Is racism morally wrong?

[Arcade22]

Well is it? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b300a2915bb7.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18524)

For simplicity's sake, let's define racism as 'valuing people differently based on their ethnicity or race'.

As a thought experiment, imagine that i am walking along a river. I stop for a second and hear two people screaming for help.
Seeing two people struggling for their lives, one of them a Swede and the other being an Arab, and noticing that i only have time to save one of them.

I instinctively rush to save the Swede, and in the process allowing the Arab to drown.

Would i be acting immorally in saving the Swede's life by the single fact that he is Swedish?

No i say, in fact i would argue that i acted an extremely moral way.
In the same way that i am willing to save my family from a burning house while letting yours burn to cinders,
i am willing to save a stranger from death while letting someone else perish simply because he was of the same ethnicity as my self.

Am i wrong? Is racism really immoral?
What do you think?

[figarot]

When you cannot save everybody but at least save those you can is not morally wrong, I reckon, in spite of any predjudice that had influenced your decision. That said, racism based on skin colour or ethnicity is not a reliable moral compass, more likely to be wrong overall.

[Redtail]

Well is it? [/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b300a2915bb7.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18524)

For simplicity's sake, let's define racism as 'valuing people differently based on their ethnicity or race'.

As a thought experiment, imagine that i am walking along a river. I stop for a second and hear two people screaming for help.
Seeing two people struggling for their lives, one of them a Swede and the other being an Arab, and noticing that i only have time to save one of them.

I instinctively rush to save the Swede, and in the process allowing the Arab to drown.

Would i be acting immorally in saving the Swede's life by the single fact that he is Swedish?

No i say, in fact i would argue that i acted an extremely moral way.
In the same way that i am willing to save my family from a burning house while letting yours burn to cinders,
i am willing to save a stranger from death while letting someone else perish simply because he was of the same ethnicity as my self.

Am i wrong? Is racism really immoral?
What do you think?

Depends... How would you feel if after they pulled the Arab from the water you found he was an eccentric billionaire tycoon that had just founded his own country and was in the process of removing all non-swedes from Sweden?

[Arcade22]

Depends... How would you feel if after they pulled the Arab from the water you found he was an eccentric billionaire tycoon that had just founded his own country and was in the process of removing all non-swedes from Sweden?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d519eb5ec4.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18509)

Let's try to keep this thread a little closer to reality.

[Redtail]

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d519eb5ec4.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18509)

Let's try to keep this thread a little closer to reality.

Ok, if an Arab jumped into the water and saved the Swede would you call him an immoral fool?

[ZirconBlue]

Yes, it is.

Some bizarre hypothetical, where you have to make a permanent decision between two complete strangers doesn't change that any.

[Megalodon]

Yes.

[Doctor Evil]

I think that in some cases it is not wrong to discriminate if the goal is to fix social disparities - see affirmative action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action). It seems to me this falls under your definition of racism. So my answer is that it is not always wrong, due to this specific example.

[I Ratant]

Anything prejudicial based on circumstances beyond the control of the individual is immoral.
None of us chose our parents, or where we would born.
Once a person has matured, and decides to practice flaming a**holism, then there's a reason to wonder about that person's motives, but not what his color or ethnicity is.
Taking pride in one's origins is one of the stupider things people do.

[Thunder]

Would it be anti-Semitic if I chose to save the Swede instead of a Jew?

[mist]

It's somewhat immoral, but I don't think anyone would blame you (perhaps anyone but the arab family). Obviously anyone who is family/friends has a higher value for you, and a random swedish person probably reminds you of your family more than a random arab (not to mention it might be more difficult to communicate with a foreigner, thus lowering the survival chances anyway).

[Thunder]

all things being equal, the two folks being the same age, it would indeed be highly racist and highly immoral to save the Swede just because he is a Swede, and you wanted to NOT save the Arab.

if i had to choose, with all things being equal, I'd have to flip a coin.

[Merko]

Would it be anti-Semitic if I chose to save the Swede instead of a Jew?
Not if it was a Swedish Jew. ;-)

I think the decision would be racist if it was indeed based on the race of the person involved. However, there are different shades of racism, and it could likely be a very mild form of racism.

Such mild racism still has severe consequences though. For example, it is known that Arabs in Sweden have a much harder time to get job interviews. This is pretty much the same situation although less dramatic. The employer can only 'save' so many people, and given that there are many qualified candidates, they are less likely to select someone with Arabic heritage. This is probably not conscious racism except in very few cases, but the effect is quite serious.


I don't think it is meaningful to say that racism is 'morally wrong' though, as I don't see what that would mean except a judgement that racism is detrimental to society and therefore something we should strive to remove. And I think that case is better argued by actually giving an argument, rather than just repeating the claim.

[Jono]

I think that in some cases it is not wrong to discriminate if the goal is to fix social disparities - see affirmative action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action). It seems to me this falls under your definition of racism. So my answer is that it is not always wrong, due to this specific example.

Yes, asking about moral content of an 'ism that is quite loaded terminology, having a shared but still plethoric meaning for different people, is hard if begged to give a simple 'yes or no' answer.

[Mk_]

As a thought experiment, imagine that i am walking along a river. I stop for a second and hear two people screaming for help.
Seeing two people struggling for their lives, one of them a Swede and the other being an Arab, and noticing that i only have time to save one of them.

I instinctively rush to save the Swede, and in the process allowing the Arab to drown.

Would i be acting immorally in saving the Swede's life by the single fact that he is Swedish?
You're telling me you saved a stranger's life and you're asking me if that was immoral? You get a stamp of nobility, friend. Good job. :)

[The_Animus]

Lately in discussing issues of right and wrong I keep coming back to the opinion that there is no such thing as right and wrong as far as morality. What is is and what isn't isn't. Right and wrong are labels made up by people to justify whatever actions/beliefs they prefer.

So if I were to say I hate black people there is nothing morally right or wrong about that. If it were true that I hate black people, then the statement is factually right. If I said I hate black people because they cast evil curses upon the innocent then I would be ignorant and factually wrong.

[Thunder]

honestly, who has to ask if racism is bad or not?

of course it is bad!! oy vey.

[halfempty]

Yes, in response to the initial question.

However, if you saved the Arab just because he was Arab, that would also be racist. In sum, let them both drown and save yourself the moral conundrum.

[brobradh77]

I say it would be morally wrong for them to both be drowning at the same time and make you have to decide..so the ethical thing to do would be to just let them both drown.

:)

[Brattus]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d519eb5ec4.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18509)

Let's try to keep this thread a little closer to reality.

Your entire scenario is not based on reality.
If someone is willing to jump into the water and save a drowning person then they would always go for the nearest person they could reach.
Then if they had any energy left they may try to save the other person if that person was still above water.
The chances of 2 people drowning at the exact same distance from the rescuer is highly unlikely.

Now after the rescue if the hero felt bad about who they had saved based on the persons skin color then yes that would be wrong.
So if after a black person saved a white person and the other person they could not save was black.
The black person turns to the white person and says "Why did I save whitey? I should of saved my black brother".
In my opinion that would be immoral behavior.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Humans evolved to support the group each was part of. What's the big deal?

Of course the human race is becoming more global all the time. So at some point, people will likely no longer identify with skin color and will instead view human as human.

Currently, however, we are still divided into fairly different cultural groups. This is not about genetics and/or skin color. Those are simply means of identifying one's cultural groups. This is about identifying with like minded people. I don't care what you look like, but I do care that you have similar values to mine if I am going to choose to save you and in doing so, have to let someone else die.

[The_Animus]

In my opinion that would be immoral behavior.

Based on what? In what way is the person obligated to save one person over another. Or in what way is a person morally obligated to feel a certain way about the person they saved vs the person they didn't?

The very concept of morality requires either:
1. Immutable moral rules handed down by god, the universe, or some other permanent all deciding source.
2. Moral rules determined by the majority of a society or by the individual

Looking at each of these:
1. There seems to be no factual evidence of any such moral guidelines, and even for those who claim there are it would seem that people cannot agree as to what those moral rules handed down by god or the universe are.
2. Which moral beliefs are the majority at any given time cannot truely be known as there is no official periodic census concerning moral beliefs. At least not that I'm aware of. Even if there was it doesn't change the fact that moral rules being determined by the majority of society or by the individual make morality subjective rather than objective and as such have no basis aside from the beliefs of an individual or group of individuals.

Some people look at religion and quite rightly make the argument that there are a buttload of religions and religious beliefs, many of which conflict, and all of which have no real factual evidence as a basis for it. Despite this religious people cry out that they KNOW their religion is right, despite a million other people with differeing religious beliefs saying the same thing.

Morality is exactly the same.

Religion is made up by people to justify whatever actions/beliefs they prefer.

Morality is exactly the same.

[Thunder]

This is about identifying with like minded people. I don't care what you look like, but I do care that you have similar values to mine if I am going to choose to save you and in doing so, have to let someone else die.

and of course it would be racist to assume that the dark skinned guy has more in common with your values, than the blond guy.

do we get to interview the two gentlemen before we decide who will die?

[bpesta22]

I say it would be morally wrong for them to both be drowning at the same time and make you have to decide..so the ethical thing to do would be to just let them both drown.

:)

Wouldn't the best thing to do darwin wise be to take sperm samples from both so that you could carry on their genes artificially? Let em both drown if you can come back with 2 cup fulls?

I do agree, the scenario is too forced to really make it realistic enough to argue the point.

[MontagK505]

Suppose you wanted to be "politicly correct" and saved the Arab, while allowing the Swede to drown. Would that be moral?

[KingMerv00]

Seeing two people struggling for their lives, one of them a Swede and the other being an Arab...

Couldn't one be both an Arab AND a Swede?

Yes racism is immoral. Stupid too.

[Skeptic Ginger]

and of course it would be racist to assume that the dark skinned guy has more in common with your values, than the blond guy.

do we get to interview the two gentlemen before we decide who will die?I was under the assumption it was a snap judgment based on less than adequate information.

[Arcade22]

That said, racism based on skin colour or ethnicity is not a reliable moral compass, more likely to be wrong overall.

Well i disagree.
I see my people just like a family, perhaps not like a real family but pretty close.
And just like i value the members of my family above yours, and I'm sure most people value their own family above others, i value members of my people above yours.

Apparently this makes me immoral. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d518e35ccb.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18508)

[Arcade22]

I think that in some cases it is not wrong to discriminate if the goal is to fix social disparities - see affirmative action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action). It seems to me this falls under your definition of racism. So my answer is that it is not always wrong, due to this specific example.

Well at least you have the balls to admit that Affirmative action is racist and discriminatory. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d51a947b60.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18510)

[Arcade22]

Anything prejudicial based on circumstances beyond the control of the individual is immoral.
None of us chose our parents, or where we would born.
So if I value my family above yours I'm doing something immoral?
Taking pride in one's origins is one of the stupider things people do.

Well i disagree. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d51a947b60.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18510)

[Arcade22]

Your entire scenario is not based on reality.
If someone is willing to jump into the water and save a drowning person then they would always go for the nearest person they could reach.
Then if they had any energy left they may try to save the other person if that person was still above water.
The chances of 2 people drowning at the exact same distance from the rescuer is highly unlikely.

Now after the rescue if the hero felt bad about who they had saved based on the persons skin color then yes that would be wrong.
So if after a black person saved a white person and the other person they could not save was black.
The black person turns to the white person and says "Why did I save whitey? I should of saved my black brother".
In my opinion that would be immoral behavior.

It was just a thought experiment used to show how my racism could have real life consequences, you don't have to think so much about it.

[Arcade22]

Based on what? In what way is the person obligated to save one person over another. Or in what way is a person morally obligated to feel a certain way about the person they saved vs the person they didn't?

The very concept of morality requires either:
1. Immutable moral rules handed down by god, the universe, or some other permanent all deciding source.
2. Moral rules determined by the majority of a society or by the individual

Looking at each of these:
1. There seems to be no factual evidence of any such moral guidelines, and even for those who claim there are it would seem that people cannot agree as to what those moral rules handed down by god or the universe are.
2. Which moral beliefs are the majority at any given time cannot truely be known as there is no official periodic census concerning moral beliefs. At least not that I'm aware of. Even if there was it doesn't change the fact that moral rules being determined by the majority of society or by the individual make morality subjective rather than objective and as such have no basis aside from the beliefs of an individual or group of individuals.

Some people look at religion and quite rightly make the argument that there are a buttload of religions and religious beliefs, many of which conflict, and all of which have no real factual evidence as a basis for it. Despite this religious people cry out that they KNOW their religion is right, despite a million other people with differeing religious beliefs saying the same thing.

Morality is exactly the same.

Religion is made up by people to justify whatever actions/beliefs they prefer.

Morality is exactly the same.

Good points.

[arthwollipot]

if i had to choose, with all things being equal, I'd have to flip a coin.The one that was closer. Hypothetical situations do not occur in real life.

[Arcade22]

Couldn't one be both an Arab AND a Swede?
Perhaps, but at least not in this thought experiment.

Yes racism is immoral. Stupid too.

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

[Darth Rotor]

Well is it? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b300a2915bb7.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18524)

For simplicity's sake, let's define racism as 'valuing people differently based on their ethnicity or race'.
I am not sure that definition flies.

I had always understood racism to be a form of discrimination specifically targeted at race, with the embedded assumption of the inferiority of that race.

DR

[Thunder]

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

in my mind, I always understood racism to mean attributing negative qualities and behaviors to a person just because of their racial background.

"that guy is dumb..because he is black".

"that guy is cheap..because he is a Jew".

how can such attitudes NOT be bad?

[Roboramma]

Well i disagree.
I see my people just like a family, perhaps not like a real family but pretty close.
And just like i value the members of my family above yours, and I'm sure most people value their own family above others, i value members of my people above yours.

Apparently this makes me immoral. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d518e35ccb.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18508)

Thing is, I don't value members of my family that I've never met over strangers, except when they have close relationships with members of my family that I do care about, and thus I worry about the feelings of the person that I do care about.

I wouldn't say that your viewpoint is immoral, I just can't understand it. You care more about certain people, because of their ancestry or their skin colour or something, but you don't really have any reason for it. I can understand that its an emotional reaction, it's just not one I share, and thus one I find hard to understand.

I care about my family, mainly because I know them well, because we've had meaningful experiences together, because they care about me, etc.

To each his own, though.

[Roboramma]

Well i disagree. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d51a947b60.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18510)

Why? What is it about your origins that you think justifies your pride in them?

[Roboramma]

Perhaps, but at least not in this thought experiment.
Within the thought experiment, how do you know? I mean, do you ask first:
"Excuse me, are you a Swede?"
"What? I need help, I'm drowning!"
"Yes, I know, but are you a swede."
"No!"
Third person: "I am."
"Ah, thanks."
*goes to help the swede*

[Francesca R]

As a thought experiment[ . . . ]Please remove the highly distracting moral act (saving a life) from your thought experiment, which serves no purpose but to decieve :)

Imagine you are in the presence of a Swede and an Arab. If you treat both of them equally with respectful indifference, all is moral and fine. If you treat one of them (the Swede) that way, yet in some small way you infringe the due respect, rights or liberty of the Arab . . . because she is an Arab . . . then that's immoral and racist.

It would be immoral even if she was not an Arab. Making it racist doesn't make it moral. Why would it?

[Cainkane1]

Well is it? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b300a2915bb7.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18524)

For simplicity's sake, let's define racism as 'valuing people differently based on their ethnicity or race'.

As a thought experiment, imagine that i am walking along a river. I stop for a second and hear two people screaming for help.
Seeing two people struggling for their lives, one of them a Swede and the other being an Arab, and noticing that i only have time to save one of them.

I instinctively rush to save the Swede, and in the process allowing the Arab to drown.

Would i be acting immorally in saving the Swede's life by the single fact that he is Swedish?

No i say, in fact i would argue that i acted an extremely moral way.
In the same way that i am willing to save my family from a burning house while letting yours burn to cinders,
i am willing to save a stranger from death while letting someone else perish simply because he was of the same ethnicity as my self.

Am i wrong? Is racism really immoral?
What do you think?
Its only human nature to want to preserve the life of a fellow countryman. It would be immoral to let the arab drown if he was the only one drowning however.

[Professor Yaffle]

What if I chose to save the swede at the expense of the cauliflower?

[Darat]

Humans evolved to support the group each was part of. What's the big deal?

Of course the human race is becoming more global all the time. So at some point, people will likely no longer identify with skin color and will instead view human as human.

...snip...

Doubt it we will just find something else to use so we can still have an "us" and a "them" :(

[Darat]

So if I value my family above yours I'm doing something immoral?

...snip...

So lets say the Swede in your hypothetical is a stranger but the Arab is your grandson, would you still save the Swede?

[Ivor the Engineer]

If the Arab was a child and/or female and the Swede was middle aged man does that change who you would save?

[Darat]

(Personally I am wondering how you could even know that someone was a Swede or an Arab in such circumstances but hey it's just a silly hypothetical.)

[often mrunderstood]

(Personally I am wondering how you could even know that someone was a Swede or an Arab in such circumstances but hey it's just a silly hypothetical.)

Bikini or Burqini?

[ddt]

Within the thought experiment, how do you know? I mean, do you ask first:
"Excuse me, are you a Swede?"
"What? I need help, I'm drowning!"
"Yes, I know, but are you a swede."
"No!"
Third person: "I am."
"Ah, thanks."
*goes to help the swede*

(Personally I am wondering how you could even know that someone was a Swede or an Arab in such circumstances but hey it's just a silly hypothetical.)
By asking, as Roboramma explained. However, the conversation goes a bit different. Many Arabs living in Sweden are Swedes. And in the racist's mindset, they are also liars. So here goes:
"Excuse me, are you a Swede?"
"What? I need help, I'm drowning!"
"Yes, I know, but are you a Swede."
"Yes, I am."
"But you don't look Swedish."
"I've been naturalized 4 years ago. Now will you please help me?"
"Can you show your passport first then?"
"It's in my bag... blub blub"

[Ivor the Engineer]

(Personally I am wondering how you could even know that someone was a Swede or an Arab in such circumstances but hey it's just a silly hypothetical.)

Swim over and ask them where they come from before you decide who to save.

[Thunder]

indeed. the OP suggests that a person of Arab descent...cannot be a Swede.

racism is wrong folks.

[AvalonXQ]

How about in the United States, I see two men drowning on opposite sides of a bridge, one black and one white.
I am white, so I choose to save the white man.
Alternatively, I am black, so I choose to save the black man.
Do people have a problem with this?

[Undesired Walrus]

You start this thread incorrectly by assuming that family = people with same ethnicity.

[Megalodon]

How about in the United States, I see two men drowning on opposite sides of a bridge, one black and one white.
I am white, so I choose to save the white man.
Alternatively, I am black, so I choose to save the black man.
Do people have a problem with this?

Again... silly hypotheticals are silly. Racism is wrong.

[Thunder]

How about in the United States, I see two men drowning on opposite sides of a bridge, one black and one white.
I am white, so I choose to save the white man.
Alternatively, I am black, so I choose to save the black man.
Do people have a problem with this?

same distance from you? same age people? flip a coin, i say.

[Megalodon]

same distance from you? same age people? flip a coin, i say.

"The other day the most peculiar thing happened to me. I was crossing a bridge, and when I was exactly in the middle, two middle aged men of different colours started drowning in each end. One was electric blue and the other fucsia. I've uploaded the video on youtube. Poor guys."

[Undesired Walrus]

How about in the United States, I see two men drowning on opposite sides of a bridge, one black and one white.
I am white, so I choose to save the white man.
Alternatively, I am black, so I choose to save the black man.
Do people have a problem with this?

As -In the US or in the UK- the black man could easily be my actual biological son and/or half-brother I don't see any reason why you would favour the white man. I'd probably see which was the easier to save. How anyone could be dictated by "But he's my caucasion" as opposed to how good they seemed to be struggling against the water/how many people were on either side of the bridge/whether the black and white men were older or younger than each other is anyone's guess.

Strangely enough, racists would probably have no problem with saying there is nothing wrong with saving whitey, but they would probably scream "injustice!" to high heaven if a black man said: "I'd save my black brother before the white man."

[Darat]

You start this thread incorrectly by assuming that family = people with same ethnicity.

I know what you mean - I have Welsh relatives!

[AvalonXQ]

Strangely enough, racists would probably have no problem with saying there is nothing wrong with saving whitey, but they would probably scream "injustice!" to high heaven if a black man said: "I'd save my black brother before the white man."

In my experience, open white racists would expect and have no issue with white saving white and black saving black; they expect that to be the natural order of things.
In contrast, in my experience, it's black racists that would see it as natural for a black man to save the black man but racist for a white man to save the white man.

[Undesired Walrus]

"The other day the most peculiar thing happened to me. I was crossing a bridge, and when I was exactly in the middle, two middle aged men of different colours started drowning in each end. One was electric blue and the other fucsia. I've uploaded the video on youtube. Poor guys."

If your mother was white and father black, what do you do?

[Ivor the Engineer]

How about in the United States, I see two men drowning on opposite sides of a bridge, one black and one white.
I am white, so I choose to save the white man.
Alternatively, I am black, so I choose to save the black man.
Do people have a problem with this?

If one of them was a child or a woman would that change who you would save?

[Ivor the Engineer]

I know what you mean - I have Welsh relatives!

I'm sorry.

[Darat]

If your mother was white and father black, what do you do?


Assuming neither of them were Welsh, save my father, statistically he will earn more in his lifetime and die earlier than my mother so I stand to inherit more and sooner (especially if I saved his life).

[Marquis de Carabas]

If I saw a Swede and an Arab drowning, and could only save one, I would work out the moral implications of each choice carefully, noting not only their race, but sex and any other piece of information I could gather about them. Fully assured of making a firm moral choice, I would look up to find they both drowned while I dallied.

Then, I take their wallets.

[AvalonXQ]

If one of them was a child or a woman would that change who you would save?

If we're talking about what I personally would do, I doubt race would make a difference. And, yes, I would save a child first, then a woman, and a man last.

[Darth Rotor]

Swim over and ask them where they come from before you decide who to save.
Reach
Throw
Row
Go

[AvalonXQ]

Assuming neither of them were Welsh, save my father, statistically he will earn more in his lifetime and die earlier than my mother so I stand to inherit more and sooner (especially if I saved his life).

I find your reason faulty. If you save either of them, the other will probably blame you for not letting them drown and saving the other, and you'll inherit nothing.
Instead, act like you saw nothing, move on, and collect sooner from both.

[Darat]

Assuming neither of them were Welsh, save my father, statistically he will earn more in his lifetime and die earlier than my mother so I stand to inherit more and sooner (especially if I saved his life).


Actually I think I'm taking too much of a simplistic approach to this moral quandary.

My father is likely to have much better life insurance than my mother, probably multiple policies as well as one from his job, as well as a better pension therefore my mother is likely to inherit a considerable amount, tax free, when he dies. So thinking this through, and given the current tax situation I think it would be more tax efficient for me to inherit from my mother now, rather than wait for whatever my father hasn't squandered over the rest of his life. With that in mind I would wait until they had both drowned, then jump in and drag my mother's dead body out of the water so I can claim that she died after my father.

[Megalodon]

If your mother was white and father black, what do you do?

I'm terribly sorry, but I can't parse this sentence, specially as a reply to the post you quoted, or in light of my previous contributions to this thread.

[Darat]

I find your reason faulty. If you save either of them, the other will probably blame you for not letting them drown and saving the other, and you'll inherit nothing.
Instead, act like you saw nothing, move on, and collect sooner from both.

My parents are divorced.....

[AvalonXQ]

Actually I think I'm taking too much of a simplistic approach to this moral quandary.

My father is likely to have much better life insurance than my mother, probably multiple policies as well as one from his job, as well as a better pension therefore my mother is likely to inherit a considerable amount, tax free, when he dies. So thinking this through, and given the current tax situation I think it would be more tax efficient for me to inherit from my mother now, rather than wait for whatever my father hasn't squandered over the rest of his life. With that in mind I would wait until they had both drowned, then jump in and drag my mother's dead body out of the water so I can claim that she died after my father.

Many jurisdictions now have a rule that if two people die within so many days of each other (usually 48 or 120 hours), the deaths are considered simultaneous, and each is considered to have died first when determining who inherits from the other.

[AvalonXQ]

My parents are divorced.....

Your hypothetical heteroracial parents are divorced? Man, you have a depressing imagination.

[Darat]

Your hypothetical heteroracial parents are divorced? Man, you have a depressing imagination.


Not only that they had both had gender re-assignment before getting married...

[Darat]

Many jurisdictions now have a rule that if two people die within so many days of each other (usually 48 or 120 hours), the deaths are considered simultaneous, and each is considered to have died first when determining who inherits from the other.

Bloody hell these moral dilemmas really are tricky!

[KingMerv00]

Perhaps, but at least not in this thought experiment.

I just wanted to point it out because it shows you confuse genetics with culture.

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

It is immoral to treat people differently based on factors they have no control over and have no bearing on the current situation.

It is stupid because you are treating people differently without rational cause.

[KingMerv00]

No i say, in fact i would argue that i acted an extremely moral way.
In the same way that i am willing to save my family from a burning house while letting yours burn to cinders,
i am willing to save a stranger from death while letting someone else perish simply because he was of the same ethnicity as my self.


I don't treat my family better than other people because we are genetically related. I try to treat them better beause they have done good by me in the past.

[Cleon]

Hrm.

You have the choice, save the smoking-hot brown chick in order to (maybe) score with her, thus passing on your genes, or save the white, ugly, obnoxious dude.

Is it morally wrong to save the hot brown chick?

[Thunder]

i am willing to save a stranger from death while letting someone else perish simply because he was of the same ethnicity as my self.


if you choose to let someone die just because he does not look like you, that is indeed racist.

you are putting more value on someone's life just because of the color of their skin. that is racism. and that is wrong.

[Sledge]

I can't swim. Problem solved.

[cwalner]

Hrm.

You have the choice, save the smoking-hot brown chick in order to (maybe) score with her, thus passing on your genes, or save the white, ugly, obnoxious dude.

Is it morally wrong to save the hot brown chick?

Of course it is. You live in America and therefore any decision motivated by sex is immoral.

[Skeptic]

I instinctively rush to save the Swede, and in the process allowing the Arab to drown.

Would i be acting immorally in saving the Swede's life by the single fact that he is Swedish?

In the theoretical case which you presented, no. Because we have more duties to our countrymen than we have to people in general.

You would similarly probably save someone of your extended family over a random Swede, and your daughter over your great-niece, etc.

But such issues are not what racism is about. It is not about having more duties to one's kins than to strangers. It is about stereotyping and hating strangers because they are different than you.

Not at all the same thing.

[Skeptic]

I don't treat my family better than other people because we are genetically related. I try to treat them better beause they have done good by me in the past.

This leads to an infinite regress -- what motivation would they have to do good to you in the first place? How did the whole thing start? SOMEBODY was originally doing good to SOMEBODY because they were genetically related.

[Thunder]

In the theoretical case which you presented, no. Because we have more duties to our countrymen than we have to people in general.

and what if the Arab is a citizen of Sweden?

and since when to we have more duties to save the life of a fellow citizen then the citizen of another country?

where did you hear this? Rush Limbaugh? Adolf Eichmann?

[AvalonXQ]

This leads to an infinite regress -- what motivation would they have to do good to you in the first place? How did the whole thing start? SOMEBODY was originally doing good to SOMEBODY because they were genetically related.

Maybe, maybe not. One philosophy is that parents have a responsibility to take care of the kids they produced, and do good for them. Other relatives do good for the same kids because they're (voluntarily) friends with the parents. Then, when the kids grow up, they do good for their parents and other relatives out of feelings of reciprocity.

[Skeptic]

If one of them was a child or a woman would that change who you would save?

I think it would. Most of us (men in any case) have strong instincts to save a child or a woman before a grown man. Probably because we perceive them, children especially, as more vulnerable and innocent. If it was an Arab child and a adult male Swede, I would save the child even if I were a Swede.

[Darth Rotor]

and since when to we have more duties to save the life of a fellow citizen then the citizen of another country?

If you have two to save, but can only save one, save one. Any Monday Morning Quarterback who barks at why you didn't save the other is invited to take a long walk off of a short pier.

Is your motive important, in the least? You are saving a life here.

parky, you see Halle Barry and Dick Cheney both drowning, and you have to pick one to save first. If you go first for the hottie, I don't blame you at all. Saving hotties is a great idea. If you go first for the old man, I don't blame you at all. Saving an old man is a great idea.

You are out there saving lives.

FFS, these hypotheticals are so filled with BS.

DR

[Skeptic]

This shows how our morality is based on, shall we say, concentric circles. We take care of our children and parents before other relatives, relatives before acquaintances, acquaintances before strangers, strangers of our own nationality before those of other nationalities, human beings before nature in general, etc.

Of course these circles are general, not absolute: it is OK to give up an afternoon with one's child to do some significant good for society at large. They might change: if a relative did you a serious wrong, he might forfeit any claim to be considered before strangers. They sometimes conflict and give no easy answers: do we save two strangers or one relative? They depend on the type of help: it is OK to help one's relatives to a certain degree, but cronyism is wrong. And so on.

So there is no easy formula to consider all possibilities, and there are cases of genuine conflict.

[Piscivore]

Lately in discussing issues of right and wrong I keep coming back to the opinion that there is no such thing as right and wrong as far as morality. What is is and what isn't isn't. Right and wrong are labels made up by people to justify whatever actions/beliefs they prefer.

So if I were to say I hate black people there is nothing morally right or wrong about that. If it were true that I hate black people, then the statement is factually right. If I said I hate black people because they cast evil curses upon the innocent then I would be ignorant and factually wrong.

This.

[I Ratant]

Swim over and ask them where they come from before you decide who to save.
.
A couple of EMTs on coffee break in New York when asked to assist a lady in premature labor told the requestor to dial 911, and then left the shop.
That's real world.

[I Ratant]

Why? What is it about your origins that you think justifies your pride in them?
.
Yup!
I wonder about that also.
I can take pride in my work as an aeronautical engineer, a long-time and reasonably unscarred motorcycle rider, but my color??
Didn't have anything to do with that.
I just got it from my parents.
And I got my religion from them too.
THAT, I had control over.
Went from white Catholic to white atheist.
Can't change the white.

[I Ratant]

(Personally I am wondering how you could even know that someone was a Swede or an Arab in such circumstances but hey it's just a silly hypothetical.)
.
Yeah, the usual toss-up involves Hillary.

[I Ratant]

Swim over and ask them where they come from before you decide who to save.
.
I recall that when an airliner hit the 14th Street bridge in Washington DC, one of the rescuers drowned while saving several people.
No one mentioned observing his interviewing the persons he saved.

[I Ratant]

"The other day the most peculiar thing happened to me. I was crossing a bridge, and when I was exactly in the middle, two middle aged men of different colours started drowning in each end. One was electric blue and the other fucsia. I've uploaded the video on youtube. Poor guys."
.
Too many jump cuts, and not steady enough.
Next time, use a tripod, and pan smoooooothly from one person to the other.
And ditch the music.
Emphasizing the pleas and shouts from the victims adds so much to the video.

[I Ratant]

I can't swim. Problem solved.
.
I won't swim.
Same solution.

[Undesired Walrus]

In my experience, open white racists would expect and have no issue with white saving white and black saving black; they expect that to be the natural order of things.
In contrast, in my experience, it's black racists that would see it as natural for a black man to save the black man but racist for a white man to save the white man.

So what? One's an outright racist, the others a racist hypocrite. I can't think of any case in which I would find it acceptable for a black guy to say that he'd want to save the black man rather than the white one. I wouldn't want to be his friend.

[AvalonXQ]

So what? One's an outright racist, the others a racist hypocrite. I can't think of any case in which I would find it acceptable for a black guy to say that he'd want to save the black man rather than the white one. I wouldn't want to be his friend.

Total agreement.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm terribly sorry, but I can't parse this sentence, specially as a reply to the post you quoted, or in light of my previous contributions to this thread.

I wasn't criticising you, just following up your post with a 'Right on! And what if this person was half-white, half-black? Would they split themselves in half?'.

[Undesired Walrus]

Total agreement.

Ok.

[Undesired Walrus]

Because we have more duties to our countrymen than we have to people in general.

What??

[Arcade22]

I wouldn't say that your viewpoint is immoral, I just can't understand it. You care more about certain people, because of their ancestry or their skin colour or something, but you don't really have any reason for it. I can understand that its an emotional reaction, it's just not one I share, and thus one I find hard to understand.

I value Swedes more than Norwegians, Arabs, the Chinese or any other people for that matter. I don't feel that Swedes are better than the Norwegians but i feel that they are more important or at least more important to me.

[Arcade22]

Why? What is it about your origins that you think justifies your pride in them?

I don't have to justify why i feel proud of being Swedish and the things the Swedish people have accomplished i just DO.

[Arcade22]

So lets say the Swede in your hypothetical is a stranger but the Arab is your grandson, would you still save the Swede?

No.

[Arcade22]

You start this thread incorrectly by assuming that family = people with same ethnicity.

Strawman.

[Sledge]

So you've never thought about why you're proud of an accident of birth? I feel I'm getting an insight into the mind of a racist here.

[Arcade22]

It is stupid because you are treating people differently without rational cause.

Humans are very irrational animals...

[Arcade22]

In the theoretical case which you presented, no. Because we have more duties to our countrymen than we have to people in general.

You would similarly probably save someone of your extended family over a random Swede, and your daughter over your great-niece, etc.

But such issues are not what racism is about. It is not about having more duties to one's kins than to strangers. It is about stereotyping and hating strangers because they are different than you.

Not at all the same thing.

Good points.

[Arcade22]

and since when to we have more duties to save the life of a fellow citizen then the citizen of another country?

where did you hear this? Rush Limbaugh? Adolf Eichmann?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b20cc67847c1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18413)

[Arcade22]

So you've never thought about why you're proud of an accident of birth?

Sure i have. I just haven't come up with a rational reason.

I also feel proud of my local hockey team when they play well, is this idiotic as well?

[Megalodon]

I wasn't criticising you, just following up your post with a 'Right on! And what if this person was half-white, half-black? Would they split themselves in half?'.

Thanks for clarifying. As I said, I just couldn't get what you meant.

And I agree... What if it's an dark-skinned swede and a white skinned arab?

I come from the south of Portugal. I'm white as a ghost, and I am usually mistaken with a local here in Germany. Unless I'm tanned, in which case some of my southern features make me look like a southern european or even a north african.

I guess it would depend in which season I'm drowning :)

[Undesired Walrus]

I don't have to justify why i feel proud of being Swedish and the things the Swedish people have accomplished i just DO. How can you feel proud of something you didn't choose to be?

[dann]

Seeing two people struggling for their lives, one of them a Swede and the other being an Arab, and noticing that i only have time to save one of them.

I instinctively rush to save the Swede, and in the process allowing the Arab to drown.

Is the Swede any old Swede or could I possibly recognize him as Arcade22? In that case I guess I would not hesitate to save the Arab, but neither instinct nor nationality nor ethnicity has anything to do with it.

The stupidity of these pseudo-Darwinian racist riddles becomes obvious if you ask people a different question: You see a Swede and your own adorable little puppy struggling for their lives: Who would you save? A lot of people would hate to have to make this choice and let their puppies die, even though dogs aren't even human!

[dann]

I also feel proud of my local hockey team when they play well, is this idiotic as well?

Yes.

[Skeptic]

What??

Yes, we do. For example, we have the duty to fight to defend our country in war. We don't have a similar duty to defend other countries in most (though not all) circumstances. We have a duty to be good citizens and be involved in our country's politics, caring for the country's welfare to a degree we do not have a duty to care for other countries. And so on.

The Talmud says it best: aniyey ircha kodmim -- the poor of your own town come first. This is not meant to forbid helping strangers. It is meant to give preference to one's own if forced to choose. "Preference", of course, is not meant as an absolute rule: it isn't that one must not give a dime to charity in other places as long as there are poor in one's hometown. It is meant to prevent ignoring one's people in favor of strangers.

[Undesired Walrus]

Sure i have. I just haven't come up with a rational reason. Seems to be the spirit of your arguments. What's the point of starting a discussion if you can't logically defend it?

[Cleon]

Yes, we do. For example, we have the duty to fight to defend our country in war. We don't have a similar duty to defend other countries in most (though not all) circumstances. We have a duty to be good citizens and be involved in our country's politics, caring for the country's welfare to a degree we do not have a duty to care for other countries. And so on.

The Talmud says it best: aniyey ircha kodmim -- the poor of your own town come first. This is not meant to forbid helping strangers. It is meant to give preference to one's own if forced to choose. "Preference", of course, is not meant as an absolute rule: it isn't that one must not give a dime to charity in other places as long as there are poor in one's hometown. It is meant to prevent ignoring one's people in favor of strangers.

I bet you can't tell me with a straight face that you'd save David Duke over some random Belgian.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I know I'd save Hercule Poirot over David Duke. :|

[Megalodon]

Yes, we do. For example, we have the duty to fight to defend our country in war.

No, we don't. I would fight a war to defend my family, and so be on the side of the country my family lived on. In this particular moment that might mean one of three countries.

I have no allegiance to a geographical area...

We have a duty to be good citizens and be involved in our country's politics, caring for the country's welfare to a degree we do not have a duty to care for other countries. And so on.

That duty is owed to any country you live in, and not necessarily your own.

The Talmud says it best: aniyey ircha kodmim -- the poor of your own town come first.

Stupid quote... the poor of my town might be idiotic and lazy alcoholics, while the ones in the next town will really use charity and build up a better life for themselves.

It all comes down to individuals.

[Undesired Walrus]

Yes, we do. For example, we have the duty to fight to defend our country in war.

Says who? Even if our country is the USSR? Fascist Japan?

The Talmud says it best: aniyey ircha kodmim -- the poor of your own town come first. This is not meant to forbid helping strangers. It is meant to give preference to one's own if forced to choose. "Preference", of course, is not meant as an absolute rule: it isn't that one must not give a dime to charity in other places as long as there are poor in one's hometown. It is meant to prevent ignoring one's people in favor of strangers.

Why should we hold the Talmud up as an example of what we should do?

[GreyICE]

Yes, we do. For example, we have the duty to fight to defend our country in war. We don't have a similar duty to defend other countries in most (though not all) circumstances. We have a duty to be good citizens and be involved in our country's politics, caring for the country's welfare to a degree we do not have a duty to care for other countries. And so on.

The Talmud says it best: aniyey ircha kodmim -- the poor of your own town come first. This is not meant to forbid helping strangers. It is meant to give preference to one's own if forced to choose. "Preference", of course, is not meant as an absolute rule: it isn't that one must not give a dime to charity in other places as long as there are poor in one's hometown. It is meant to prevent ignoring one's people in favor of strangers. However this is a concept distinct from racism in many ways. It's simple fact that when allocating limited resources, it behooves communities to look to themselves first.

It's less obvious that those communities are racially homogeneous. I know Arcade is unfamiliar with America, but the Arab might be the guy down the street, while the Swede could be from... Sweden (it happens sometimes, I hear).

Associating community spirit with racial homogenity is just wrong. Even traditionally 'black' community organizations have recognized this for the most part, branching out to helping everyone in the disadvantaged communities they're after, while schools are switching from race-based support to demographic-based support (something you've generally strongly supported in the past, making your sudden support for the race-based argument a tad disingenuous).

[I Ratant]

Sure i have. I just haven't come up with a rational reason.

I also feel proud of my local hockey team when they play well, is this idiotic as well?
.
Kinda.
You have no input other than fandom towards their efforts.
It's a vicarious thrill.
Their doing well does nothing towards your doing anything well on your own.

[I Ratant]

Says who? Even if our country is the USSR? Fascist Japan?

.
The citizens of those countries will defend them.
QED
.

Why should we hold the Talmud up as an example of what we should do?
.
It's another collection of aphorisms that tell us what we -should-/might- do when feeling altruistic.
The world is full of these.
If Mums and Daddums don't teach the children well, there's those books.
And if those fail, there's the legal system. :)

[Skeptic]

What we have here by some people is the rather common mistake of confusing patriotism with racism. Apparently, in some people's thinking, once one is done with duties to one's immediate family, the only other group of people one can have loyalty to is humanity at large. There is no preference to be given to one's town, or neighborhood, or country, or religious community.

Nonsense! The truth of the matter is that we all have many loyalties to many groups, groups which -- if our loyalty is worth anything -- means they have some right to make demands on us. It is right to go clean up one's town's streets on a weekend because it is your town, or cheer the local hockey team. It is good to chip in to care of a relative who fell upon hard times before one gives to a stranger because he is our relative.

Racism is not to think that one has loyalty to one's nation. It is to think that one's loyalty must be exclusively to one's nation -- to the exclusion of all other wider loyalties. Similarly, the "humanity-only" people claim here, not that one has duties to humanity as well as to one's nation or town, but that the only type of loyalty that matters is to humanity at large (except perhaps for one's family).

Both the "only humanity at large matters" and the "only my race matters" are asking us to be inhuman: one is asking us to treat someone of a different race as if he does not exist. The other asks us to treat with equanimity people who are close to us as if they are strangers. In both cases they are asking us to curtail and deny our moral duties to help others, because those others, in the racist's or the "humanist"'s view, "don't deserve" it.

This sort of racism is better in some ways than 'regular' racism. If worse comes to worse, it concedes that at least our relatives and townspeople and nation deserve as much as strangers. Racists and jingoists often think people of other races or nations count for nothing at all.

However, it is also worse in some ways, namely, in its hypocritical attitude. At least it is possible to love one's nation fanatically to the exclusion of all other loyalties. But humanity is so large, diverse, and vague a thing nobody can truly love it in general. I am quite sure the people who claim to "love humanity" are simply lying: it is just a fashionable thing they say, which really means, "look at me! I am smarter and more rational than you, I have no irrational feelings of pride or community towards anything so random and imperfect as my local home town or my in-laws!"

[I Ratant]

...

It's less obvious that those communities are racially homogeneous. I know Arcade is unfamiliar with America, but the Arab might be the guy down the street, while the Swede could be from... Sweden (it happens sometimes, I hear).

...
.
Us pasty-faced whiteys are in the minority here in Palmdale. There's many "other than whites" from all over the world just locally.
I enjoy the differences! :)
More Arabs than Swedes, I'd bet.

[I Ratant]

I know I'd save Hercule Poirot over David Duke. :|
.
I'd throw Duke a nice large block of concrete.

[Megalodon]

huge strawman snipped

Any comments on the replies to your posts, or will you be busy arguing with the voices in your head?

[Sledge]

Yes.

Just the word I was looking for. How can you feel proud for an achievement you had no part of?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Doubt it we will just find something else to use so we can still have an "us" and a "them" :(
My comment did not preclude that. And there is not going to be a global ethnic group for a very long time, if ever.

[Undesired Walrus]

.
The citizens of those countries will defend them.
QED

Yes, but they have a duty to? Even if its Fascist Japan?

[Arcade22]

Yes, but they have a duty to? Even if its Fascist Japan?

Yes.

[I Ratant]

Just the word I was looking for. How can you feel proud for an achievement you had no part of?
.
And riot and tear up the town and burn things and get arrested...

[I Ratant]

Yes, but they have a duty to? Even if its Fascist Japan?
.
To the point of suicide!
They've been taught that's right.

[Undesired Walrus]

What we have here by some people is the rather common mistake of confusing patriotism with racism. Apparently, in some people's thinking, once one is done with duties to one's immediate family, the only other group of people one can have loyalty to is humanity at large. There is no preference to be given to one's town, or neighborhood, or country, or religious community.

Nonsense! The truth of the matter is that we all have many loyalties to many groups, groups which -- if our loyalty is worth anything -- means they have some right to make demands on us. It is right to go clean up one's town's streets on a weekend because it is your town, or cheer the local hockey team. It is good to chip in to care of a relative who fell upon hard times before one gives to a stranger because he is our relative.

Racism is not to think that one has loyalty to one's nation. It is to think that one's loyalty must be exclusively to one's nation -- to the exclusion of all other wider loyalties. Similarly, the "humanity-only" people claim here, not that one has duties to humanity as well as to one's nation or town, but that the only type of loyalty that matters is to humanity at large (except perhaps for one's family).

Both the "only humanity at large matters" and the "only my race matters" are asking us to be inhuman: one is asking us to treat someone of a different race as if he does not exist. The other asks us to treat with equanimity people who are close to us as if they are strangers. In both cases they are asking us to curtail and deny our moral duties to help others, because those others, in the racist's or the "humanist"'s view, "don't deserve" it.

This sort of racism is better in some ways than 'regular' racism. If worse comes to worse, it concedes that at least our relatives and townspeople and nation deserve as much as strangers. Racists and jingoists often think people of other races or nations count for nothing at all.

However, it is also worse in some ways, namely, in its hypocritical attitude. At least it is possible to love one's nation fanatically to the exclusion of all other loyalties. But humanity is so large, diverse, and vague a thing nobody can truly love it in general. I am quite sure the people who claim to "love humanity" are simply lying: it is just a fashionable thing they say, which really means, "look at me! I am smarter and more rational than you, I have no irrational feelings of pride or community towards anything so random and imperfect as my local home town or my in-laws!"

You seem to assume that all towns have a sense of community, something out of The Good Life or The Hobbit, akin to a family. I have as much friendship (I.e, none) with Joe Blogg's from Dalston than I do Mr Ahmed from Pakistan.

[Thunder]

If a Palestinian sees two people hanging from a cliff, one a Jew and one an Arab, would it not be anti-Semitic if he specifically chose NOT to save the Jew?

i'd think so.

[Agatha]

If your mother was white and father black, what do you do?
You'd be President?

[I Ratant]

You'd be President?
.
No, there's no entitlement to the position, but it is achievable with some effort.

[Undesired Walrus]

.
To the point of suicide!
They've been taught that's right.

Yeah, is it?

[Skeptic]

I bet you can't tell me with a straight face that you'd save David Duke over some random Belgian.

Well, I'm an Israeli, not an American.

But I won't tell you that. That's because David Duke is not a random American. He is an American who, by his racist and disgusting actions, made himself a pariah. Being a pariah means being treated as if one is a stranger one doesn't have any duties to. So in this case I would save the random Belgian over Duke (or over an Israeli equivalent, such as Kahane).

The whole point, if you read my next point, is that we have duties to our countrymen but they are not absolute -- they do not override all other duties. I would, for instance, save a Belgian child over an Israeli adult, since out duty to save children in general usually overrides our duties to countrymen.

But absolute devotion to consider only humanity in general is not much better than an absolute devotion to consider only one's own nation or race.

It is very easy to find theoretical examples where I, or anybody, would be hard pressed to determine what is the "right" decision from all our conflicting duties. But this doesn't mean "solving" the problem by saying we have only one duty -- whether to humanity or to our nation -- is a solution.

[Skeptic]

You seem to assume that all towns have a sense of community, something out of The Good Life or The Hobbit, akin to a family.

No. It's weaker than the sense of family. But it is still there. Anyway we're not talking about friendship, but about community or patriotism.

I have as much friendship (I.e, none) with Joe Blogg's from Dalston than I do Mr Ahmed from Pakistan. You do? Suppose war was declared between Pakistan and the USA. Mr. Ahmed is now in one foxhole, Mr. Blogg in the opposite one. Would you tell me that it would be a matter of indifference to you which one shoots the other dead? Would you carefully weight how much you agree with each side's arguments for fighting the war, in the most objective way possible, and then decide, "on the preponderance of evidence" as it were, who should you root for?

(Again, our duty to our country is not absolute: of course, there are some circumstances when supporting Mr. Ahmend despite Mr. Blogg being a countryman would be justified: if, for example, the war is so obviously unjust on the USA's part that in fact you think Pakistan should win, like some Germans wanted Germany to lose WWII. But let assume that is not the case.)

[GreyICE]

False dichotomy, I'd want neither to shoot the other one. If the war was truly so murky that no right or wrong could be picked out, then it's probably a really stupid war (see: Vietnam).

[ddt]

I don't have to justify why i feel proud of being Swedish and the things the Swedish people have accomplished i just DO.

So, which one of these two would you save:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Henrik_Larsson.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Ibrahimovi%C4%87.jpg

[The_Animus]

It is immoral to treat people differently based on factors they have no control over and have no bearing on the current situation.

It is stupid because you are treating people differently without rational cause.

Stupid/ignorant is not the same as immoral. It is stupid/ignorant to treat people differently without rational cause. But in what way does that make it immoral? Dropping a heavy object on my foot is stupid because I know thanks to gravity it will fall and hurt me. But is dropping a rock on my foot immoral?

[Juniversal]

Well is it? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b300a2915bb7.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18524)

For simplicity's sake, let's define racism as 'valuing people differently based on their ethnicity or race'.

As a thought experiment, imagine that i am walking along a river. I stop for a second and hear two people screaming for help.
Seeing two people struggling for their lives, one of them a Swede and the other being an Arab, and noticing that i only have time to save one of them.

I instinctively rush to save the Swede, and in the process allowing the Arab to drown.

Would i be acting immorally in saving the Swede's life by the single fact that he is Swedish?

No i say, in fact i would argue that i acted an extremely moral way.
In the same way that i am willing to save my family from a burning house while letting yours burn to cinders,
i am willing to save a stranger from death while letting someone else perish simply because he was of the same ethnicity as my self.

Am i wrong? Is racism really immoral?
What do you think?The answer is, yes. And in this scenario my actions would be determined NOT by the persons race but how simply how convientent/dangerous it would be to save them. Litterally if a white person was three feet away from me on a raging river that led to a water fall, while someone black was 12 feet away, no doubt i'd save the white guy even though i'm black. Now if you'd save the guy that's 12 feet away while passing the closer guy then I'd say it's safe to say you're prejudices are clouding your judgement.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well is it? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b300a2915bb7.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18524)

For simplicity's sake, let's define racism as 'valuing people differently based on their ethnicity or race'.

As a thought experiment, imagine that i am walking along a river. I stop for a second and hear two people screaming for help.
Seeing two people struggling for their lives, one of them a Swede and the other being an Arab, and noticing that i only have time to save one of them.

I instinctively rush to save the Swede, and in the process allowing the Arab to drown.

Would i be acting immorally in saving the Swede's life by the single fact that he is Swedish?

No i say, in fact i would argue that i acted an extremely moral way.
In the same way that i am willing to save my family from a burning house while letting yours burn to cinders,
i am willing to save a stranger from death while letting someone else perish simply because he was of the same ethnicity as my self.

Am i wrong? Is racism really immoral?
What do you think?

There are many variables here.

In principle, if you see these two men drowning and you decide to save one over the other (meaning, deliberately letting the other one drown to death), I think it's wrong.

That is not the same as deciding to save them both, and of course, having to pick one out of the water first (as you can only rescue one person at a time).

Also, that the decision to pick one first was not based on which of the two is closer, which of the two seems to be in less advantage, which of the two seems to be having a harder problem staying afloat (and among the reasons for that, his age, his physical health, etc)..... but racial discrimination.

That, for example, despite all these details, you decide to save one and not the other, and such decision is racially based, I would then consider it as plainly wrong.


(I also believe that in such scenario, the racial discrimination could be operating in the unconscious)

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by I Ratant
.
To the point of suicide!
They've been taught that's right.
.
Yeah, is it?
.
To the Japanese, not only right, but honorable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze
.
To the west, mysterious, incomprehenible, repugnant... but our suicides in the heat of battle sometimes get the MOH.

[I Ratant]

Stupid/ignorant is not the same as immoral. It is stupid/ignorant to treat people differently without rational cause. But in what way does that make it immoral? Dropping a heavy object on my foot is stupid because I know thanks to gravity it will fall and hurt me. But is dropping a rock on my foot immoral?
.
My dropping a rock on your foot is immoral... if intended to harm you, and not an accident.

[KingMerv00]

Humans are very irrational animals...

And some irrational things humans do are stupid.

[KingMerv00]

Stupid/ignorant is not the same as immoral. It is stupid/ignorant to treat people differently without rational cause.

Yes, I know. That's why I used two sentences to respond to him.

But in what way does that make it immoral?

If you are going to value people different based on ancestral genetics you will eventually come to a scenario where you will harm a "foreigner" who would have gotten away scot-free if he were "less ethnic".

[fuelair]

Would it be anti-Semitic if I chose to save the Swede instead of a Jew?

What if the Swede was Jewish and the Jew was Bar Rafaeli (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/943601.html) ?:confused::confused:

[I Ratant]

Yes, I know. That's why I used two sentences to respond to him.



If you are going to value people different based on ancestral genetics you will eventually come to a scenario where you will harm a "foreigner" who would have gotten away scot-free if he were "less ethnic".
.
And you could very well be put in the position of being the "foreigner", who "therefore hast a devil", just by changing your location from say, Samaria to Judea.

[Doctor Evil]

So, which one of these two would you save:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Henrik_Larsson.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Ibrahimovi%C4%87.jpg

Thats easy. The first one.

Why? Because I am a Manchester United fan.

Hmm, this begs the question, does a choice based on a football team makes me racist? Or should that be tribalist?

[MysteryMammal]

Well is it?

long, convoluted hypothetical

Am i wrong? Is racism really immoral?
What do you think?

What do I think? I think you presented one far-fetched hypothetical in hopes of garnering support for the racist ideology you've displayed in other threads.

I do not engage in far-fetched what-if's (unless they involve zombies.) What I can say is that racism is morally reprehensible. I can not fathom the depths of suckitude of being denied a job, a service or a domicile because of something I have no control over. Were you able to place yourself, hypothetically, on the receiving end of your own ******** I suspect you'd maybe see why you are so wrong.

[ddt]

Thats easy. The first one.

Why? Because I am a Manchester United fan.
:D For 7 caps only? :eek:


Hmm, this begs the question, does a choice based on a football team makes me racist? Or should that be tribalist?
Definitely not racist. The times that Ajax players actually came from Amsterdam and Feyenoord players from Rotterdam are long gone. And even then racism would be ill-fitted. Tribalist fits much better.

But on the serious side - I wonder about Arcade's choice. Something tells me they're not quite as much Swede in his opinion.

[Sledge]

If you're wondering about anything Arcade has said, you're putting more thought into it than he has.

[Skeptic]

What do I think? I think you presented one far-fetched hypothetical in hopes of garnering support for the racist ideology you've displayed in other threads

Indeed so. All that arcade22 has shows in that sometimes, in certain hypothetical situations, racists and non-racists might agree on the correct action.

Well, if you see an old Swedish woman being raped by an Arab, it is also morally correct to help her and not him. Another case of "agreement", I suppose.

The different is, of course, if Arcade22 sees an old Arab woman being raped by a Swede, he won't care.

[Soapy Sam]

Racism is morally wrong if most people agree that it is.
Abroad you may find it is actually legally obligatory.
That's because foreigners aren't like us.:rolleyes:

[KingMerv00]

The different is, of course, if Arcade22 sees an old Arab woman being raped by a Swede, he won't care.

You're wrong. I think he is opposed to mixed breeding.

[Roboramma]

I don't have to justify why i feel proud of being Swedish and the things the Swedish people have accomplished i just DO.

I was just hoping that you would "Please explain how you came to that conclusion".

That you are unwilling to do so is fine, but its really no different from taking pride in the fact that the sky is blue.

[Roboramma]

I value Swedes more than Norwegians, Arabs, the Chinese or any other people for that matter. I don't feel that Swedes are better than the Norwegians but i feel that they are more important or at least more important to me.

"Please explain how you came to that conclusion".

The conclusion in question being that you should value Swedes more than Norwegians, Arabs, etc.

[Thunder]

I value Swedes more than Norwegians, Arabs, the Chinese or any other people for that matter. I don't feel that Swedes are better than the Norwegians but i feel that they are more important or at least more important to me.

what if you saw two people hanging from a cliff, and they both wore a little hat stating that they were both Swedish citizens, but one was white and the other was black.

they are both fellow Swedes. who do you save?

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by I Ratant
.

.
To the Japanese, not only right, but honorable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze


Forget the moral relativism, it would be wrong to have a duty to defend something you found repugnant.

[Skeptic]

You're wrong. I think he is opposed to mixed breeding.

You've got a point.

So his real crime would be race defilement, I suppose.

[Arcade22]

What do I think? I think you presented one far-fetched hypothetical in hopes of garnering support for the racist ideology you've displayed in other threads.

Then you would be wrong.

I can not fathom the depths of suckitude of being denied a job, a service or a domicile because of something I have no control over.

It's a good thing that i don't support that kind of behavior then.

[Arcade22]

The different is, of course, if Arcade22 sees an old Arab woman being raped by a Swede, he won't care.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d52bc5d842.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18511)

[Arcade22]

Forget the moral relativism, it would be wrong to have a duty to defend something you found repugnant.

There is a difference in protecting ones people from an enemy and supporting the policy's of ones own government.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yes, we do. For example, we have the duty to fight to defend our country in war. We don't have a similar duty to defend other countries in most (though not all) circumstances. We have a duty to be good citizens and be involved in our country's politics, caring for the country's welfare to a degree we do not have a duty to care for other countries. And so on.

The Talmud says it best: aniyey ircha kodmim -- the poor of your own town come first. This is not meant to forbid helping strangers. It is meant to give preference to one's own if forced to choose. "Preference", of course, is not meant as an absolute rule: it isn't that one must not give a dime to charity in other places as long as there are poor in one's hometown. It is meant to prevent ignoring one's people in favor of strangers.

When was all this decided? I didn't get the memo.

I'll look after, worry about and care for whoever I see fit. I don't think nationality is a good indicator of whether I should or shouldn't.

[Last of the Fraggles]

It is good to chip in to care of a relative who fell upon hard times before one gives to a stranger because he is our relative.

I'm struggling with this. In what way is it good to help a relative BECAUSE they are a relative? How is it better than helping a stranger?

In an objective sense if the amount of help and the outcome are the same then it makes no difference WHO you help.

In a subjective sense surely its even MORE charitable and altruistic to help a stranger (and presumably you will see no return from this) than to help someone close to you (who will have ample opportunity to repay you in kind in the future)

[I Ratant]

Forget the moral relativism, it would be wrong to have a duty to defend something you found repugnant.
.
You fail miserably here.
The people defending what -you- find repugnant don't find it that way.
Otherwise they wouldn't line up for the honor of performing the defense.
Those that come to the conclusion the "something" is repugnant will opt out.
Sometimes to their demise.
Conscientious objectors will take on other tasks than directly assist a war effort, for instance.
Or quit their job and find another. I know men who have done this.

[MysteryMammal]

Then you would be wrong.

Oh please, do explain. The suspense is killing me. :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

Morally wrong or not is an irrelevance. It is retarded however.

[Thunder]

The Talmud says it best: aniyey ircha kodmim -- the poor of your own town come first. This is not meant to forbid helping strangers.

and I am confident some Rabbi in the Talmud countered these writings by saying "no, one should not only help out their townsfolk".

[Jono]

and I am confident some Rabbi in the Talmud countered these writings by saying "no, one should not only help out their townsfolk".

This doesn't mean there was no consensus in prioritizing their kin above strangers, actually it would be odd if there weren't such a consesus. But... that's often a basic problem for people quote-mining volumnous texts like the Babylonian Talmud (which is generally the one quoted from). You have statements, many times made for the purpose of displaying academic refinement in dealing with them either directly after or in other tractates elsewhere.