Can you say why racism is wrong?
By Tim Bootsveld
The Rodgers and Hammerstein musical South Pacific is filled with such delightful music it’s easy to forget that its underlying theme is the evil of racism. In the musical Marine Lieutenant Joe Cable is a Princeton Graduate and the son of high society Philadelphians. He is in love with a native girl named Liat but refuses to marry her because he knows she would never be accepted at home. His rejection breaks Liat’s heart, and in the end Cable gets what he deserves when he is killed in the next battle. The other romance, between Navy nurse Nellie Forbush, from Arkansas, and French plantation owner Emile De Becque almost ends when she learns that over the years he has fathered several children with dark-skinned local women. She isn’t sure she can accept his “n*****” children.
Writing immediately after the Second World War Rodgers and Hammerstein, both with Jewish backgrounds, emphasize the evil of racism for obvious reasons. The revelation of Jewish suffering during the war was still fresh in everyone’s minds. But what people do not often notice is the reason racism is declared evil. From the musical’s point of view racism is evil because it separates lovers. In other words, it is the consequences of racism that make it a bad thing.
Consequentialism is the moral theory that the consequences of an act are what judge the act itself. Whether an act is right and good, or whether it is obligatory or forbidden, or permissible, or praiseworthy—all of this should be judged by the consequences the act would bring about.
Perhaps this is still a bit abstract, but before we talk specifics you should know that a surprising number of people are consequentialists. Dr. James N. Anderson, in a discussion on popular culture notes, “It’s fair to say that the majority of movies and TV shows in our day reflect a consequentialist view of ethics, largely because it has become the dominant view in our culture more broadly.”
So, when you get a chance to talk with your neighbour or co-worker, ask them why they think murder is wrong (if indeed they do). If their answer references the consequences of the act—because murder brings about pain, or harm, or destabilizes society, etc.—you have found a consequentialist.
Next, ask them if they think racism is wrong. I`ve talked with many people about their moral systems, and, thanks to the spirit of our age, I have found more people willing to waffle on the moral status of murder than on racism.
Yes, racism is wrong, and your consequentialist co-workers will correctly answer the question. But the funny thing is that consequentialism cannot form a meaningful objection to racism. It takes a moral system that reaches deeper than consequentialism to root out that weed. In short, it takes Christian theism to condemn racism.
“The funny thing is that consequentialism cannot form a meaningful objection to racism. It takes a moral system that reaches deeper than consequentialism to root out that weed”
Consequentialism Fails to Condemn Racism
Racism is the belief that some races are inherently superior while others are inherently inferior. This is repugnant, of course, and any moral system worth its salt should be able to condemn it. Yet while consequentialism can condemn individual acts inspired by racism, racism itself is out of consequentialism`s scope.
Consequentialism is an outcome-based ethic, judging actions based on their predicted consequences. As such, consequentialism passes no judgements on beliefs. It has nothing to say about the inner life of a person. It can comment on the acts which belief inspires, but it cannot possibly comment on belief itself. And inasmuch as it cannot comment on belief, consequentialism cannot condemn the inner life of a racist.
It might be argued that although racist beliefs cannot be condemned directly by consequentialism, racism is still under a de facto condemnation because of the harm that is caused when racism expresses itself in actions. But this proves too much. Sure, consequentialism can try to denounce racist beliefs when they inspire actions that harm, but it must also commend racist beliefs when they inspire actions that seem to bless.
“It is a naïve understanding of racism to say that it always and only inspires acts of harm. A racism that views other races as inherently less competent might respond to the perceived incompetence with indulgence and compassion”
It is a naïve understanding of racism to say that it always and only inspires acts of harm. A racism that views other races as inherently less competent might respond to the perceived incompetence with indulgence and compassion. Such racism would be expressed as acts of benevolence, something that consequentialism would find not only morally permissible, but morally laudable. Indeed, the affirmative action laws that provide spaces for so many African Americans at Ivy League universities such as Harvard and Yale may have marvelous consequences for the students that would otherwise never be able to attend such a school, but those laws cannot hide the underlying racism that argues black people could never make it to such schools unless afforded special privileges. In 2003 this is exactly what was argued before the U. S. Supreme Court in the case of Grutter vs. Bollinger.
Strangely enough, the consequentialists have not won the battle. They have taught people to argue against racism based on consequences, but they have not destroyed the consciences that guide human beings made in the image of God. So, it remains that although most of your neighbours and co-workers will flatly condemn racism where consequentialism will not, yet for the sake of their eternal souls they still need a moral system that reaches down into the person and judges his or her beliefs. They need Christian Theism.
Christian Theism Condemns Racism
Consequentialism fails as a comprehensive moral system, but it is not altogether foolish. Many people use it to buttress their behaviour because it does have a ring of truth to it. Even the Bible instructs us to look to the consequences of our actions, taking care to bless our neighbours, and not to harm them. But the Bible looks to the consequences of an act as a proxy, as an easy way to measure if we are being what we ought to be. Humans are not meant to gain outcomes only, taking no mind to what they are. No, Humans are meant to be something.
In the Christian worldview, morality is directly tied to anthropology, and our obligations flow out of what we are as humans. In creating humanity God created beings that bear his image. To be human is to be made in the image of God—here is where our obligations are borne—and God expects to see Himself in us, just as we expect to see a reflection of ourselves in a mirror. Who God is in His person and character, so we ought to be on a created level. This is why the Bible charges fallen humanity to be re-made into the image of Christ (the incarnate God), because in that restoration we become what we ought to have been all along.
Among the things that humans ought to be is truthful. Not simply because of the utility of truth, but because God is Truth. One of the clear truths received from God about humanity is that there are no inherently superior races, just as there are no inherently inferior races. Racism as a proposition is false. We are explicitly told that all humanity is made in the image of God, no matter their race. This is the equality that your neighbours and co-workers are looking for, but cannot find. They know they need to reject racism at the level of belief, but they have neither the revelational foundation to make possible the rejection of false beliefs, nor a way to rebut the proposition of racism found in the essential equality of humanity. Christian Theism alone has the moral muscle needed to condemn racism.
Conclusion
When you get a chance to talk with your neighbours and co-workers again, make their day a little more interesting; get them thinking about the weakness of the consequentialist foundation that directs so many of their decisions. They probably hold a moral system that cannot seriously reject racism, but you can whet their appetites for one that can.