How can I convince a racist that he's wrong?

Question

Starting from the assumption that there is no absolute morality and that good and bad are stories we tell ourselves, how can I logically convince a racist person that he's wrong?

There is no right or wrong to begin with! Trying to appeal to "general principles" like "everyone should be equal " and such is of no great help, because a) those principles are arbitrary anyway, 2) it is often quite tricky to conclude anything definitive from them.

This is something I've been struggling with; I try to be as logical as possible with my arguments, but I always know in the back of my mind that I'm being dishonest: that what I say cannot be completely logical because there is nothing to start with. How are my arguments different than a screaming contest then?

Of course the racist thing is just an example, in general this occurs every time we come close to morality and ethics; this includes murder, theft, and so on.

Given that realizing that good and bad exists only in the human mind does not seem to me as a particularly bold position to take, I guess someone already wrote about this? About how to resolve this situation? Maybe you could provide some references?

I admit that my question sounds like "Assume that there are no moral truths. How can we discern right from wrong?" but in my mind someone has surely realized the fact that there are no truths before me; how did they justify their moral positions then? (Without taking crazy unjustified assumptions like many philosophers do)

Answer 1

I can only say, you can't, in a way you want. All the other answers are good but they miss one important fact. You do not just want to convince a racist - you want to convince him and remain consistent with your belief that there is no absolute morality and that good and bad are stories we tell ourselves.

This is Moral Relativism. Now by your statment, it appears you want to preserve Normative Moral Relativism. You obviously believe in Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism, the problem is that you feel that you cannot impress upon someone your belief, by conditioning, by manipulation or probably by force, if you yourself believe that to be untrue, hence you are shfiting towards the normative one and that you do not want.

However there is one way out. Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism does not commit you to Normative Moral Relativism.

Secondly, If you believe that there is no "right" and no "wrong", then there is nothing wrong in being a hypocrite and you can convince him by showing that he is wrong according to any moral belief he might have or you can make him believe. Remember there will be nothing illogical with your argument because you will not be presenting false logic. You will use his belief 'x' or make him believe 'x' and then derive what you want, i.e., 'y' from it. It is not illogical because a logical syllogism is like -

1. If P then Q
2. P
3. Hence, Q

If he believes in P it is logical that he believe in Q. Check that 2 is not wrong in your world view. You believe in Moral Relativism and hence already consider morals to have existence only in mind. Just replace P with P' and Q with Q', where P' is P."in your mind" and Q' is Q."in your mind". For example,

1. If Deontic Ethics are right, then racism is wrong
2. Deontic Ethics are right
3. Hence racism is wrong

becomes

1. If Deontic Ethics are right in your mind, then racism is wrong in your mind
2. Deontic Ethics are right in your mind
3. Hence racism is wrong in your mind

That is the best you can do (though a smart "racist" will get around it and a stupid won't agree with the methodology).

It is not illogical or immoral/unethical in your worldview to do that. Unless you do subscribe to Normative Moral Relativism, where it would become a lot more difficult.

Answer 2

Assuming you can engage in any form of logical debate with a racist at all, you will have 2 possible approaches:

1. Argue that race is only a social construct, not a scientifically objective concept, and so there is no such thing as a biological race. How can one be racist if there is no such thing as race? The idea that race is not a biologically real concept, only a social construct is disputed, but there are compelling arguments for it. See the SEP article on Race - Section 2.
2. Find some common moral ground, and then show them that from those agreed upon moral principles, it is logically entailed that racism is wrong. They will then have to either admit that they are wrong in being racist, or recant their original agreement on the moral principles that they had previously agreed upon (which would make them look stupid - even if you don't succeed in actually convincing them).

2.a: You can argue from a Deontic (i.e. rule based ethics) point of view: If they subscribe to a certain religion or if they agree to certain universal humanistic principles, you can show them that racism contradicts those religious or universal principles.

2.b: You can argue from a Consequentialist (Consequence based ethics - for example the utilitarianism that @user14840 mentions) point of view that the consequences of a society without racism are better than those of a society with racism (less chances of conflict, uprisings and genocides, etc...). You would first have to establish what the greater good of society is, before you can argue from that point of view. If you don't agree on what consequences are good and what consequences are bad, then you won't have anyway of convincing them of the wrongness of their views.

Answer 3

Starting from the assumption that there is no absolute morality and that good and bad are stories we tell ourselves, how can I logically convince a racist person that he's wrong?

You can't. So don't start from that assumption.

There is no right or wrong to begin with! Trying to appeal to "general principles" like "everyone should be equal " and such is of no great help, because a) those principles are arbitrary anyway, 2) it is often quite tricky to conclude anything definitive from them.

"All general principles are arbitrary" is a general principle, so that position is inconsistent.

There are many kinds of decisions not commonly regarded as moral that are considered methodological. For example, the question of what experiment to do next in a scientific investigation is methodoligical. A decision about whether you should wash your hands before preparing food is methodological.

Moral principles can't be separated from methodological principles since real decisions about methodology often involve decisions commonly regarded as moral. For example, suppose a scientist is in a laboratory and he thinks that he should do one more experiment before going home, where his girlfriend is waiting for a romantic dinner. The decision about whether to do the experiment is methodological and the decision about whether to go home is moral. So if there is no rational way to make a decision about the moral issue, then there is no way to make a decision about whether to do the experiment and so there is no objectively better or worse methodological decision.

So the racist must be willing to throw out logic and all methodological knowledge to deny objective morality.

You say that good and bad only exist in the human mind, but you've offered no argument criticising the contrary position. It is true that morality is about how to make decisions and so doesn't arise until there are beings that can make decisions, but this is not the same as morality being in the mind.

There is one final issue to consider, which is a methodological matter on which you are mistaken. You write about making "crazy unjustified assumptions". All knowledge consists of unjustified guesses about solutions to problems that are controlled by criticism. Justification is impossible and unnecessary. Moral knowledge is created by trying to take existing moral ideas seriously. You try to solve problems with moral ideas and reject those that fail to solve problems.

Answer 4

In the spirit of Nietzsche, if your scepticism is preventing you from functioning, you need to take it farther. If you cannot accept that truth exists, you should not rely upon it for making decisions. You need to find a motivation for action that matters.

The two he puts forward, which to my mind are really the same, are Power and Art. Which of these does his racism offend? Does it undermine his effectiveness? Or is it just tacky?

Yes, that first question is framed the right way around. If you expect him to act in ways that are not playing to his strengths, you are being a hypocrite: You have some devotion to some morality based upon the religious history of truth and the 'slave morality' that it leads into. So you should expect him to do what is good for him.

Is racism good for him? If you think so, you need to just acknowledge that you are fighting with success, and nothing succeeds like success.

If not, you should be able to make the case based upon the odds of being on the losing side of history. Stereotypes do not predict outcomes very well, and racism is ultimately not really a moral position, it is bad science with a religious anchor.

If it is in his best interest, what in it offends you? How does it lack art? Are you adopting the prevailing modern taste for equality and peace? If so, again, you are being a hypocrite. Modern politics is stil Enlightenment thinking, highly over-constructed, not open to deep skepticism, and if you lack faith in "Truth", you need to discard it.

So aside from the trappings of cultural pressures, what in his racism offends you? What is the aesthetic you want to adopt toward politics, and what would be its standard of judgement?

For example, I can look at Donald Trump's racism and sexism, and hate it because he is presenting a false image of masculinity. (As a gay man, masculinity is something I value for its own sake, at least in other men.) His position is presented with bluster, but it is ultimately cowardly. It is not pride or tradition he is appealing to, it is simple fear.

If you believe a group belongs in a subordinate position, but you fear you cannot keep them there, then they don't belong there, and they won't stay. So accept history. Do what works, but don't whine about it. Letting yourself be afraid of them, and being dishonest or duplicitous about it debases you. It is tacky.

Answer 5

According to Eysenck, various kinds of -ists are perfectly capable of believing multiple contradictory things simultaneously. For example, a prejudiced person might believe that members of a certain group are all work-shy and avoid any work. A prejudiced person might also believe that members of the same group want to take all our jobs away. The merely prejudiced person cannot logically believe both things at the same time. The racist can. Easily.

You cannot argue logically or ethically with a racist. You might, over a very, very long period, slowly wear them down, but even that is very difficult, since anything that seems to support their views will be received very strongly, while anything that is against their views will be viewed extremely critical.

Answer 6

There is absolute morality. It's called (perhaps perfected?) utilitarianism. You do the action that causes the least unwanted feelings and the most wanted feelings. Why do you do such an action? Because it's the most wanted course of action. Why should you do the most wanted course of action? Because you want to! Or would if you were conscious of you wants when applied to the situation.

So first off don't assume that racism is wrong, don't assume anything, if you're going to defeat the best racist you're not going to do so by being afraid, you're going to do so by being more logical than he is. Since you don't know how logical he is, you must be 100% logical and ready to accept his position into your mind. Only then can you start to rationally dissect the issue and see which option, racism vs non-racism, is most utilitarian.

Or maybe not, I'm lazy, maybe if you pay me I'll answer your question?

Answer 7

The word "racism" is typically defined like this :

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

---

Now, there are no objective, culturally independent standards for good and evil whatsoever. To some degree, all morality is arbitrary. So neither the racist position nor the anti-racist position are inherently (= objectively) evil or good. Neither Liberals nor Marxists nor Neo-Conservatives nor Zionists nor Nazis nor Jews nor Christians nor Muslims are inherently (= objectively) evil or good. All judgements on good or evil are inherently subjective. See eg. my article on Discordianism or this excerpt from Hogfather for some arguments for that.

So you can't argue that racism is objectively wrong from a moral point of view, since morality is fundamentally subjective. You CAN, however, argue that racism is factually wrong.

There are two ways to approach this :

1. Explain how the notion of race superiority is essentially a form of of collective narcissism and in-group favoritism, which can be based on objective criteria but often is based on highly subjective, irrational preferences. The following image is a perfect illustration of this : .

2. Explain how each race has its own unique combination of strengths and weaknesses, and that there is no objective way to determine superiority because - especially at the level of groups - the strengths always come with corresponding weaknesses, making the notion that one race is superior to the other impossible to determine objectively! source : Thirty years of research on race differences in Cognitive Ability

---

Thus, my approach deals with objective facts, not subjective morality. IMO, this is the only meaningful approach, for the very reasons you pointed out yourself : you need objective standards for "right" and "wrong" to be meaningful concepts.