Is it time to replace racial reasoning with moral reasoning?

[Boojatta]

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Define the terms.

[LadyHawkAZ]

4. ^seconded.

[Boojatta]

6. What terms are available for me to use in the definitions?

[DavidDvorkin]

9. Whatever you need

I requested definitions because I have no idea what you mean by "racial reasoning" and "moral reasoning".

[Yo_Mama]

10. Thank you, I didn't get it either. n/t

[RKP5637]

2. Moral reasoning means different things to different people, but yes, racial reasoning

must be dumped.

[BOG PERSON]

3. sure. is there a Pope of Reason we can petition to make this change?

[damntexdem]

5. Race, racism, and "racial reasoning" are based on a system of exploitation.

That system developed to justify the stealing of much of the earth from its inhabitants, genocide of much of those inhabitants, and kidnapping of millions to be used as slaves to work the stolen lands. The exploitative ideology settled on skin color as the major marker of who could be exploited or killed versus who should not, thus creating "race." Analysis using "race" (or "race/ethnicity" as I phrase it) is important in establishing current and likely future occurrences (as well as in historical research), but "racial reasoning" harkens back to the exploitative system, even if it claims to attack it.

On the other hand, moral reasoning, or "ethical reasoning" as many of use would term it, is an essential of human society and behavior. We do not agree on the bases of such reasoning, but we can nevertheless follow ethical reasoning at least to the point that we understand where we disagree. But society must achieve at least a minimal consensus on what it deems moral (or ethical) if it is to thrive.

[frebrd]

7. I guess I don't understand your definition of the word "reason".....

To me reason depends on logic; it has nothing to do with race or morality.

:shrug:

[Boojatta]

8. Reasoning is a general ability that allows us to discuss

a wide variety of matters. It doesn't restrict us to discussion of Socrates.

Nevertheless, the following is an example of valid reasoning:

Socrates is a man,
All men are mortal,
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Similarly, there can be reasoning about moral issues.

Given the assumption that reasoning itself isn't restricted to the topic of moral issues, how do you hope to reach the conclusion that there can be no valid reasoning about moral issues?