Kasz216 on 01 February 2013
| Kantor said: Well, there are a number of definitions of the word, but I personally like "the preferential treatment of one or more races above one or more others". Racism is wrong because your race in itself does not affect your ability to do anything. It is true that members of certain races are, on average, better in certain aspects than members of other races, but that is not to say that every individual of that race is better than every individual of the "inferior" race. You are judging somebody based on irrelevant criteria and generalising. You are not giving them a chance to show their true ability. You are not taking the time to learn about them as an individual. That is why it is wrong. Let's take a specific example: choosing from a pool of applicants for a job. I would argue that it is immoral to give the job to anybody except the person who will fit in and succeed best at the company. That means it's immoral to give it to one of your friends, it's immoral to assume a black person is stupid (without looking further at him) and reject him, it is immoral to hire a black person to fill a quota. Why is that immoral? I have no idea, that just seems like common sense to me, and the reductionism has to stop somewhere. |
I would argue that you are likely to view people against stereotype as less likely to fit in unconsiously, when judging things subjectivly.
As is generally show to be the case in stuff like...
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/
