I know this is not related to "profiling" being inherently wrong or whatever, but seriously I would like to see actual evidence/proof that RACIAL profiling specifically has benefits, or has done good.  Analogies while good for some scenarios aren't enough to convince me that it could be in any way good as documented evidence seems to show it does more harm than good: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/paying-price-human-cost-racial-profiling/effects-racial-profiling

Last edited by AKG (6/02/2017 5:16 am)

Honestly, I don't really see why we are so stuck on the point whether it is intrinsically wrong or right?
At least hypothetically, we can assume that a certain measure/action is intrinsically right but 99.999% of population abuses it. In this case then, are we justified in continuing this action/measure simply because it is intrinsically right? I don't really think so. But let us ignore this issue for now.

I'm not sure that racial profiling is intrinsically wrong. From what I have understood, racial profiling is means of exercising caution. In all sincerity, I can see why people can be worried about their safety but that is also exactly where the problem rises. The issue of safety is so closely tied to our emotions, of how much we feel safe; at the sametime whenever emotions enter in the picture, the rationality can take serious hits. I guess that is why AKG is so worried. 

I think it is rational to say that any exercise of caution should be proportion to the threat. But when our emotions are so entangled in this issue, how can we make sure that are measures of safety are just? I think it is here where dignity can be inserted into the picture? I think in principle if the excercise of caution is proportion to the threat then dignity is not harmed.

At least for the sake of argument lets say that in a certain country  1 person in every million commits the crime of rape every year. Lets also say that the same proportion in the migrating population commits the same crime every year. Is it justified then in this case to be more cautious with migrants? Should we impose more checks on the migrants?  Should we ban migrants considering that we have no obligation to migrants rather to we have obligation to our citizens? (So that we avoid the issue of rape from migrating society)
What if proportion of people committing the crime in migrants are actually lower than citizens of the country? Should we still ban them (at least we can eliminate any threats of rape and again we have no obligation to migrants)? What if due to media, rhetorics and mentality of the population, citizens of the country actually are more sensitive to migrants? Is such behavior justified?

One might object based on trivialities and technicalities that we are just profiling for the sake of profiling and therefore the morality of the action is independent of our decision based on the results from profiling. Here I strongly disagree, you have a purpose in doing racial profiling and that purpose and intend have obvious implications for morality of racial profiling. 

Last edited by nojoum (6/12/2017 5:32 pm)

In a rather obvious observation, racial profiling most definitely does prevent Muslim attacks in Israel. Why should the American or European experience be that different then that of Israel?

AKG wrote:

I feel the need to say this. My issue I realized if not is whether or not it is intrinsincally immoral or not but whether it actually WORKS. I think with regards to racial profiling, no amount of hypothetical "thought" experiment is going to convince me about this. I mean the whole "thought experiment", hypothetical scenarios or whatever with regards to racial profiling are the exact same kind of crap Sam Harris(when he's not busy advocating debunked racial science) pulls to say justify his profiling of Muslims. This isn't ad hominem as actual security experts on this topic have proven him wrong with actual data/experience. So for me if racial profiling is shown to WORK by actual experts on this topic, I'd be willing to consider it, but so far actual experts have said otherwise:

 http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/paying-price-human-cost-racial-profiling/racial-profiling-doesnt-work
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racial-profiling-terrorism-statistics/
 

I think then the case against racial profiling is even more stronger. To me even if it had some tangible benefits, further reasons are needed to justify conducting it.

Last edited by nojoum (6/13/2017 12:30 pm)

nojoum wrote:

At least for the sake of argument lets say that in a certain country  1 person in every million commits the crime of rape every year. Lets also say that the same proportion in the migrating population commits the same crime every year. Is it justified then in this case to be more cautious with migrants? Should we impose more checks on the migrants?  Should we ban migrants considering that we have no obligation to migrants rather to we have obligation to our citizens? (So that we avoid the issue of rape from migrating society)

What if proportion of people committing the crime in migrants are actually lower than citizens of the country? Should we still ban them (at least we can eliminate any threats of rape and again we have no obligation to migrants)? What if due to media, rhetorics and mentality of the population, citizens of the country actually are more sensitive to migrants? Is such behavior justified?

This is where I would say that the mainstream western media has largely failed the west, and the immigration debate is long since overdue in America.