Michael Levin: Not a Woman; Not of African Decent; Not Homosexual - Surprised?

While I think it's not fair to incorporate bias into philosophical conversations about the treatment of various groups, I think it is important to take the other point into perspective. What I mean to say is that I think ad hominem circumstantial fallacies have no place in serious philosophical conversation; I don't think that you can rightfully accuse people as such: "you are only saying that against blacks because you are white" or something of the sort. I do think that often times people do unintentionally fall into that mindset. I think that it's not fair to say "well if you were black, you'd think differently" but honestly that is likely very true for many people. I think that it is very important to consider the other side when taking a side in debate. I think it would have been very good for Michael Levin to have the opportunity to become a black homosexual woman for a day, and have everyone run away from him. In his specific case, he would be very inclined to think differently if he were part of the minority that he wants to oppress and ostracise from society.

Levin: Genius of the Times

What sort of psychological effects might racial profiling have on those targeted individuals?

This sort of racial profiling that Levin is suggesting could cause, I think, a substantial amount of psychological trauma to any given individual. Though it's true that if your life is depend on  being offensive, it is appropriate to be offensive. However, I think that firstly; Levin fabricated statistics to the extent that the actual statistics make his point moot. Secondly, I think that all people are prone to various emotional problems: If everyone started to avoid a single person based on appearance, that person being target may very well develop image issues and become unhealthy. Alternately, there could be many people who are simply having a horrendous day and, after seeing someone sprint away from them because of their appearance,  may choose to go home and kill themselves. Additionally this sort of behaviour does not inspire any sort of change, and in fact, it would likely incite aggression and violent anger from those being profiled against those who profile against them

Fabrication

What are the ethical implications of utilising fabricated or distorted statistics in philosophical argumentation?

Well, I wish I could ask Michael Levin about this question to see what he thought of the issue. I can't imagine he would very much like it if people fabricated statistics against his arguments. Though there is of course the possibility that he simply glossed over the obviously incorrect statistic that one in four people with dark skin commit felonies. This is blatantly untrue and makes Levin look like a jerk, if anyone bothered to look up the statistics.

I think it is highly unethical to fabricate or distort statistics to support a philosophical point. The point, after you do that, is no longer philosophical because its hardly based on valid reasons. Though it's not always likely, people could very well end up taking any given statistic to be true, and in fact, people probably do that fairly often, so choosing the fabricate or distort a statistic could lead many people to a side of an argument that otherwise they would have never supported. In the worse can scenario someone could be seriously harmed or even killed based off of belief in some erroneous statistic. Even small scale, as Levin's argument is, it could cause slightly or possibly significant psychological trauma to the innocent people who are victims of racial profiling.

That's Awkward

In response to Avery - full post here

I think we are sort of at an awkward point in our history wherein the negative parts of this contemporary society seems to weigh heavier than the negatives of society past. This is, of course, because the negatives of this society do, in fact, weigh heavier than the problems of the past. For instance, the problem of not being able to travel further than 50 miles from home without dying seems like only a minor inconvenience to most people compared to the detrimental effects of destroying the atmosphere because of our fossil fuels. I guess the problem is that it affects a larger number of people, of course, as we've talked about before, the problems of the past are no worse to each individual, it's simply less bad for the entire species.

I agree with you regarding the fact that regressing is not better than progressing. I think that, our problems now could be addressed and that a change in mindset will allow us to prevent or respond more quickly to problems that come up in the future. Regarding transportation in the past, transportation was far less advanced; people were not able to travel very far. In our society people can travel around the world with relative ease, this comes at the expense of possibly destroying the atmosphere. I think that we can progress, however, to finding alternate means to power vehicles in a manner that does not destroy that atmosphere. I think many of our problems have solutions that we need to embrace.

I think this is comparable to driving next to an 18 wheeler. Driving next to one seems really bad and you want to get away from it. Currently we are next to it, and we know that being behind it isn't very safe either. The only thing to do, then, is to drive forward as fast as we can (still at risk) until we are ahead of the truck.