If it is the case that I just haven't read enough about this please point me to the appropriate literature; I'm very interested in this stuff atm.

I have encountered the claim that black culture — Aleph Numbers

That right there is the problem. Black culture is self sustainability, nature, tribal family units, and more recently jazz. What has become ghetto or urban culture is a poison that has been spoonfed to them using puppets who get rich to destroy their own people- all while thinking they're the puppet masters and catalysts of some sort of "black power" movement spurring change. They're not. They're literally doing the jobs of those who despise them ensuring chains of enslavement are not only unbroken but this time inescapable- not because of others but because it is now their own hand that keeps them on. This time they and they alone have the key, however most will never realize this.

Putting a criminal in jail is not racist. Outlawing, marijuana, a crop that isn't even native to Africa but from the Far East, is not racist. What is racist is just short of explicitly saying black people are incapable of being law abiding citizens or they're otherwise incapable of being responsible for their own actions. What would be racist is not policing predominantly black neighborhoods and letting their children grow up knowing only fear and terror. Or that black people just can't help being high all the time. That's what's racist.

Yes there are problems, yes there are historic injustices that would weigh heavily on anybody's mind and yes they foster emotions and attitudes that encourage criminal activity. No, they do not render a black person from being incapable of achieving what any other citizen can. Is it more difficult? Absolutely. Impossible? Far from it.

I'm not saying there's not inequality. I'm saying the minority of any land will naturally have less opportunity than the majority. The same is true for non-blacks in Africa and the same is true for blacks in America. The problem is the solution. Violent rap music is uplifting, encouraging, and can often offer a strong, powerful father figure when otherwise absent. But it's a trap. Think about it. People used to call black people the n word. Whenever a black man tried to do anything productive he'd be called a coward, a slave, a tool, and would then usually get beaten. Who does it now? Hint: it's not white people. That's what cancer does. It spreads and takes over. It's like a parasitic infection. It will literally attack and kill the host and anyone who tries to remove it and restore health. Good Lord. Heh, this is not exclusive of black people either.

Putting a criminal in jail is not racist. — Outlander

Why is jail the best way to solve the social problem of the criminal? What is the criminal's genesis?

Why is jail the best way to solve the social problem of the criminal? — JerseyFlight

Never said it was. That said, an imperfect world begets imperfect solutions. Additionally, most current correctional facilities not only fail in their stated purpose of being 'correctional' but do quite the opposite.

What is the criminal's genesis? — JerseyFlight

Depends. Sometimes out of necessity, perceived or otherwise. Other times out of greed, frustration, lack of self control, mental illness, or just good ol' fashioned indifference. Usually a bit of all. The more pressing question is, what will be their exodus?

What has become ghetto or urban culture is a poison that has been spoonfed to them using puppets who get rich to destroy their own people- all while thinking they're the puppet masters and catalysts of some sort of "black power" movement spurring change. — Outlander

So I take it you would include people like Cornell West and Nina Turner in this group? Not only are they genuine, they advocate for policies that would positively affect people of color, such as decriminalization of marijuana. They would never imagine themselves as puppet masters.

Outlawing, marijuana, a crop that isn't even native to Africa but from the Far East, is not racist. — Outlander

I beg to differ: I think that if a policy unfairly targets any racial demographic it is racist. The intent behind the policy just might be difficult to demonstrate sometimes, however.

What would be racist is not policing predominantly black neighborhoods and letting their children grow up knowing only fear and terror. — Outlander

As it turns out over-policing can have some negative effects. To quote Jonanthan Blanks: "Findings imply that pretextual investigatory stops of minorities have negative effects on minority communities such as reducing respect for police and civic institutions as well as undermining the drivers’ sense of equal place in society, regardless of how polite the officers were." Link to source here: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/racist-policies-need-go

Not going to lie, I don't even understand much of your last paragraph.

the minority of any land will naturally have less opportunity than the majority. — Outlander

But surely this doesn't have to be the case? Why can't we have civil liberties that protect the opportunities and dignity of everyone? I get that the minorities can be outvoted, but, at least here in the US, their rights aren't usually voted away; we have a constitution for a reason. It just might need some updating sometimes.

Consider the situation in Nazi Germany. There were many laws that applied to Jews, and of course any resistance to transportation and the 'final solution' were criminal. One can see that culture as expressed in law-making is the determinant of crime; one culture criminalises another, never itself. The institution of private property creates theft as its resistance.

My culture protects itself from yours by criminalising yours and persuading (most of) you that it is right to do so. Yours is a criminal culture that produces criminals, and needs to be suppressed.

I have encountered the claim that black culture causes crime among people of color. Now, personally, I think that culture has little to do with it, and that if it does have something to do with it it is probably the result of racist policies, i.e. mass incarceration, criminalization of marijuana, poorly funded schools, etc. But it seems to me that culture (if not black culture) still plays a role to an unknown degree. Obviously black culture does not arise from any innate factor associated with having darker skin, the effective escape hatch here being that race is entirely a social construct and that black culture does not exist in a vacuum (it is undoubtedly affected by racism). Moreover, I think that if any culture is relevant to the crime problem it is more so poor culture; I believe that middle class whites would act the same way as poor people of color in rough inner-city neighborhoods. The determinants of crime are largely unknown and what hypotheses have been made are largely inconsistent, but it seems to me to be common sense that a legacy or culture of poverty, especially those that align with racial disparities, can cause crime. A poor, desperate person of color forced into a bad situation is more likely to break a law than a complacent white middle-class person I think, but correct me if I’m wrong. I would like to banish the thought that culture matters, so please change my mind — Aleph Numbers

It being true that in most cultures, morals - the only thing keeping us from a life a of crime - comes from religion, I suggest we devote our efforts to discuss the perpetrator (religion) instead of wasting time on the accomplice (culture).

It being true that in most cultures, morals - the only thing keeping us from a life a of crime - comes from religion, I suggest we devote our efforts to discuss the perpetrator (religion) instead of wasting time on the accomplice (culture). — TheMadFool

I believe that more than just religion prevents one from living a life of crime; after all, atheists and humanists are no more likely to commit serious crimes than religious people (I have sources for this fact if needed). Furthermore, I'm a little confused: are you suggesting that religion supplies poor morals and thus does not inhibit crime as much as a strong secular ethic could?

I believe that more than just religion prevents one from living a life of crime; after all, atheists and humanists are no more likely to commit serious crimes than religious people (I have sources for this fact if needed). Furthermore, I'm a little confused: are you suggesting that religion supplies poor morals and thus does not inhibit crime as much as a strong secular ethic could? — Aleph Numbers

There's no difference between an atheist and a theist in terms of morals. All that's happened between the two of them is the unceremonious removal of the author - god - of our book on morality. The relationship between religion and morality has a long and illustrious history that's hard to ignore. Atheism is the new kind on the block and you must know that atheistic morality essentially consists of bringing reason to bear on pre-existing theistic ethical intuitions/insights.

Coming to the issue you raised, my humble opinion is that if culture is in any way involved with ethics, it must be through religion for the simple reason that it's the oldest ethical system we humans have had a relationship with. Being so, and taking into account that modern philosophical ethics is only concerned with building a reason-based foundation for religious morals and doesn't in any way contradict the moral principles found therein, I'd say that the blame/credit for both failures and successes in the moral sphere must be laid down at the door of religion.

There's no difference between an atheist and a theist in terms of morals. — TheMadFool

Why is it, then, that far more atheists and humanists support abortion, for example? If polled on a series of issues atheists and humanists answer differently from most religious people, especially fundamentalists. After all, I recently encountered an essay written by a humanist that said we should be pro abortion, not just pro-choice. Such a view is unheard of among religious people, even those to the left on social issues.

Atheism is the new kind on the block and you must know that atheistic morality essentially consists of bringing reason to bear on pre-existing theistic ethical intuitions/insights. — TheMadFool

Some ethics are purely secular, such as humanism, which celebrates the human condition and seeks to galvanize positive action without appeals to faith or the threat of hell. So I think that secular ethics is about more than just bringing reason to bare on ethical intuitions. Running with the abortion issue: there is an intuition among many that a fetus is a person worth protecting because the soul enters the zygote upon conception. And even some non-religious people share the intuition that the fetus is a person worth protecting. The denial of the fact that the soul enters the zygote upon conception or that the fetus isn't a person arises from science hammering religious intuitions; secularism here is making an original proposition: the fetus is not a person, and thus it is okay to abort it before viability. This is at odds with Christianity.

I'd say that the blame/credit for both failures and successes in the moral sphere must be laid down at the door of religion. — TheMadFool

I think much blame can be laid at the feet of religion, but certainly not all of it. After all, secular people commit plenty of crimes, (if not more than the rest of the population). Furthermore, God has little to say about climate change, yet people still oppose measures intended to mitigate the incoming climate catastrophe.

Why is it, then, that far more atheists and humanists support abortion, for example? If polled on a series of issues atheists and humanists answer differently from most religious people, especially fundamentalists. After all, I recently encountered an essay written by a humanist that said we should be pro abortion, not just pro-choice. Such a view is unheard of among religious people, even those to the left on social issues. — Aleph Numbers

Some ethics are purely secular, such as humanism, which celebrates the human condition and seeks to galvanize positive action without appeals to faith or the threat of hell. So I think that secular ethics is about more than just bringing reason to bare on ethical intuitions. Running with the abortion issue: there is an intuition among many that a fetus is a person worth protecting because the soul enters the zygote upon conception. And even some non-religious people share the intuition that the fetus is a person worth protecting. The denial of the fact that the soul enters the zygote upon conception or that the fetus isn't a person arises from science hammering religious intuitions; secularism here is making an original proposition: the fetus is not a person, and thus it is okay to abort it before viability. This is at odds with Christianity. — Aleph Numbers

To tell you the truth, the difference between atheists/humanists and theists on the abortion issue is only superficial, a result of the difficulty in determining when a fetus becomes a person. Pull back the curtains and you'll notice that the debate stems from what is actually a mutually agreed upon moral truth, to wit, murder is wrong.

I think much blame can be laid at the feet of religion, but certainly not all of it. After all, secular people commit plenty of crimes, (if not more than the rest of the population). Furthermore, God has little to say about climate change, yet people still oppose measures intended to mitigate the incoming climate catastrophe. — Aleph Numbers

All I'm saying is that religion is the birthplace of the first formal moral system humans have encountered. It should form a major part of the discussion if morality is analyzed against the backdrop of culture.

To tell you the truth, the difference between atheists/humanists and theists on the abortion issue is only superficial, a result of the difficulty in determining when a fetus becomes a person. Pull back the curtains and you'll notice that the debate stems from what is actually a mutually agreed upon moral truth, to wit, murder is wrong. — TheMadFool

You make a good point I think. However, it is still true that what murder is to one person in terms of abortion, is merely pruning a plant to another. This is a meaningful disagreement and is more about whether or not killing non-persons should be allowed, at least on one side, and about what is perceived as child murder on the other.
The argument also concerns women's rights, which constitutes yet another significant disagreement; not everyone agrees that a woman should have the right to control what happens to her body. On one extreme some believe that the government should be able to force a woman to carry a child to term; on the other some assert that women should be allowed to have late term abortions. What does this debate stem from, you think? An intuition that certain entities should have rights? One could dig and find an underlying assumption with regards to any disagreement, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a significant disagreement on a more macroscopic level; and in this case it's the fetus's rights versus the woman's rights.

All I'm saying is that religion is the birthplace of the first formal moral system humans have encountered. It should form a major part of the discussion if morality is analyzed against the backdrop of culture. — TheMadFool

I disagree; I think religion should be relegated to the garbage can of history, and, while it might've been useful at one point, it is no longer necessary to believe that one will be held responsible by supernatural forces in order to keep a tribe together, or to encourage people to do good things.

Culture can indicate crime, like using drugs as "ritual", witch can cause unwanted behavior and increase of crime. Also example there are countries where people have child-marriages, or perhaps some kind of "kidnapping" of person to marry them. But conception of "crime" seems to be relative based on culture. In some countries u can get fine for not wearing reflector in dark, and worst scenario, ending up in prison. And in western countries child-marriage, or in western words "pedophilia" is considered to be crime, but in eastern/Arabic it might be "normal" for them. What makes the conception subjective, based on culture.

Culture itself sets norms and virtues, that can be different from another system. To inspect one culture by your own (probably western conceptions of right/wrong) isn't applying to other cultures.

Culture, and religion is basis of one forming its morals, and conception of "right/wrong". Also i seems that every culture got aspects in that are considered someone outsider by "crime"

@batsushi7 English must not be your first language. I guess what is considered a crime is relative to culture, yes, but that has little to do with what we were talking about. Originally I was trying to discuss culture as a determinant of crime and then themadfool kind of derailed it, even if it resulted in a fruitful exchange.

What point are you trying to make, exactly? Do you think something should be permissible merely because one's own culture permits it? I definitely disagree with that. You brought up the subject of pedophilia; well, I think that the US shouldn't tolerate child marriage among Muslims despite it being allowed in their culture.

The determinants of crime are largely unknown and what hypotheses have been made are largely inconsistent, but it seems to me to be common sense that a legacy or culture of poverty, especially those that align with racial disparities, can cause crime. A poor, desperate person of color forced into a bad situation is more likely to break a law than a complacent white middle-class person I think, but correct me if I’m wrong. I would like to banish the thought that culture matters, so please change my mind. — Aleph Numbers

This is tough, and fraught with the potential for misunderstanding and emotional outbursts.

I'll venture that there is a negatively symbiotic effect here. Systemic racism combined with more personal racism within police forces have served to change the culture in some communities into a resistance culture. Within such a culture, there is a lower level of respect for legal authority and its enforcement, and there can be motivation to break laws as a matter of principal - as a show of resistance. Graffiti is a really common example.

Of course, institutional racism plays a role in this as well. There is no doubt that the continued criminalization of marijuana is used for the de facto purpose of incarcerating black people in large numbers. Marijuana is a gateway drug - a gateway to searching your house, your car, your bag and anything else in the hopes of finding something to charge you with more serious than simple possession. Also, pretextual policing has been shown repeatedly to erode confidence in law enforcement and foster disrespect for the laws they enforce in the communities where it is used. These things skew statistical analyses by maintaining high arrest and crime rates through outside factors.

On the other hand, there is a lot of mixed messaging going on within the culture itself. Glorification of criminal behavior in pop culture, reinforcing norms that going to jail is correlated to masculinity, the open display of guns and drugs in communities - these all serve to perpetuate a cycle of criminality. I think there is evidence to suggest that most of this originated from the outside, but it has been around long enough that it is now being heavily reinforced from the inside.

It is also difficult to talk about this in a vacuum because poverty is so closely interlinked with it. If i imagine a neighborhood composed entirely of middle class homeowning people of color and am asked if the crime rate would be higher there than in a "white" neighborhood of the same description I would say no. There's no reason I see to expect it to be, excepting the possibility of overtly racist police enforcement.

So I would say that the premise is half-true? There are cultural elements that contribute to perpetuating some criminal behaviors in these communities, but poverty and institutional factors are at least as responsible, and probably more responsible.

These things skew statistical analyses by maintaining high arrest and crime rates through outside factors. — Pro Hominem

I think this is a big deal: the more people of color are arrested and charged for minor crimes, it seems to me, the more it seems crime is rampant, and the more people claim that more policing is needed, when really it's mostly minor offenses, and the over-policing that results can be harmful, creating what you call a "resistance culture" (great term btw).

Systemic racism combined with more personal racism within police forces have served to change the culture in some communities into a resistance culture. — Pro Hominem

Could not agree more. On a more contemporary note: from what I can tell many, especially young, people of color, feel a sense of disenfranchisement and believe that the social contract has been broken by police brutality and the systemic racism permeating our institutions. I mean, why should one abide by the laws of an institution when the institution does not serve you, or, in the case of the police, enforce their laws fairly? When you can be asphyxiated for merely being suspected of a crime, why shouldn't one disregard the law? I still think that people should follow laws and protest peacefully, but I am unsurprised by the looting and rioting, and would lay the blame for that squarely at the feet of racism, both personal and systemic. Culture, in this case imo, is irrelevant.

You make a good point I think. However, it is still true that what murder is to one person in terms of abortion, is merely pruning a plant to another. This is a meaningful disagreement and is more about whether or not killing non-persons should be allowed, at least on one side, and about what is perceived as child murder on the other.
The argument also concerns women's rights, which constitutes yet another significant disagreement; not everyone agrees that a woman should have the right to control what happens to her body. On one extreme some believe that the government should be able to force a woman to carry a child to term; on the other some assert that women should be allowed to have late term abortions. What does this debate stem from, you think? An intuition that certain entities should have rights? One could dig and find an underlying assumption with regards to any disagreement, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a significant disagreement on a more macroscopic level; and in this case it's the fetus's rights versus the woman's rights. — Aleph Numbers

I'm not saying the abortion debate is a non-issue. All I'm saying is that the open hostility between pro-choice and pro-lifers belies the underlying harmony of belief in the immorality of murder.

I think religion should be relegated to the garbage can of history, and, while it might've been useful at one point, it is no longer necessary to believe that one will be held responsible by supernatural forces in order to keep a tribe together, or to encourage people to do good things. — Aleph Numbers

This reminds me of a person I knew a long time ago. He was in the habit of cutting out and throwing away the labels that identified the manufacturer of his clothes. Perhaps a poor analogy. Maybe I'm imagining things. :chin:

This reminds me of a person I knew a long time ago. He was in the habit of cutting out and throwing away the labels that identified the manufacturer of his clothes. Perhaps a poor analogy. Maybe I'm imagining things. :chin: — TheMadFool

Good one. Made me belly-laugh.

I'm not saying the abortion debate is a non-issue. All I'm saying is that the open hostility between pro-choice and pro-lifers belies the underlying harmony of belief in the immorality of murder. — TheMadFool

Surely you have more to say about it than that? The hostility is irrelevant to what we were discussing.

Surely you have more to say about it than that? — Aleph Numbers

Here's a crazy idea...

There was, a good many years ago I believe, a somewhat popular theory, going by the name Ancient Alien Hypothesis. The general idea behind it is that gods were actually aliens who visited our forefathers - transferring technology that allowed the birth of the earliest human civilizations.

Now watch this video interview of Neil deGrasse Tyson (Astrophysicist, Hayden Planetarium)



In jest, if not for real, assume that the Ancient Alien Hypothesis is true. It's not too much of a stretch then to believe that morality/ethics too could've been part of the technology transfer. If so, just as as chimpanzees are to us, incapable of understanding even our simplest thoughts, we humans would be to them, our greatest minds but drooling infants.

Perhaps morality is a blurry snapshot, a grainy photograph, of a higher plane of existence requiring mental faculties that we, as of now, don't possess. Give it some thought. What exactly is the extent of our knowledge in re morality. Basically, we know what to do and what not to do - we have the dos and don'ts list, the decalogue. However, we have little to no idea as to the rationale behind these commandments? Yes, we've attempted to lay down a foundation for our dos and don'ts list of moral actions but the results are far from satisfactory, even pathetic. Doesn't this remind you of your childhood when you were told by adults what was and wasn't permissible and you never understood why? A chimp is to a child as a child is to an adult human as an adult human is to an alien.

I have encountered the claim that black culture causes crime among people of color. — Aleph Numbers

This is circular: black people produce black culture which causes crime. If this were so, wouldn't all black people be criminals?

Culture as a Determinant of Crime? Maybe.

I have heard SE European people described as natural crooks. A joke illustrates: How does a Romanian make an omelet? He starts by stealing 6 eggs. Are Romanians more likely to be criminal than Austrians, Hungarians, or Poles? I doubt it.

The prevailing Culture can house numerous sub-cultures, and sub-cultures can in turn be sub-divided. There are criminal sub-sub-cultures among various groups, and these sub-cultures will likely vary. There is a black sub-sub-criminal culture involving drug dealing, gang activities, theft-rings, and so on. Other groups, particularly those with few advantages, generally harbor a criminal sub-culture. The criminal sub-culture may not be representative of that sub-groups larger culture. Most Italians weren't involved in the various rackets of the mafia, for instance.

Why do people engage in criminal activity? A) because they can; B) criminal activity may be more remunerative and convenient than legitimate labor; C) an individual may lack skills and talents to succeed in legitimate labor; D) criminal behavior may be requisite for membership in a gang; E) people who engage in criminal activity are probably significantly more risk tolerant than most people; and so on.

Actually, a young black male who has failed to succeed in school, does not have a strong positive father figure, lacks a positive supportive family and friendship circle, is experiencing anomie, and so on is likely to find criminal activity the best bet going. Once a criminal record is earned, success outside of criminal activity becomes evermore difficult. To use a religious phrase, "The sinner sinks ever deeper into sin."

It isn't just poverty. Most poor people (anywhere) do not gravitate toward a criminal career.

I beg to differ: I think that if a policy unfairly targets any racial demographic it is racist. The intent behind the policy just might be difficult to demonstrate sometimes, however. — Aleph Numbers

Actually, I would argue the assumption behind this is racist. Outlawing marijuana affects everyone who chooses to use it, regardless of race. A racist policy would be one that explicitly discriminates against a particular race, such as the various race laws that existed before the civil rights movement. You’re assuming that black people are more likely to use marijuana, which is stereotyping.

I never claimed that people of color are more or less likely to use marijuana. I only claim that they are disproportionately affected by the criminalization of marijuana, which they shouldn't be because, as you recognize, they don't use marijuana more than white people. For the law not to be racist people of color need to be arrested and charged more proportionately.

Why is jail the best way to solve the social problem of the criminal? What is the criminal's genesis? — JerseyFlight

Jail is not the best way. It seems to me that jail or throwing 'bad' humans in society into cages arose from temporary circumstances - prisoners of war, slaves, offenders of crimes, etc. back in ancient times. No one thought of a better way of punishing people, other than death, so they resorted to the dark means of incarcerating people and stripping their ties to society?

I do not know the history of jail or the origins of incarceration as a means to deal with offenders of crimes in society. But, in my opinion, it is one of the worst ways to deal with people who have committed injustices, and it disgusts me. One way to look at how crime arises is how Outlander put it:

Depends. Sometimes out of necessity, perceived or otherwise. Other times out of greed, frustration, lack of self control, mental illness, or just good ol' fashioned indifference. Usually a bit of all. — Outlander

When one looks at how crime arises through this, realistic, lens, then it becomes easier to see how jail is probably the worst way to deal with humans who commit crimes. People commit crimes for the above various aforementioned reasons, and/or a mixture of them all. There is no one 'true' and 'absolute' answer, and there will never be.

What society needs to do is start treating humans like humans, and not like animals we can just throw in a cage, judge, and forget about. For almost all crimes, except murder, rape, child molestation, etc., there is no justification, in my humble opinion, for jailing peoples. Dealing with more heinous crimes is a different topic for a different time as it is more complex, and I don't seem to have an answer or an opinion on it yet. But, for non-high violence crimes, jailing people just doesn't appear to help these individuals at all. If anything, statistics show that it leads to more exposure to violence inside of prisoners and an increased likelihood of people committing more crimes...So why keep this system? Why keep throwing people in there?

Obviously, there are economic reasons for state governments, private prisons, and the people that are employed at and by prisons, but this is not an excuse to keep this kind of punishment/penal system in place. Who cares about these peoples' jobs and economies? Isn't humanity and human treatment of fellow Americans more important?