Logic and Race
From my “links” page, a response to the claim that “sore losers” are at work regarding claims of racism:
From sore winners:
People have to complain about the states that did go for McCain, claiming that all the white Southerners who voted for McCain were doing so merely because of racism rather than because they think Obama’s policies would be awful.
Nobody would argue that everybody who voted against Obama did so out of racism. However, when the old confederacy is pretty much the only place in the entire country that voted more Republican than last time, it makes you wonder. Unless you’re completely blind (willingly or not) to history.
One of the confusing things for me is the claim that voting against Mr Obama on the basis of race is racism and at the same time voting for him on the basis of race is not. It seems to me either both are or none is. If race is a valid basis to make a decision for a candidate … then that necessarily cuts both ways and that it is also is a valid reason for making a decision against a candidate. One claim on the Southern voting numbers is that a lot of those white Southern voters are Scots/Irish … and they voted more than some other regions for Mr McCain on account of ethnic heritage. But that is a little off topic. The salient point is if a decision by one person based on membership in group “A” is just (or unjust), then the particulars of membership in which group is not important.
The only argument that I’ve heard suggested that this claim that the logic works “both ways” is that one group is disadvantaged. That is is only moral to prefer one group over another if the group you prefer is disadvantaged. This apparently is very Rawlsian wiki cites the “2nd principle of justice” as:
- Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, 1971, p.303):
- a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).
- b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity
This is a statement which I’ve been mulling over somewhat recently. I can’t make heads of tails of it … especially the first part. This is described as a “principle of justice”. This connects with the above in proposing that the notion that one decision based on group membership is just if it is of benefit to the “least-advantaged” members of that society (which is read as connecting specifically with that group). That is specifically, Blacks in America have had a long history of suffering injustice and therefore on account of that they are entitled in this case to be located as “least-advantaged”. That being the case, according to this “rule” then it the logic is not reversible via the “difference principle.”
Earlier forms of justice don’t take the economic or status of an individual into account, hence statues of “blind justice” and so on. The idea there is that justice is meted out not according to your membership in group or your personal status (or lack thereof) but based only on circumstance, deed, and perhaps motive. I’m unclear on why abandoning this is a good idea or how Mr Rawl’s notion of justice connects with and can be demonstrated to be “superior” to a the the standard blind one.
Filed under: Ethics & Morality • Mark O. • Race Issues
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
One of the confusing things for me is the claim that voting against Mr Obama on the basis of race is racism and at the same time voting for him on the basis of race is not.
1. There is a difference between voting for a candidate PARTIALLY because the candidate is the first from a race that has never in history been elected president and voting AGAINST a candidate because of their race. Blacks who voted for Obama because of his race were NOT voting against McCain because of his race – they have no problems with white folk, they vote for white folk all the time. The point is that some segment of the white population voted AGAINST Obama because of his race. There is a difference.
2. I doubt that the population who voted FOR Obama because of his race – for that reason alone – is a very large segment of the population. They also happen to agree with his politics. But, in some places (like my Kentucky), significant numbers of white folk voted against Obama purely because of his race, according to their own testimony. I know enough Kentuckians to believe it when I hear a figure of 20-30% bandied around. Like it or not, racism is still an issue in some places.
Dan,
You aren’t making any sense as far as I can see.
Certainly there were lots voting for Obama on the basis race alone, didn’t you catch that little experiment that Howard Stern did it seemed to prove that there were quite a few who were doing exactly that.
Let’s compare a little more evenly. If is ok to vote for Obama partially (sans screaming) on account of race, is ok to vote against him partially on account of race.
Let me ask you about those Kentuckians you despise. Do you suggest that ordinarily they vote party line Democrat but that they voted for McCain because of his skin color?
I agree racism is an issue in some places. I just think that if you are voting for on the basis of race … that is racism of the same stripe and deserves exactly the same scorn.
didn’t you catch that little experiment that Howard Stern did…
Are we talking about the famed sociologist/psychologist/scientist Howard Stern or are we talking about the schlock jock?
It appears that you don’t understand and I don’t know how I can put it any other way: Voting for someone partially because they are the first from your group to have a chance at being elected is NOT racism (if that was all it took, Alan Keyes’ presidency would have had 95% black support – it didn’t). It just isn’t racism, as racism is defined. It just isn’t.
racism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Voting FOR someone for president PARTIALLY because they are from your race (and it’s the first time that you’ve had a chance to do so) is not hatred or intolerance of another race. It just isn’t.
It’s not voting for someone based upon the belief that blacks are inherently better. It’s just not. It does not meet any of the definitions of racism.
I don’t know how plain it can be.
Meanwhile, voting AGAINST Obama BECAUSE he is black IS racism (ie, it’s the belief that whites are inherently better suited to rule, or perhaps based upon hatred of blacks). And it’s not that I hate Kentuckians. Many in my family have had these attitudes and I love my family. But racism is racism. Voting FOR Obama because he meets your belief system, because you think he’s the best man for the job and because, partially, he’s black is not.
Think of it this way:
Suppose you have two candidates running for president, one from Illinois and one from Kentucky. Keeping in mind that we have NEVER had a president to come from KY. So, when this KY candidate begins his run, many here are excited to think that someone who actually is from KY and probably understands our needs better is running for office and KY enthusiastically throws their support behind the candidate.
Now, that’s not to say that we’d blindly throw our support behind any KY candidate. Suppose we had a candidate run before, but he was an oddball extremist and he did not garner much support, even though he was from KY. So, being from KY is not the one and only reason for voting for him. And even for the few who ARE voting for him solely because he’s from KY, it’s not that they have anything against Illinois, where the other candidate is from. They’re just excited about voting for a Kentuckian. Shallow reasoning, but there’s no prejudice there.
On the other hand, suppose that some folk from Indiana said, “Well, I’d NEVER vote for a Kentuckian. Doesn’t matter what his views are, I just can’t vote for a Kentuckian.”
In THAT case, there is bias of a sort comparable to the racism of those who’d vote against a black man merely because he is black. There is a substantive difference in opposing a candidate because of his belonging in a group and supporting a candidate because he belongs to your group.
Dan,
On Mr Stern, we are talking about the radio personality. He interviewed quite a number people in New York and asked them why the preferred Mr Obama. They all indicated it was “the issues.” He then asked if it was because of issues like his anti-abortion, choice of Mrs Palin as a running mate, his support for the Iraq war and so on. They all affirmed that was the case. The conclusion was that contra your claim, they were not voting partially on racial grounds … it was the primary or perhaps only consideration.
In fact, on the very problematic claims in your statements above is your insistance on it is “ok to partially” on the one hand and the insistance that it was the “sole motivation” to vote against him. That is remarkably uncharitable of you.
Look there is no logical difference between preferring one person over another and claiming it’s “FOR” and the reverse claiming it’s “AGAINST”.
It was not uncharitable of me to take people at their word. There were surveys done in Kentucky (elsewhere, too, but I’m talking specifically about Kentucky right now) and the question was asked if they would vote for a black person and some 20% said no. They would not vote for a black person. That is racism, by their own words.
So, because those whites said they would not vote for a black man, that is my evidence that there is racism afoot in the vote against Obama.
Where is your evidence?
Obama’s black supporters, by any evidence offered so far, are simply not racist. You have provided no evidence so far to suggest otherwise. The fact that they voted 90%+ for him is not corollary evidence.
Your reasoning is:
“Black folk voted for Obama, Obama is black, therefore, all those black folk are racists…”
That is a jump in logic. It does not follow. Where’s your evidence to support such a spurious charge? You have provided none because there is none. I’d suggest that Christian decency and human respect would require that you provide evidence or retract your claim.
Dan,
I noted evidence. You ignored it. Black voters who noted they were voting for Mr Obama on the issues. Issues like his selection of Sarah Palin for the VP slot, or his support of the Iraq war, or his strong support for abortion. That seems to me to indicate that they didn’t care about the issues … just his race.
Show your source for your claim of 20% making that statement and that many or most of that 20% would normally have voted Democrat and switched parties to vote based on race. Then you might have a case for your consistent and illogical inclusion of “partial” reasons for voting for Obama and claiming the vote against was “totally” about race.
You noted anecdotal evidence. I’d have to see something a bit more substantive than some schlock jocks random interviews of a handful of people. You understand the difference, I’m sure, between studies and anecdotes.
As to the 20%, surely you recall the polls in West Virginia and Kentucky where some 20% of the people indicated they were not ready to vote for a black man? A quick google search did not turn them up, but I’m sure I could find them if you really wanted them.
If I show you polls showing that 20% of white folk in KY would not vote for a black person, would that suffice, or would you still question it? Beyond that, I live here. I see racism regularly still. I know it exists because it exists around me. If anecdotal evidence is good enough for you (and it was in Stern’s case), then there you go.
Dan,
The argument isn’t about whether racism exists in Kentucky. It’s that Blacks (and whites) who vote for Obama on account of his race … that too is racism.
sigh. Says you. I disagree, because blacks voting for a black man does not meet the dictionary definition of the term. You can disagree with the dictionary definition if you want, but I’ll have to disagree with it, as I think most right thinking folk would (nothin’ personal).
Dan,
I see. A white man voting against a man on account of his skin color … that’s racism. A black man voting against a man on account of his skin color … that’s not.
Bullpocky.