But that doesn't make "moral cowardice is actually a good thing" a convincing way to frame your argument.
How are policies set to be as fair as possible moral cowardice?
Only through directly dealing with the racist policies and systems, which requires admitting and discussing the fact that they are racist, which requires acknowledging the power of race as a social structure in America, can we meaningfully affect change against those systems with policy at all.
If you have actual policy like I described and the outcomes aren't as anticipated on a wide scale, there is a systemic reason for it you need to find and address. If that disparity is down a racial line, that's pretty solid evidence you have a problem somewhere that's race based. I'm saying that also.
But you're mistaken about affecting change. You can trace cause and disincentivize illegal practices or eliminate the reason a population subset is consistently underprepared. I thought it would be self-evident that this would necessarily conflict with the current racial social structure...
The perception of weakness of colorblindness comes not from some type of undue obsession with race that us SJW pinko cultural Marxists have, but rather the incredibly important and necessary role that race ALREADY plays in politics, economy, and society.
If you accept that to be the case, it is inane to tackle the policy (which is inherently fair) as opposed to those other factors (which are obviously not). Nothing you set on the policy end matters under such a scenario. You could even make a case that using non-colorblind policy allows the current power structure to maintain itself while sweeping that crap under the rug at a relatively low cost to them more easily. "Look, we're not only being fair, we're helping you out"...You can find paraphrases of that from corporate tops regarding this issue pretty easily.
The idea that the rare fair policy is actually racist is not coherent.
it's because colorblind policy not only is ineffective at dealing with, but specifically ignores, the racism already present and pressing in American social systems.
It's irrational to expect colorblind policy to address issues separate from colorblind policy, and it is incoherent to identify cause then ignore the cause and call fair policy a failure. Deal with the cause, where the system is not fair.
And yet in the world society we see a child die of starvation every few seconds while Western supermarkets throw away literal tons of food every year. We do live in a society where we're cool watching people die despite their best efforts. This is already the condition we live in, we in the West are just privileged enough not to have to directly face it in our everyday lives.
"Their society, not ours" indeed. Though we allow it in our own on a much smaller scale and look away. It's when you have to look at it that it's a problem after all. Bit tangential though, it's relatively obvious that when it comes to people not important to them, every single policy maker and the overwhelming majority of voters have consistently avoided bothering to optimize along human rights utility. This is a matter of altering human nature. You down with that one? I might be, if we have a way of doing it without screwing ourselves.
Capitalists are often (strangely) quite open to invoking moral relativism once the moral superiority of economic collectivism becomes obvious.
I will always invoke moral relativism until I'm given evidence to use something else, because absolute morality is a farce based on the evidence we (don't) have. There is no evidence for absolute morality existing and basing decisions on assumptions of it is dangerous territory as a result (doing X because it's an "absolute good" is roughly as intelligent and useful as doing X because fhwharglpes), despite proponents of it decrying the concept of relative morality. Morality is a human construct. It is our choice to care for other humans and there's precious little if anything we've observed aside from other humans that assign it any value...maybe pet animals.
which says that life, equality, and Liberty are the most important and desirable things that a society should supply.
Unless you can transhuman everyone to be equal, equality is a pipe dream and you are necessarily implying that it is okay to take assets away from people against their will so long as the mainstream agrees it's "good". I consider that notion abrasive and inconsistent with humans in their present form, so I will argue against present mainstream conventions.
At least we agree on life and liberty.
You'd be surprised. We already have a global agricultural surplus, and within a couple decades most hard labor in the manufacturing and agricultural fields could be realistically mechanized. There are those people though who nonetheless fight for capitalism because it is personally more beneficial for them.
I don't see how access to increasingly cheap resources is necessarily in conflict with capitalism. I would go so far as to assert that anybody against such advancement is regressive independent of their stated economic preferences.
If you make this stuff cheap enough, it's going for pennies or has so little wealth cost that it's more efficient to feed people so they can spend wealth with higher value no?
This isn't hard to find. If you support large-scale redistribution of wealth from (mainly rich) white people to (mainly poor) black people then we're in agreement; looking at the world as it is today, does that sound "idealistic"?
How has that large-scale redistribution of wealth fared to this point? We're not in agreement at all obviously. Giving people sustenance while creating barriers (education, information control, stratification/class warfare, dependence on that sustenance) to get out of the situation not only hasn't worked, it doesn't work in principle.
?
