to be differentiated leads to paranoia and fear I think, which then leads into some forms of dislike of other groups of people.

Re the source, people have a tendency to reject or at least be skeptical of difference, while being okay with sameness. This is rooted (phylogenetically way before homo sapiens) in the necessities of formulating conceptual abstractions required for survival, when we're talking about more complex creatures, with minds, who must continually make quick decisions about what to stay away/run away from, what to eat, etc. It's also rooted (again, phylogenetically way before homo sapiens) in survival with respect to communal species/flocks-schools-herds-tribes-etc. against competing species/flocks etc.

That doesn't justify it, it simply explains the natural tendencies it emerges from.

There are no moral/ethical truths with respect to particular stances.... Opinions in this sense can't be correct or incorrect. — Terrapin Station

You keep conflating these two things when you talk about ethics, I don't know if it's just shorthand, or if you actually mean it, but on the face of it, there clearly are ethical truths. It is "true" that most people abhor extreme violence toward innocent children. That is an 'ethical truth'. Specific parts of our brains have a strong tendency to respond in measurable and predictable ways to certain images on 'moral' topics. That is a moral truth, in that it is a true fact about morals.

I can't see why you're are dismissing statistical facts from your category 'facts'.

You keep conflating these two things when you talk about ethics, I don't know if it's just shorthand, or if you actually mean it, but on the face of it, there clearly are ethical truths. It is "true" that most people abhor extreme violence toward innocent children. — Isaac

Hence why I specified ethical/moral stances. I also said "opinions in this sense.". Those words aren't just decorations. They're there for a reason.

"Most people abhor violence towards children" is not an ethical/moral stance.

"Violence towards children is wrong" is an ethical/moral stance.

As I thought then, just a shorthand. To me, the statistical facts (average, most common, range...) are truths with respect to moral stances, but we're equivocating about the different meaning of "with respect to" and "about". The point is, I get what you mean now.

Yeah, "With respect to" -- in other words, "when it comes to," versus sentences that aren't themselves moral stances but are just about them in some way.

OK, with you there.

Only in your opinion? There's no accounting for opinions. The question was, did they or didn't they. What say you?
— tim wood

There are only individual opinions in this realm. There are no moral/ethical truths with respect to particular stances. Various people can have the same opinion, of course, a la there being many people who feel one shouldn't put ketchup on hot dogs versus many people who feel it's okay to put ketchup on hot dogs. Opinions in this sense can't be correct or incorrect. — Terrapin Station

It appears you are unable to answer the question. Please give it another try. Lest we be persuaded that Terrapin has so cross-threaded his thinking that he is unable to identify any action of the Nazis as immoral, by implication saying that all Nazi actions were moral, or some or all neither moral nor immoral. But none immoral.

Racism is the discrimination against groups and individuals on the basis of racial prejudice This seems unfair and as such is unethical. Racialism (for some this term is a merely a synonym for racism), on the other hand, is the idea that genetically similar groups have shared physical and intellectual characteristics.

It seems uncontroversial to say that sub-Saharan Africans have dark skin or that north Europeans have fairer hair than their southern counterparts. The problems arise when we ascribe relative value to difference. This seems a shame. If the descendants of the Celts have a better sense of smell or the Arabs have higher IQs, I, for one would like to know. Sadly there are some discussions that current multicultural dogma prevents us from having.

Racism is the discrimination against groups and individuals on the basis of racial prejudice — Txastopher

Almost but not quite. On the basis of race, not on the basis of racial anything.

The problems arise when we ascribe relative value to difference. This seems a shame. If the descendants of the Celts have a better sense of smell or the Arabs have higher IQs, I, for one would like to know. Sadly there are some discussions that current multicultural dogma prevents us from having. — Txastopher

Difference is a fact - where there is such (a) difference. As such, value can be ascribed to things based on difference, and is all the time.

One problem with racism is that it misidentifies difference, ascribing difference either to groups that are not different, or are different in ways that the ascription does not apply to. Or the ascription is just plain wrong in itself.

As to what you "would like to know." The idea that Celts might have a better sense of smell, or Arabs a higher IQ, or anything else along these lines is simply thinking run amok. Here's your test: what do these criteria mean? Work through that and you will discover that thinking in those terms is worse than useless and is dangerous. The problem? Among them is using an equivocal measure of individual capability to index - average - somehow the capabilities of whatever group you care to assign your subject to. Category error, misapplication of statistics, and non-sense. Ultimately a tool for murderers who wish to engage in wholesale murder (do you think this is an exaggeration?).

Try this. My ancestors were smart enough to move to the region I now live in - and I am smart enough to choose to be here. For by far most folks, not so. That means I and mine are way smarter than everyone else except my immediate neighbors. Agreed?

It appears you are unable to answer the question. Please give it another try. Lest we be persuaded that Terrapin has so cross-threaded his thinking that he is unable to identify any action of the Nazis as immoral, by implication saying that all Nazi actions were moral, or some or all neither moral nor immoral. But none immoral. — tim wood

In my view a lot of the actions were immoral. What that refers to is the fact that I disapprove of the actions, that I "Boo" them.

I'm not the only person to feel that way, of course. But all of us who feel that way are simply (in terms of what's really going on ontologically) reporting our disapproval.

In my view a lot of the actions were immoral. What that refers to is the fact that I disapprove of the actions, that I "Boo" them.
I'm not the only person to feel that way, of course. But all of us who feel that way are simply (in terms of what's really going on ontologically) reporting our disapproval. — Terrapin Station

Alas, you are terribly confused. I'll approach this way: Is 2+2=4 true? Or is it merely the report of some people who apparently feel that it is true? This rock over here: is it a rock, or simply a matter of some people feeling that it's a rock?

Is morality representative of anything beyond what some people opine of it?

Is a chair a chair? Or is it just profoundly empty space with almost nothing at all within that space but the very local play of some forces and an almost incomprehensibley small amount of matter.

Understanding anything in the wrong terms or the wrong scale with wrong understandings must lead to error. Is there such a thing as morals? It doesn't seem so. But then, thingness does not apply to morals: they can "be" without thingness. You, apparently, apply the wrong criteria and understandings and arrive at the wrong conclusion (as I understand your argument) that morality is just a matter of opinion. Easy to say while out of the currents that such thinking can lead to, but do you really think it is ok for one person to do to another whatever the doer wants to do?

The trick, here, is to accomplish the task of establishing what the limits and boundaries of a particular reality are, in a mature and reasoned way. Admittedly it's sometimes mere convention, but also at times deadly serious business.

The ground of this is human mind. There are those who argue no mind, no world - with some justification. If no morality, then no mind, or at least that part of mind that considers morality. Is that your position? No-mindedness?

Alas, you are terribly confused. I'll approach this way: Is 2+2=4 true? Or is it merely the report of some people who apparently feel that it is true? This rock over here: is it a rock, or simply a matter of some people feeling that it's a rock?

Is morality representative of anything beyond what some people opine of it? — tim wood

I don't want to get into mathematics because I don't see how that wouldn't turn into a big tangent about a different subject. (If you're really interested in my view on the mathematical question, I posted a couple times in this recent thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5244/is-2-2-4-universally-true)

Morality isn't anything other than how people feel, whether they approve or disapprove, etc. of interpersonal behavior that they consider more significant than etiquette.

Ultimately a tool for murderers who wish to engage in wholesale murder (do you think this is an exaggeration?). — tim wood

Has been used as tool for, yes, undoubtedly. Ultimately a tool for, no.

If there are differences between historically isolated groups of humans, I'm interested to know what they are.

Try this. My ancestors were smart enough to move to the region I now live in - and I am smart enough to choose to be here. For by far most folks, not so. That means I and mine are way smarter than everyone else except my immediate neighbors. Agreed? — tim wood

No.

If there are differences between historically isolated groups of humans, I'm interested to what they are. — Txastopher

So am I. But to be meaningful some care is needed in how things are approached and handled. Apparently Neanderthals and Humans were different, but how the differences are identified and classified and understood depends on how and why anyone looks at it.

But to be meaningful some care is needed in how things are approached and handled. — tim wood

I don't understand your use of 'meaningful' here.

No. — Txastopher

Because I'm not that smart after all? Or is there maybe a problem with my methodology?

Indeed, the problem is methodological in the sense that you wish to generalise from a particular. Not good when discussing race.

Indeed, the problem is methodological in the sense that you wish to generalise from a particular. Not good when discussing race. — Txastopher

Amen.

For the record I want to thank everyone for participating. I really enjoyed reading some of your replies. It is refreshing to see some enlightened minds here.