@cutiepi92
It seems like you’re hoping for the day to come when we all stop using our senses to evaluate the world. We shouldn’t judge something by its shape, color, sound, texture, or smell because that would make us facile racists? Nothing is more/less intelligent or more/less strong? There is no difference between chocolate and mud? Unite all the species? No distinctions or differences?
Or perhaps I should ask in what way is it different when you judge a shoe from its external attributes and when you judge another from his or hers external attributes?
How do humans distinguish animals from humans?
How do they distinguish different species of types of animals?
How do they judge these differences and how do they use them?
Are the differences actual or imaginary, or are the differences irrelevant and a matter of interpretation?
Do the differences expose a nature, an essence?
Feelings are reactions to what senses provide. Feelings are survival mechanisms. Senses provide information which is used to make value judgments and decide which is ‘good’ and which is ‘bad’ or what is desirable and what is not or what is different and what is not or what is superior and what is inferior. Your senses access the real phenomena, called the world. Senses serve the mind in trying to perceive patterns and construct viable strategies of survival and empowerment. How this information is analyzed is up to your brain. A successful brain comes to accurate or near-accurate conclusions using external, superficial clues. The essence is extrapolated from the general or from details.
Or is it only color that means nothing and is insignificant and superficial when judging a person but not shape, sound, texture or smell? Why does a red apple mean that it is ripe? Is it just a superficial aesthetic cue with no real meaning, just like skin color? Why does color in one context means something and in another it does not? What do scientists use to determine if a body in space is moving away or towards the earth? How do scientists deduce if a body contains water or other elements? Color. What we do is take the end product and extrapolate the rest. How accurate the deduction is, is a matter of individual acuity and intelligence.
What if you had no knowledge what mud and chocolate was? How would you determine its value and quality and substance? How do you determine which is which? You use your senses. One tastes, smells, feels, looks at the chocolate and judges its contents. Are you not discriminating between mud and chocolate using your senses? In the same manner, we smell, look, touch, taste, and listen to the other and judge them. Why wouldn’t color be important to judge a person? How do you determine your relationship with this otherness when you haven’t first judged it superficially or sensually? How do you know that it’s shoes and that other thing is a person if you haven’t visually judged it?
It’s true that knowing the color of an object doesn’t tell you how big it is, what shape it is, how intelligent it is, but race evaluations are based on more than just color. Furthermore to deduce the unknown, or invisible, requires an eye for detail and the incorporation of said details into a complete model and then to test the model using its behavior (actions, activity).
Why do people find it normal and not prejudice to judge a chimpanzee as inferior intellectually, judging it visually, but the same people are conditioned socially to feel ashamed to do the same with human beings that look different than them; their judgment is restricted by cultural and social norms, which are ingrained in them morally. If it was immoral or socially reprehensible to judge a chimp as inferior they would be inclined to consider that species as their equal as well.
They would say: “It looks like us, it moves and eats like us; it uses tools and has a rudimentary form of language and a family, why then should I think it inferior by using its external appearance? Are we not from the same place, descendants from a common ancestor?”
In this case, the moral law would deny the value of the sensual information we perceive, whereas it would not for any other animal.
The opinion that color means nothing in this context has been culturally conditioned because it serves a purpose, whereas nature has evolved one to consider anything which looks, smells, tastes or sounds different as something other than you, not the same as you. One is taught to feel ashamed or uncivil or not normal or prejudiced if they do not follow the norm, which is concerned with creating social stability and incorporating as many individuals within its fold.
In a nutshell: If your senses tell you something actual about your environment, about the world, and they generalize and helps you extrapolate reality which in turn helps you survive and navigate within your environment, why does it fail in this context? Why is the color of the phenomenon, in this case, irrelevant, when it is relevant in every other case?
If color is a superficial way of judging the essence and quality of the other or of another, then why is not form or any other sensual information similarly so?
The correct answer is: One chooses not to judge the other in this manner because…
(1) They have been raised to think that this is shameful,
(2) They fear that if they do this, they will be judged accordingly or that they will not appear moral or deep
(3) They’re hypocrites because they always do so but never admit it – not even to themselves
(4) They choose to do so to create a harmonious society within which they can feel safe and comfortable
(5) They’re someone who simply believes whatever was taught to them or whatever is popularly believed
(6) All of the above.