Racism; This another term that arouses irrational passion. With our present reductionist ethic, it is yet another value that is defined according to the prejudices that prevail. As with all matters of morality the first thing to be clear is what form of society we are judging it within.
What is broadly a Tyranny may or may not be based on race, but it is entirely in keeping for race to be a defining feature. The most extreme tyranny would include it amongst other consonant features of tyranny.
Autonomy, as broadly defined, would have individualism at its core, and racial distinctions would entirely evaporate in time, after a period of conflict. As a loose society it would not so much oppose racism as ignore it.
Altruism as broadly defined, is the one form of society that must provide itself with careful definitions. The question of colour is but a part of what defines a race. Race as a physical manifestation is not an ethical value, and as such it may be incorporated within broad culture, and as a matter of aesthetics. It is encompassed by the value of Diversity. Global altruism would count it, as with diversity in Nature, as something to be encouraged and maintained. Obviously on a national and regional basis, since only that would provide the framework for its preservation. In the nature of altruism - if a particular ‘race’ has genetic disease - then an ethical question arises as to whether that may be removed for the benefit of the individuals concerned.
It is when ‘race’ is defined in terms of a social group defined by their ethical views and aptitudes that the greatest problem arises. Altruism must decide what ethical varieties it can accept in global society, or confine to a region. By definition, altruism, or altruist democracy, cannot accept tendencies that are antipathetic to altruism. Which means any social group or ‘nation’ or ‘state’ whatsoever may be criticised on that basis, in a rational and polite way as befits altruism. But at some point, altruist democracy must protect itself as in 1939.
Racism within a national society tends to be a product of a chaotic mixing of religious, ethical, political, groups. If they are antipathetic to each other.
The expression used of, ‘being against racism in all its forms’, tends to complete vacuity.
:::::
First the League of Nations and latterly the United Nations are examples of valuable attempts at a world system, but the near impossibility of this for a host of nations employing ethical values in contrary ways, is manifest.
As a federation designed simply for security and peace, it may have had effect, but with powerful tyrannies that were not intrinsically concerned with peace other than on their terms, it was only feasible under their hegemony.
It may also have been successful on the basis of national autonomy, if the expansionist tyrannies had been stifled. In which case any country ruining itself or persecuting its citizens would have been no concern for others.
As a vehicle for European democratic, and altruistic values, it has had some success no doubt. But it is pure hypocrisy for the altruist style democracies to imagine such a chaotic world can pragmatically be treated as though every problem will have a moral solution. We are thrown back onto a survival code to protect that part of the world that is in our sphere of social morality and constraint’
::::::
An example that may be employed is, Palestine-Israel.
1: Anyone who states that Israel or Palestine should not exist will immediately be suspected of racism. Perhaps betraying an irrational prejudice that every state should have complete hegemony of a particular kind.
2: Those who treat all ethics as being individualistic, will claim that this conglomerate should be entirely open, under whatever name it may have.
These latter alternatives have implications for the future that may be imagined.
3: The third alternative is that Palestine by its prewar name and area, should have so continued, with immigration strictly controlled so as to maintain the ‘rights’ of those already in occupation.
However, this does not answer the situation as it is. The only answer at hand is that there is a chaotic ethical conflict that could be answered by international action of a direct kind, but which would probably only cause more Middle East destruction and mayhem.
A twin state solution is almost entirely undermined. Can a single state be agreed under pressure, with dual constitutional rights.
The actual answer will probably arise out of raw power in the area involved – which is not altruist rule.