>> Right Justin. You would have been a lot of help in the Salem Witch Trials.
>> "Well it's not implausible these women are witches who have brought social
>> misfortune upon us...But should we really burn them?" So you were making an
>> argument against gassing and sterilizing people though granting that it's
>> not implausible that there are groups that are racially inferior in terms
>> of inherited intelligence, though the concepts of race, heritability and
>> intelligence have no scientific validity in this context. With friends like
>> this...
>>
>> Yours, Rakesh
>
>Actually, I was arguing for affirmative action, not against mass murder or
>sterilization. And I did argue that the concepts did lack validity in that
>context.
Justin, I'm not questioning _your_ argument. However, unlike you, Peter Singer does _not_ and will _not_ argue that there is no scientific validity in the concept of race in measuring genetically determined levels of mental capacity.
***** It _may_ be the case that members of the underrepresented group are, _on average_, less gifted for the kind of study one must do to become a doctor. I am not saying that this is true, or even probable, but it cannot be ruled out at this stage. (_Practical Ethics_ 46) *****
Singer argues that whether there are genetically determined differences in intelligence between races and sexes is a matter of empirical studies. Therefore, he perpetuates the myth that race is a scientifically valid concept in studies of heredity and intelligence.
The principle of "equal consideration of interests" ("a minimal principle of equality in the sense that it does not dictate equal treatment," p. 23) that Singer elaborates in the second chapter of _Practical Ethics_ titled "Equality and Its Implications" is built on the assumption that such racial and sexual differences in intellect may in fact exist. In other words, his view on racial and sexual differences informs the kind of equality that Singer thinks is defensible. If he didn't think the idea of genetically determined racial & sexual differences in intellect were valid, he could argue for a different -- perhaps more robust -- conception of equality. For instance, unlike Carl, Singer emphatically does not argue for "an equal *outcome* society." Singer's notion of equality is a paternalistic one: blacks may be in fact _on average_ genetically inferior to whites in intelligence, but it doesn't mean that they are morally inferior, nor does it mean that "we" shouldn't try our best to help "them" develop to the best of their abilities. Singer _is_ a strong supporter of affirmative action, but, as Rakesh says, with friends like this....
Yoshie