Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



6/02/2017 5:12 am  #11


Re: Racial profiling and Free speech

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)

 

6/03/2017 12:48 am  #12


Re: Racial profiling and Free speech

I think a Kantian is committed to saying that if racial profiling impedes dignity of human beings, it is always intrinsically wrong. Since you're suspecting a person of something for something which he or she is not responsible for, and by imputing this suspicion upon him/her due to a statistical inference, it would harm his/her dignity.

So two questions, (1) does racial profiling demean the dignity of human beings? 
(2) Does the preservation of human dignity that we treat every single person indiscriminately, and solely on the merits of their actions and intent?

I also find the term 'dignity' to be vague. 

Last edited by Dennis (6/03/2017 1:04 am)

     Thread Starter
 

6/12/2017 5:28 pm  #13


Re: Racial profiling and Free speech

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)

 

6/12/2017 6:07 pm  #14


Re: Racial profiling and Free speech

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/
 

 

6/12/2017 8:03 pm  #15


Re: Racial profiling and Free speech

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?


Noli turbare circulos meos.
 

6/12/2017 9:02 pm  #16


Re: Racial profiling and Free speech

The situations in the US and Israel are different. Unless of course you're idiot in chief Donald Trump who uses irrational fear mongering: 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-says-profiling-has-protected-israel-it-probably-wouldnt-work-here/

 

6/13/2017 12:28 pm  #17


Re: Racial profiling and Free speech

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)

 

6/14/2017 1:43 am  #18


Re: Racial profiling and Free speech

nojoum wrote:

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.

The argument is about what moral warrant one has for certain decisions, and we have to see whether some acts are intrinsically moral/immoral, before other considerations are entertained. But whatever those considerations would be, they wouldn't contradict the fact that the moral warrant derived from statistics is just.


nojoum wrote:

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.

It's unfortunate that no one replied to the "Kantian" line of argument above, but here's where I would say, personal emotions with regard to the situation at hand mean nothing, when there is issue of moral warrant to assume certain things with regard to someones safety and being. And this is not concerning inanimate objects, this is concerning acts performed by a certain group of people at a disproportionate amount. So if I grant you all things for the purpose of argument, nothing would remove the fact that I'd prefer the safety and well being of persons over the hurt emotions of some folk.

With addition to the empirical effects of profiling and its misuse, I would say that there is only a requirement of better statistics and studies in probability and so on. This would not discourage racial profiling, only improve the methods by which we profile. The thrust of the argument is again, to prefer the safety and well being of people, over and above the hurt feelings of some. So, I agree with Etzelink, but by some chance this wasn't the case, and that we're living in a dystopia society where 99% of the laws are misused, we're living in world of degeneracy and no order, racial profiling would be the last of the worries in such a world (no denying though, that racial profiling is misused). 

     Thread Starter
 

6/14/2017 1:47 am  #19


Re: Racial profiling and Free speech

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. 

     Thread Starter
 

6/14/2017 6:28 am  #20


Re: Racial profiling and Free speech

Yeah.......I'm still not convinced at ALL. The empirical evidence shows "misuse" is a characteristic of profiling, one I'd say is built into it's concept, and it's foundation. There are more then just "hurt feelings" as the articles I linked show that these can have literal psychological damage on people profiled. Let me ask you this Dennis with all due respect. Are you a security expert/law enforcement/work in any profession that is qualified to decide if profiling is a good idea/should be done, and assess if the studies done should be revised? 

Just a side note, and tip, but I am largely unsympathetic to immigration complaints in America,Considering America was FOUNDED on immigrants(along with mass genocide,and forced capture/bringing to America of slaves but I'm getting off topic), and most of the complaints are from right-wing hacks/idiots like Breitbart who misuse information for their own agenda along with Trump's moronic "travel ban" and Mexico wall idea.

 

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum