Profiting from racism/discrimination

[Dan Cross 0]

Here's a hypothetical situation, although I'd be surprised if it didn't occur sometime in the past:

Say Mr. Smith owns a diner in a Southern town in the 40s where the middle to upper class are predominately white and the poor are mostly black. Mr. Smith is not racist, and has no problems serving all races at his diner, but the majority of his customers are racist whites who are unwilling to partake in a racially integrated dining experience. If he doesn't discriminate, he will lose the majority of his best paying customers and be left with mostly lower class blacks who can't afford to spend as much, and Mr. Smith could possibly go out of business.

I would obviously say that Mr. Smith has the right to only allow whites to eat as his diner, but is it moral for him to pander to the racists irrational views?

[Ed from OC 0]

I would obviously say that Mr. Smith has the right to only allow whites to eat as his diner, but is it moral for him to pander to the racists irrational views?

←

Interesting situation. My first response, purely on a sense-of-life level, is to reject the idea that such a situation is common. And, if such does come to pass, the goal should be to escape the conflict, not perpetuate it.

Consider:

- The whites in this situation must be willing to hold their racist views higher than their desire to eat at this diner. Surely other store owners face the same pressure; does that mean the racists would boycott themselves out of every store in town? How important to them is it to be racist? How long would the situation last if stores had customers of all sorts?

- Does Mr Smith have to stay in the town? Even in the 40s there were places to go where the racism was much less. Why allow the racists to benefit from the services of Mr Smith?

- Is he under the threat of force, from local government or the KKK? If yes, that changes the dynamics, and he ought to be even more motivated to leave town rather than live under that threat.

- Is the town too devoid of reason to be persuaded to give up their racist views? Are we to treat their irrationality as a metaphysical given to which reason and virtue must be subservient? Can the racists themselves be boycotted?

- Look, too, at the implicit premise: the immoral, racist whites have the money to keep Mr Smith in business, but the moral people of the town do not. In other words, the immoral is the practical! I don't agree that that is the case. The racists would lose money to their betters in the long run, as employees seek better bosses and the racist businessmen have fewer people willing to work for them. So I would argue that in a free market, the racists are the ones who would end up needing the business of their betters, not vice versa.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume Mr. Smith can't leave town easily or in the near future, but is not under the threat of force. Also assume most of the town is racist, so it would be Mr Smith vs the town. In that case, he needs income to survive, but does that require him to run the diner? Other jobs may be available where he can survive long enough to prepare to leave town.

But suppose, at bottom, that he's stuck with only two options: give in to the racist business policies or starve. If there's a gun to his head, he should obey long enough to escape the danger. If not, giving in to the racist policies is the option Gail Wynand chose: he gave in and used the Banner to go after Roark, and look at the price he paid. He ended up giving everything up, including his soul, for nothing, as Roark won anyway.

And so it is for Mr Smith. If he caves, he is supporting evil. What's next? If a lynch mob wants to gather in his restaurant to plot their next attack, does he stand up to them at that point, knowing he'll soon be out of business? Once he caves, he's finished.

So, I think it would be immoral of him to give in.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Here's a hypothetical situation ...

←

Having grown up in Houston in the 1940s and 1950s, and having lived in New Orleans 40 years ago as a university student, I would say the situation you describe was real -- and probably worse before those times.

What I don't understand about your hypothetical situation is what sort of political system you are assuming. Laissez-faire capitalism or a mixed system?

[Dan Cross 0]

Thank you for your responses Burgess, I found them very helpful.

Well, I did put the situation in the context of the 40s to make it seem realistic, but I did mean would it be immoral in a laissez-faire political system. And your other questions about the KKK and such would change his response, but that wasn't what I had in mind originally.

I was thinking that it would be immoral for him to give in to the racists, but wanted to hear other people's opinions. Like you said, he could go somewhere else, even if it was financially difficult or work a different job.

As you also said, the practical is not the immoral, especially in a capitalist society, but even if this racist attitude was pervasive in a certain area it would not be practical in the long-run.

The essential question I wanted to know is if it is ethical for Mr. Smith to succumb to their irrational views because it is the most convenient way for him to earn money, stay where he lives, etc., at that point in time.

When I put it like that it seems a little more obvious.

[Guest ElizabethLee]

Interesting situation.  My first response, purely on a sense-of-life level, is to reject the idea that such a situation is common.  And, if such does come to pass, the goal should be to escape the conflict, not perpetuate it.

←

hi Ed!

I agree, I hope this kind of thing is not common. However, there have been [and likely will be in the future] similar situations.

Not long ago, I had a business friend who was in the position of: shall I buy goods from China, knowing that slave labor may be involved, like all my competitors do, or not?

About 10years ago it was a really hot issue and was an important question for profits. My friend chose not to buy from China, but there were instances in which it was practically unavoidable. Nowadays it's impossible in that particular business to avoid Chinese goods, but of course the country is more mixed.

Some people say it's good that the country traded more because now the people there have more of an understanding of what they are missing. I think it's pretty complex and I won't be happy until China respects rights. I'm glad I didn't have to make business choices based on the China issue.

It comes down to one's own conscience.

I don't know all the things my friend did, but there are lots of things one could do even while pro-forma or partially supporting a bad situation. Lots of intellectual activism is advisable. Sometimes change from "within" is easier.

Wouldn't it have been fascinating if there had been a bus company that lauded Rosa Parks for sitting up front?

[Joss Delage 0]

I would obviously say that Mr. Smith has the right to only allow whites to eat as his diner, but is it moral for him to pander to the racists irrational views?

←

Of course it is immoral for him to pander to racists.

If Roark had been asked to build a building "for whites only", you can be sure he wouldn't have taken the job.

[JRoberts 0]

mcgwiddles,

It's very important that you set the scenario in a certain time (like you did). I'll use slavery as an example, because the principle remains the same.

For example: In Ancient Sumeria, would it be wrong for Ekkud the Builder to buy bricks from company that used slave labor to make the bricks? Of course not! Civilization was just emerging, and the concept of "freedom" didn't even exist until thousands of years later! Ekkud would not be an immoral man.

In Ancient Greece, Polykakos wants to hire slaves to row his merchant fleet. The latest philosophy of the time (Aristotle's) tells him that some people are, by nature, inferior. All of his slaves are very unintelligent...whereas Polykakos is very smart. Thus, he believed that it was the nature of these people to be "slaves". Is it immoral for him to use those slaves? No! They did not know what we know now.

It's 1765, and Thomas Jefferson wants to buy another slave to work on his farm. The latest scientific advancements have shown that Africans are a different species than humans. Thus, being "partly human", they were not subject to all of the same rights as white men. Science had not proven that all men...be they african, white, or oriental, were the same. Does that make Thomas Jefferson immoral? No!

It was only in the mid-late 1800's and early 1900's that we discovered that all africans were indeed the same as every other human, and that every human had certain rights. Thus it is only within this context that slavery becomes immoral. Or, to tie it into your question...it is only after we gain knowledge, that racism and slavery becomes ignorance.

[Dan Cross 0]

Joss,

While I agree it is immoral to pander to racism, wouldn't the Roark situation be different? Roark built Cortlandt even though it was public housing because it would be built anyways, just as a building would be built even if he didn't accept the commission. I don't think by accepting that building Roark would be doing anything immoral as he would not be sanctioning the racism, just as he was not sanctioning the looting that paid for Cortlandt. But Mr. Smith in my original example is sanctioning the racism by not allowing blacks to dine in his restaurant. Is there something I'm missing because I don't see how building a "only-whites" structure would be any different than building Cortlandt? Although I believe Roark said he shouldn't have built Cortlandt I don't believe he meant it in the sense that what he did was immoral.

[Mercury 0]

In Ancient Greece, Polykakos wants to hire slaves to row his merchant fleet.  The latest philosophy of the time (Aristotle's) tells him that some people are, by nature, inferior.  All of his slaves are very unintelligent...whereas Polykakos is very smart.  Thus, he believed that it was the nature of these people to be "slaves".  Is it immoral for him to use those slaves?  No!  They did not know what we know now.

It's 1765, and Thomas Jefferson wants to buy another slave to work on his farm.  The latest scientific advancements have shown that Africans are a different species than humans.  Thus, being "partly human", they were not subject to all of the same rights as white men.  Science had not proven that all men...be they african, white, or oriental, were the same.  Does that make Thomas Jefferson immoral?  No!

It was only in the mid-late 1800's and early 1900's that we discovered that all africans were indeed the same as every other human, and that every human had certain rights.  Thus it is only within this context that slavery becomes immoral.  Or, to tie it into your question...it is only after we gain knowledge, that racism and slavery becomes ignorance.

←

While I agree with the thrust of your position, i.e., that knowledge is contextual, I would like to point out something often overlooked when people contemplate this type of example.

Polykakos (or Jefferson), to use your examples, if honest, would have noticed some exceptions among the enslaved. These would have been the ones he (or his foremen) would have either (1) had more trouble dealing with, as these slaves would have made numerous escape attempts with some success; or (2) had less trouble explaining difficult ideas to in the field.

Which is why, I suspect, the best men, philosophically, have always nursed at least a little doubt about slavery. For, to be, is to be individual. (Or, to exist, is to exist with identity.) And, although Aristotle spelt this out in epistemology, many people (even some of the very best) do not understand that this is perhaps the motivating metaphysical principle behind the success of Western civilization.

To really grasp this point, I recommend reading the first few pages of Miss Rand's "What is Capitalism?" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. There, she explains why Physics, as a discipline, is ahead of Economics, and what needs to be done to correct the problem.

So, your line, "The latest scientific advancements have shown that Africans are a different species than humans" needs to be qualified with all of the necessary scare quotes.

It is sometimes difficult to come to terms with the misintegrations of one's heroes, but so long as we come properly, we will be well.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Which is why, I suspect, the best men, philosophically, have always nursed at least a little doubt about slavery.

←

Note that Jefferson had more than just a little doubt, at least during a portion of his life. Consider this excerpt of a 1791 letter Jefferson wrote to a then rarity, a black mathematician, Benjamin Bannekar. Bannekar had written a very beautiful, and impassioned letter to Jefferson, about the injustice of slavery and the intellectual capacity of blacks. He sent along an almanac he had devised, based on his own astronomical study. Jefferson responds:

"No body wishes more than I do, to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren talents equal to those of the other colors of men; and that the appearance of the want of them, is owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence, both in Africa and America. I can add with truth, that no body wishes more ardently to see a good system commenced, for raising the condition, both of their body and mind, to what it ought to be, as far as the imbecility of their present existence, and other circumstances, which cannot be neglected, will admit."

Jefferson "wishes" for proofs such as Bannekar has provided, proofs to give conviction that any intellectual defecit of blacks is a consequence of the condition they are in, and not a consequence of their nature. And Jefferson adds, "with truth," his wish for a system that raises the black's condition. But then, in 1814, an excerpt from another Jefferson letter:

"The amalgamation of whites with blacks produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent."

It is difficult to reconcile these two views, even separated as they were across two decades.

[HaloNoble6 0]

To the above I would add the two following passages, where at first Jefferson views blacks as men in general, created equal, but on the other he describes their "natural" deficiencies. In the original Declaration of Independence, Jefferson writes:

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; [...]

[...]

He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him [...] Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce." (Emphasis mine)

About five years later, he writes, in his Notes on the State of Virginia (p. 266):

"Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous."

But how does one reconcile the notion that blacks are men and all men are created equal with the notion that blacks are naturally "much inferior" to whites in reason?

[Nathaniel Hale 1775 0]

But how does one reconcile the notion that blacks are men and all men are created equal with the notion that blacks are naturally "much inferior" to whites in reason?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems, at least to me, that the belief that blacks are less intelligence does not contradict the idea that all mean are equal (correct me if I'm wrong, of course). The first is said with regards to the level of reason (intelligence I assume?), while the later is in reference to Locke, where he argues that all men are equal in that they possess the same faculties (reason being one). This of course does not excuse his statement.

"Creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the Lord and Master of them all, should by any manifest Declaration of his Will set one above another, and confer on him an evident and clear appointment an undoubted Right to Dominion and Sovereignty."

-John Locke

Chapter II : Of the State of Nature

[HaloNoble6 0]

What you say makes sense; I guess I took "all men are created equal" to mean that all men have the same faculties and thus, in principle, unless shown otherwise, have the same capacity as any other man.

[Dan Cross 0]

Even if blacks were on average "much inferior" to whites in reason (which I don't believe is true) that would not justify slavery. If we go about doling out rights based on how smart people are there'd be a lot of people without rights. Even dumb people have the right to pursue their own happiness. It was quite evident to anyone who cared to try to find out blacks have a human capacity to reason,think in abstractions, integrate concepts, however poor that faculty may have seemed at the time. I don't think Jefferson should have had slaves as they since they obviously went against his implicit (and probably even explicit) philosophy. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, he advocated abolishing slavery but could not get it accomplished. Why he still kept slaves I can't understand.

[RayK 0]

I think that if a person drops the context of the time period that Jefferson was living in they could find many faults. But, that is it, you cannot drop the context that he lived in. I am not saying we should discard his faults when we look at his life, but that the good, much out weighs the bad.

If one does look at the time period, the whole world was enslaving people in one form or another. The idea of individual rights was barely even thought of at this time period. If it was not for the Renaissance/Enlightenment and the great individual thinkers of that time we would not of had the idea of individual rights. But, it takes time for ideas to change people's minds, hence 2-3 hundred years before we get to the formation of the United States of America. Darwin and Mendel had not done their research as of yet to distinguish all ideas of any racial superiority. Also, most blacks and indians had not had a renaissance as of yet. These two groups had not recognized reason as the tool of knowledge. So, it would be correct to state that most of the individuals that were of these two races were inferior in their reasoning skills (not their capacity), compared to descendants of the renaissance/enlightenment.

Even today people are still enslaving others, whether in Europe, Asia, Cuba, Africa or here in the U.S. through the ever growing statist/socialist measures and laws. As a person has to keep paying the ever increasing taxes, whether through your paycheck (directly), or in almost everything one buys. Taxes on gas, clothes, houses, cars, airline tickets, through inflation and much more. The people of today with the knowledge of individual rights and all that has come since, capitalism and more, should be held accountable within the context of today.

[Dan Cross 0]

RayK,

I agree that the good Jefferson did tremendously outweighed his faults/mistakes and that the context of Jefferson's life is important, but I was only saying the context doesn't justify Jefferson owning slaves. I think the context lessens his guilt. I greatly admire Jefferson and his ideas, and think he was a great man, but still think his owning slaves was immoral, although I wouldn't evaluate him overall as an immoral man, nor try to say that I have more integrity because I don't own slaves now.

I also agree that at Jefferson's time blacks were at the time inferior on average to whites in reasoning ability, as opposed to capacity of reason, but I don't think that makes it morally acceptable to own slaves. I'm not trying to drop the context say he's worse than the government in Cuba that makes slaves of all its people or the semi-socialist governments around the world, but even with Jefferson's context I would still call owning slaves a fault.

[RayK 0]

mcgwiddles,

I agree that it should be considered a fault, along with Stephen's post from earlier. Also, if we look at some of the other founding fathers such as Ben Franklin and John Adams, they had already come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong. So there were already examples of people fighting for the abolishment of slavery in Jefferson's time, including himself. I was not trying to say that we should not think of his thinking and actions on slavery as wrong, just within context. Within the context of the time and knowledge of Jefferson's life, I think these are minimal faults compared to someone today that has a different context.

Lastly, I think we are in general agreement here, correct me if I am wrong.

[AisA 0]

Why he still kept slaves I can't understand.

←

Jefferson inherited both a substantial amount of debt and slaves that were pledged as collateral on that debt. Under the Virginia state constitution, blacks were explicitly considered to be property. Had Jefferson declared them free, by law they would become the property of his creditors, who would sell them on the slave market to recover the debt.

Jefferson made numerous attempts to change this. As a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, Jefferson introduced a bill in 1769 that would have emancipated all the slaves in the state. However, not only did the bill fail to pass, it outraged most of the other members, who threatened to enact counter-measures to strengthen slavery in the state.

Jefferson finally succeeded in getting a bill passed in 1778 that banned the importation of additional slaves into Virginia. While this was obviously not as desirable as emancipation, Jefferson considered it a step in the right direction.

Given these facts, what else should Jefferson should have done? He might have tried to help his slaves escape, but to where? In 1780, the options were limited.

[Free Capitalist 0]

I don't think people are giving Jefferson any benefit of the doubt here, i.e., we looking with our modern eyes say he "should have" seen that blacks are just as good, and that he "would have" come to better conclusions if he wasn't so immoral. Well, if Jefferson was immoral for owning slaves, then so was Aristotle, the same man to whom was attributed the epistemology that can properly perceive the equal nature of all men. Unless Aristotle was a hypocrite too, along with almost every great man worth his salt, something else must be at play here, and moral condemnation can be postponed unless necessitated beyond any doubt.

So as far as ideas such as these are concerned, I am very much in favor of describing them as misintegrations (errors of knowledge) rather than disintegrations (breaches of morality), borrowing here from Dr. Peikoff's terminology and hopefully not too incorrectly. For example, reading a certain passage from Aristotle's Politics, slavery starts to kind of make sense in a scary sort of way, and it requires effort to discount it and see on what grounds to disagree. Knowing Aristotle was sane and did not maintain two separate mindsets in his one head, and knowing his character and the rest of his writings, calling his stance on slavery a misintegration is an obvious conclusion, and the same for Jefferson, for the same reason. It would be wrong to regard universal metaphysical equality as utterly self-evident and completely obvious. It's only self-evident and completely obvious to us, and has only become so the past 150-200 years, out of 5,000-6,000 years of human civilization. So a context here really helps, not to mention the actual historical facts of the case, as AisA demonstrated.

[HaloNoble6 0]

I don't think people are giving Jefferson any benefit of the doubt here, i.e., we looking with our modern eyes say he "should have" seen that blacks are just as good, and that he "would have" come to better conclusions if he wasn't so immoral.

←

I agree with you with regard to Jefferson's owning of slaves, but what say you of his apparently sincere wish for proof that the blacks’ apparent deficiency in reasoning is due to upbringing in light of his obvious disgust at the thought of uniting blacks with whites? Can he both be sincere in his wish to see blacks shown to be just as capable as whites while being disgusted at the thought of seeing them united? This is not a matter of historical context--this is a matter of two inconsistent expressions of a single man’s convictions.

[Nathaniel Hale 1775 0]

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, he advocated abolishing slavery but could not get it accomplished. Why he still kept slaves I can't understand.

←

His 1814 letter to Edward Coles titled Emancipation and the Younger Generation helps to explain his sentiment: "My opinion has ever been that, until more can be done for them[the slaves], we should endeavor, with those whom, fortune has thrown on our hands, to feed and cloth them well, protect them from all ill usage, require such reasonable labor only as is performed voluntarily by freemen, & be led by no repugnances to abdicate them, and our duties to them. The laws do not permit us to turn them loose, if that were for their good: and to commute them for other property is to commit them to those whose usage of them we cannot control. I hope my dear sir, you will reconcile yourself to your country and it's unfortunate condition; that you will not lessen its stock of sound disposition by withdrawing your portion from the mass. That, on the contrary you will become the missionary of this doctrine truly Christian; insinuate & inculcate it softly but steadily, through the medium of writing and conversation; associate others in your labors, and when the phalanx is formed, bring on and press the proposition perseveringly until it's [emancipation] accomplished

Anything in [] is mine.

He also proposed an act in 1778 which would prohibit the importation of slaves.

[Gweg 0]

The background information Nathaniel Hale and AisA provided show how limited my knowledge of Jefferson's life was. Provided with this deeper context it would difficult to fault Jefferson to any significant degree.

Also RayK, yes I think we're in general agreement.

[Dan Cross 0]

I made that last post as my brother, Gweg, that's the second time I've done that, I really need to pay more attention.

Sorry for any confusion.

[JRoberts 0]

 

Polykakos (or Jefferson), to use your examples, if honest, would have noticed some exceptions among the enslaved.

←

 

Jefferson did, as has been mentioned. But the Greeks did not. The Greeks did not enslave based upon race. In fact, many of the slaves in Greek times were actually Prisoners, be they from war or from crime. So I don't think anyone would view owning those types of slaves as immoral. However, it is also a fact of nature that some men aren't the brightest cookie in the batch. It was their belief that these people were closer to the animals. This did not give them the right to treat the slaves horribly (which Aristotle points out in his Politics, and which in fact they did not do). You have to remember that the concept of the fully crippled, brain-dead vegetable as a functioning human our society inherited from Christianity. The Ancients had a more natural, and not mystical, view of humanity. Thus, in the context of the times, there is nothing wrong with the actions of the Greeks.

As time wore on, the Romans began to realize that those people who were very unintelligent were still human, and slowly they gained their rights back, until they reached a stage where many slaves were more free, wealthy, and powerful than their masters! In fact, one of the Roman Emperors himself came from a slave family! It is true that there were philosophers who despised slavery. Seneca in fact was a very grand opponent of slavery. But one individual does not constitute a society. And the general body of knowledge that people accept does not make those people dishonest, so long as they believe it to be true with rational principles (as Aristotle provided).

[Free Capitalist 0]

[W]hat say you of his apparently sincere wish for proof that the blacks’ apparent deficiency in reasoning is due to upbringing in light of his obvious disgust at the thought of uniting blacks with whites?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He may have believed in the full degree of blacks' natural capacity for reason, and felt disgust at their culture and thus at the thought that they and their culture might adversely affect the culture that did show enlightenment and advancement. The point is, I don't know if that's in fact what he did think, but if we refuse to give Jefferson any benefit of the doubt, then we will never bother to find out. And he needs that benefit of the doubt as much as any of the Founding Fathers right now, and perhaps because of all the contempt recently heaped on him from all quarters in our culture, even more so than the rest.