There is nothing wrong with RACISM!?

[Khayr]

I was listening to a radio show the other night and briefly came on the issue of racism and what makes it unacceptable or acceptable.

 

If I don't believe in God and/or don't believe in the idea of morality because it is associated with religion, then how can i argue for against racism? why can't it be acceptable?

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Khayr:

If I don't believe in God and/or don't believe in the idea of morality because it is associated with religion,

Who said morality is "associated with religion?" If that was the case, then you as a Muslim would still be owning slaves.

 

Islam not only permits Slavery but has in place a well articulated system of regulation. Since Muslims have engaged in Slavery in the past but not longer do, whence did the Muslims get the moral imperative to abandon Slavery?

 

 

Originally posted by Khayr:

then how can i argue for against racism? why can't it be acceptable?

[/i]

The source of ALL morals is empathy. I don't like to be stolen from, so stealing is immoral. I don't like to be lied to, so lying is immoral. I don't like to be murdered, so murder is immoral. So on and so forth.

[Wigad]

^^If people could get away with it they would do everything with the exception of a few people who are god fearing or of high moral value. and the prophet (pbuh) did encourage the freeing of slaves and if people insisted on keeping them then there were strick guidelines on how to treat a slave.

[Rayyan]

When the Islam came along, there was three empires around, and existed, Roman Empire, Persian empire, and Abyssinia, and the Arabian tribes also was in there worst, the whole world was immersed by slavery business, Islam in fact encouraged to free the slaves, by morally, justice,and equality wise.

 

later after the Spanish and Portuguese become world powers, they ransacked, chained, humiliated, and throw them in the high seas, like the world never seen before, not only Africans but complete established civilizations like the Aztecs,Incus and Latin American Indians were wiped out, killing millions in a whole sale massacre.

[Khayr]

The source of ALL morals is empathy. I don't like to be stolen from, so stealing is immoral. I don't like to be lied to, so lying is immoral. I don't like to be murdered, so murder is immoral. So on and so forth.

You equate empathy with selfishness. If I don't like something, therefore, it should not be done. That is your basic argument.

 

In the past generation or two, people's empathies have been changed. Our definition of morality has changed. What was once 'wrong' is now 'acceptable'.

 

e.g. Couples living together outside of the matrix of marriage, working on sundays, the idea of what constitues a family?

 

Your equation reads like this:

 

- All morality is founded in empathy

- I am empathatic

-Therefore, I am moral.

 

So one can only conclude that racism is wrong (by your definition) because of self-driven empathy (a mere emotion and feeling).

 

P.S. This ain't about Islam and Slavery, Raamsade, so don't side track the topic.

[Khayr]

Raamsade, where you at?

 

If you take religion out of the picture, why is racism wrong?

[B]

^ morality is universal.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Benson and Hedges:

^ morality is universal.

Its actually 'evolving' with the times and as Raamsade said, it is more than usual - linked with Sentiment e.g. empathy

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Khayr:

If you take religion out ofthe picture, why is racism wrong?

This is exceedingly contrived question. What do you mean by "if you take religion out of the picture?" Are you insinuating what I'm thinking that religion tells us that racism is wrong? I'll wait for your reply before I reply to it.

 

In the meantime, I'll further elaborate what I've said in my initial response.

 

The source of all morals is human empathy. We don't want to be discriminated against based on my skin color or my ancestry, so we feel it is wrong to discriminate against others on similar grounds.

 

Ethics and morals are not absolute contrary to what you and other theists (Muslims, Christians, Jews etc) believe.

 

They're not "written in stone."

 

Morals and ethics are relative. They vary with time and space. If racism was acceptable in the past but no longer is, this fact is merely validation that morals and ethics are relative and not divinely ordained.

 

Morals and ethics are created by community of individuals. Community can be anywhere from few individuals (i.e. in business partnership), to a village, to a town, to a whole country or the international community at large.

 

Any time you bring together disparate individuals, you get a shared common (community) interests in peace, justice, freedom/opportunity and security. While morality is entirely consensual, the community reserves the right to uphold the common interests by means of coercive measures (law enforcement) with reasonable violence to the individual that transgressed the shared common interests. Because each community has its own morals and ethics, morality is be definition relative and mutable.

 

When one individual interest (say that of the a rapist) competes with another individual interests (say the rape victim), the community considers the competing interests. One one side, you have the interest of the rape victim; here you have violation of three shared common interests (peace, justice and freedom/opportunity). On the rapists side, you have only one countervailing interest - the rapist's freedom to rape. Relying on utilitarian assessment, any community presented with such moral dilemma will have no problem condemning the rapists as reprobate who violated the shared common interest of his community.

 

All morals, including those that claim divine providence, are arrived at using the same process I delineated above.

 

In the case of racism, it is not difficult to envisage how it is a moral opprobrium. Racism violates shared common interests of peace, freedom and justice. Therefore, it is morally wrong.

 

The moral framework I outlined has only led to true and wide-scale ushering of human rights and justice across the globe only in the post-Enlightenment era. Morals and ethics that are informed by dogma (religious or not), superstitious and magical thinking have often led to the darkest moments in human history. Think of the Crusades and Inquisitions (by Muslims and Christians), Stalin's gulags, Hitler, apartheid, slavery, segregation etc. When the underlying assumptions that you base your moral judgments are logically and factually untenable, you'll make poor and erroneous decisions.

 

The greatest insight that European Enlightenment has bequeathed to word is that correct and desirable decisions are often made when reason and evidence are employed.

[Khayr]

Morals and ethics are relative. They vary with time and space. If racism was acceptable in the past but no longer is, this fact is merely validation that morals and ethics are relative and not divinely ordained.

So one can conclude, that 20yrs from now, society can dictate to have racism again (justifications - joblessness, majority rules etc.)

 

There are so many holes in your posts. It requires more time.

[Kulmiye]

just put morality and ethics aside, and explain what makes okay for someone to judge another and mistreat them just for the sake of their skin, or gender?

 

well If you were brought up to belief that you're in fact superior to someone because of your race, and gender- thn you will continued to teach and instill that perception to someone else as an ideology, and that creates a handful of racist heads. But through education and human diversity brings the best answers to end racism.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Khayr:

So one can conclude, that 20yrs from now, society can dictate to have racism again (justifications - joblessness, majority rules etc.)

There is no reason to make predictions 20 years from now. It is already happening. There's plenty of racism and bigotry around today.

 

Morals and ethics are arrived at exactly how I described above. But the moral and ethical values that any society creates is only as good as the reasoning and assumptions employed. If their reasoning is poor and assumptions are false, then their morals and ethics will be less than ideal. It is not a coincidence open and democratic countries have far superior morals and ethics than closed and totalitarian countries. In open and democratic countries people are "factually" informed and reach moral conclusions after much consultations.

 

The moral of the story is: we don't need religion to teach us morals, and all morals are man-made even those that claim divine providence.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Kulmiye:

just put morality and ethics aside, and explain what makes okay for someone to judge another and mistreat them just for the sake of their skin, or gender?

How can we put morality and ethics aside when discussing racism and bigotry? If by "mistreat" you mean telling black Americans to sit at the back of the bus, then it is absolutely moral issue.

 

Anyways, I've answered your question already when I wrote: "Racism violates shared community interests in peace, freedom and justice. Therefore, it is morally wrong.

 

Racism and bigotry is also irrational as people's views are based on prejudice, ignorance and not on reason.

 

 

Originally posted by Kulmiye:

well If you were brought up to belief that you're in fact superior to someone because of your race, and gender- thn you will continued to teach and instill that perception to someone else as an ideology, and that creates a handful of racist heads.

This is why reason and evidence (facts) are always the best tools against bigots and ignorant people. On what account is one person superior to another? People should always question received wisdom.

[5]

How curious, evolutionist arguing for morality!

 

I'll play the devil's advocate, just for the fun of it.

 

Wake up, we are animals! Morality and altruism are merely survival mechanisms. The laws of Nature shaped us and they didn't make us equal because you see, Nature has no agend or intention and certainly no morality. :rolleyes:

 

The rules are very simple: the strong survive whilst the weak die. Survival doesn't require selflessness or equality.

 

On what account is one person superior to another?

Deeds! Like Allah (swt) says in the holy Quran.

If someone had a paedophile murderer and a housewife tied up, ready to kill one of them, and asked you which person was superior to the other one, would your answer be: "They are both equal as human beings"?

[Khayr]

In open and democratic countries people are "factually" informed and reach moral conclusions after much consultations.

Ever heard of Manufactored Consent?

 

If the majority of people determine what is right, what is good in a democratic society, then in an age of divorce, crime, premartial sex, nuclear proliferation, green house gases etc., how can democracies have far more superior morals and ethics than societies of past? I fail to understand the rationale.... :confused: