Tag: ethics

Podcast: “The Leviathan of Christian Atheism”

I just did a podcast with J. R. Miller’s & Leroy Hill’s “Raze the Roof” podcast. We discussed Thomas Hobbes’s ethical views, and how these are related to his views of what is real (ontology) and how we know things (epistemology). We also looked at his religious views, which have been described as a type of “Christian atheism.”

Even though Hobbes died long ago (1679), his ideas still affect us today, including a political philosophy of power, leadership, and ethical narcissism. What can we as Christians do to help address how these views, whether for Christians to grow as disciples, or as we engage in evangelism?

Ep 15: The Leviathan of Christian Atheism (substack.com)

Ethics & Critical Race Theory

Here’s a new video created and posted by my program, the MA Christian Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology/Biola University. The ethics of CRT is one of my latest areas of research, and now I am working with one of our graduates, Michael Williams, on a forthcoming book. One of the things we are trying to do is give a careful description of CRT, including its underlying philosophical presuppositions, and then assess it in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. This talk gives an overview of several of those things.

Dr. R. Scott Smith talks on Critical Race Theory (youtube.com)

Critical Race Theory and Relativism

Introduction

Thus far, I have explored several issues with CRT, including its antiessentialism and materialism, and some key implications for ethics. Though Crits appeal to some core moral principles and virtues, such as the need to do justice, and the dignity and equality of all humans, morals on CRT cannot be intrinsically right or wrong. Nor is there an essence beyond their own constructs that grounds and defines these morals as what they are. Instead, these and other morals are their products, being just their interpretations.

There is another implication of their views for ethics, and we can see this most clearly by examining some of Ibram Kendi’s claims about antiracism and its relationship to cultural relativism.

Kendi on Antiracism and Cultural Relativism

Kendi writes that “a racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way.”[1] Kendi rejects the use of any arbitrary cultural standards as the universal measure of “success” or morality. Since he thinks there are no universal standards, measuring one racial group’s “standing” vis-à-vis another racial group is racist. Even more strongly, he asserts that cultural relativity is the essence of cultural antiracism. That is, “when we see cultural difference, we are seeing cultural difference – nothing more, nothing less.”[2]

Assessing Kendi’s Claim

Now, in light of Christianity, all humans are made in God’s image and thus are intrinsically valuable. In that respect, it is true that people of a given racial group are not inferior to those of another – all are equal in that crucial sense. Yet, on CRT’s antiessentialism, there is no room for appeals to essences that could ground our intrinsic value.

Furthermore, there may be more morals that are held in common across cultures than Kendi might realize. He and others I have been discussing stress the importance of equality, dignity, justice, respect, and more, all of which seem to be deeply held principles that people simply seem to know are valid. Consider a bit more in detail the importance of treating other humans with respect. How that core moral is worked out in a given cultural setting may look quite different than in another one. For instance, many Asian cultures have been deeply influenced by Confucian teachings, especially in terms of filial piety. So, children, even when adults, are expected to show a deep deference to the wishes of the family patriarch. Yet, in other cultures, respect may be shown quite differently. Eskimos honor and respect their elderly by sending them off on an ice flow. Here, there is a common moral principle, yet a difference in a secondary sense, in how that principle should be applied.

However, as we have seen on CRT, there is no room for any essences and universal principles. So, even the core morals that he and others appeal to, like justice, respect, and human dignity, and particulars to a given group. Moreover, these morals are just their interpretations. That means that the morals themselves for which they advocate are relative to a given group. However, that undermines the strength of his and others’ moral contentions, including that racism is wrong, and not just according to them, and justice is good, and so forth.

Since morals are just the products of particular groups, there is no basis why others should also believe and act as he and others do. Moreover, he and others lack a moral basis for critiquing some clearly racist groups, e.g., the Ku Klux Klan. Furthermore, even for Kendi, it does not seem to be the case that cultural differences are just cultural differences. Take the Jim Crow laws of the southern U. S. states. According to this claim of his, it seems those laws were just cultural, descriptive differences, yet that does not do justice to the fact that these laws were deeply immoral.

So, on Kendi’s view, even if a minority group believes that racism is wrong, but the majority doesn’t, there is no shared moral basis to show that the majority’s position is immoral. It would be immoral only to the minority, for its morals are relative to it. Nor would the majority would be immoral, for it constructed its morals as its members saw fit.

Instead, what Kendi and others need to make their many important moral claims stick is a grounding in universal morals, which have an essential nature. And, humans need to be intrinsically valuable due to their essential nature. Yet, since they have forsaken these grounds, his and other Crits’ arguments simply cannot sustain themselves.

[1] Ibram X. Kendi, How to be an Antiracist (New York: One World, 2019), 20. Now, he prefers the description of being antiracist to being a Crit. Nevertheless, Kendi does seem to be embracing the core ideas of CRT, and so here I will consider him under that description.

[2] Kendi, 91.

Assessing Critical Race Theory’s Views about Knowledge

Introduction

Earlier, I described CRT’s approach to knowledge as one in which we are situated historically and contingently, such that no one can achieve a neutral, unbiased standpoint to gaze directly into reality and know it as such. Instead, to even have an experience requires interpretation. We may call this a kind of standpoint epistemology: we always gain knowledge from our particular, limited standpoints, which have been shaped by the aforementioned kinds of factors. Moreover, drawing from people like Nietzsche and Foucault, Crits hold that claims to have knowledge of objective truth really reflect our provisional interpretive grids and our wills to power.

Now, as I have noted earlier, there are some key strengths to their view. Here are two. First, Crits call our attention to actual, concrete human lives, and not abstractions, to see how actions and policies may harm them. The colorblind model can contribute to this effect, for it influences people to not notice the specific ways blacks and other minorities experience and suffer from racism by treating all people in a generalized way. Second, CRT helps researchers by calling attention to systems and institutions, to see ifthere are cases of racism therein.

But there also are some key problems, ones which threaten to undermine CRT itself and its contributions.

Problems with CRT’s Standpoint Epistemology

Let me start with a conceptual problem. If everything is interpretation, then it is not possible to even have an experience of the world without that involving interpretation. Now, I do think it is very important that we interpret our experiences. Yet, CRT is not saying just that. It espouses the view that all our experiences themselves are interpretation- (or theory-) laden. It is as though our interpretive lenses are glued to our faces, and so we cannot remove them.

Suppose this is the case, and we experience a situation in which it seems to us that a white police officer racially profiled a black driver. Yet, if everything is interpretation, we cannot access what actually is the case. We are so constrained by our situatedness that apparently all we can access is our interpretation thereof. But, then we face a further problem: we cannot even access that interpretation as it is, for it too is interpreted. Evidently, then, a second interpretation is involved. However, the same requirement repeats again and again, without any way in principle to stop a regress of interpretations. Knowledge, much less interpretations, cannot even get started, it seems.

If so, then it seems that this result undermines all of CRT’s claims whatsoever, for they too can be nothing other than its particular interpretations. So, it seems Crits could not even begin to form the core concepts of CRT, such as the realities of white supremacy, systemic racism, oppression of racial minorities, inequality, injustice, and more. Nor could we know that these concepts match up with reality. If so, why should others listen to Crits?

We also should consider how Crits tend to argue strenuously for their positions, and they supply good, descriptive support for many points. They want others (non-Crits) to see that their view is correct and should be adopted. However, if CRT cannot even begin to give us knowledge of how things really are in society, why should others give allegiance to its interpretations? Moreover, since CRT must be just a particular interpretation of justice, then it seems that national policy, which would apply to all people therein, should not be set on the basis of CRT.

Still more can be written against the presupposition that interpretation goes “all the way down.” It does not seem to be true descriptively. While it is true that we are shaped by a number of factors, which do contribute to our “interpretive grid,” it still seems possible (even actual) that we can learn to pay attention to other things that we may not have noticed before. J. P. Moreland explains that due to “attentive influence,” we can become habituated in terms of what we pay attention to, which also can lead to habituated interpretations. Yet, over time, we can fall into ruts and not pay attention to other phenomena. Still, we can develop new habits and begin to notice other things, even though it may be difficult.[1]

In my own case, I come from a Caucasian, middle-class family, and I did not experience racial profiling by police. Now, my growing up in that kind of home obviously is very different than one in which someone is a racial minority and has experienced much racial profiling. While I have not had the same experiences of such a person, it still seems I can seek to develop habits that would enable me to become more attentive to such incidents and how they happen. Part of that can occur by my getting to know and listening to stories of people of color who have experienced profiling, which I have tried to do even in my classes.  

Another issue is that according to CRT, all its views must be contingent; they are not necessary, a priori truths, for there are no essences. So, for example, when we come to Crits’ claims of widespread, systemic racism, we should not interpret this as an in-principle truth claim. Rather, to be consistent, it must be an a posteriori claim, one that would be known empirically and be so due to various contingencies.

Nevertheless, that is not how Crits always argue. For instance, consider Ibram Kendi’s claim that “to oppose reparations is to be racist. To support reparations is to be anti-racist.”[2] His wording suggests he intends it as a blanket, universal truth claim. Rhetorically, it is powerful and, if true, no one could oppose reparations and yet not be a racist. However, that is not true, for George Yancey, who himself is black, is a counterexample. Yancey provides reasons against reparations that are not racist and has worked toward racial reconciliation.[3] So even this claim is not true in principle. It, along with other CRT claims, has to be investigated and found to be true in fact. Moreover, like I argued above, this and other such claims can be only Crits’ interpretations, yet without being able to know if they are in line with reality.

Conclusion

This is but a brief assessment of issues related to CRT and standpoint epistemology. But in the next post, I will try to explore more issues from CRT for ethics.

[1] J. P. Moreland, “Two Areas of Reflection and Dialogue with John Franke,” Philosophia Christi 8:2:  307–12.

[2] Ibram X. Kendi, “There Is No Middle Ground on Reparations,” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/ibram-x-kendi-opposing-reparations-racist/592060/, June 19, 2019, accessed February 2, 2022. Note: while Kendi uses “antiracist” as a self-description, nonetheless his views do seem to draw deeply from CRT.

[3] George Yancey, Beyond Racial Gridlock: Embracing Mutual Responsibility (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2006), 105–106.

More Problems for Critical Race Theory from Nominalism

Introduction

As I have discussed in this series, CRT is antiessentialist; it has no room for any essential natures. Why? If they were real, they would exist objectively, yet not be material, thus overriding CRT’s commitment to materialism. Also, an essence would be something natural and real beyond our constructs, which would thereby constrain our freedom to define our identities, i.e., our “true selves.”

On the other hand, if there were essences, then it seems that all humans actually would have an identical set of essential qualities present in each of them. Moreover, a moral virtue like justice would be identical essentially in just people. The moral principle that humans should be treated with dignity also should apply to all humans. These are examples of universals, one thing itself, and yet which can have many instances. And, when a human being exemplifies the virtue of justice, that human is a complex entity, being an individual human who also has the quality of justice.

However, without essences, there would not be any real, universal qualities. Instead, it seems those qualities would be particulars. This is a nominalist position, and since everything is particular on it, there are no complex entities; each and everything is simple – just one thing, and not the union of two or more things. Further, while we may call several similar traits by the same name or description (say, human, or justice), nonetheless those traits literally would be distinct because each one is particular. On this view, things are what they are in name only.

So, CRT is a nominalist view. What are some implications of that?

CRT and Nominalism

Let me being by probing the very assumptions of nominalism, to see if it can do the work that Crits think it can do for them and their theories. They are banking on it to support their many claims of injustice, inequality, and the domination by whites of minorities, to name a few. And, indeed, we can look into actual cases where such things have occurred. Yet, can nominalism sustain these charges?

Let’s focus on the core nominalist position, that everything is particular. So, despite how we may conceive of two or more things that seem similar, actually there do not exist any numerically identical qualities between any two things, whether cases of injustice or anything else. Plus, there are no complex entities; everything is simple (just one thing). So, to help illustrate that, let’s consider a person named Micah who is black, transgender, and courageous. By the way I have written out these descriptions, it might seem that there is Micah who has these qualities. If so, Micah would be a complex entity. But, on nominalism, Micah must be just one thing, so I will illustrate that by hyphens: Micah-a-courageous-black-transgender.

Notice that while we may conceive of Micah in these various ways, nonetheless there is just one “thing” here. Thus, all the “qualities” included in that description really do not exist; there is just the concrete object Micah-a-courageous-black-transgender. Moreover, pick any “quality”; it is identical to any other “quality” in the description, for in reality there is just one, simple thing, not a complex entity. So, for example, Micah’s being black ends up being identical to Micah’s being transgender or courageous. Furthermore, Micah’s being black is identical with the name Micah. If so, then we can eliminate all these other “qualities” and be left with just black. But that is a color that is not particularized. Instead, it seems to be an abstract, universal quality, which would be anathema to nominalism.

Alternatively, suppose we start with Micah’s being courageous. But, the same kinds of results happen; accordingly, there is no reason in principle why the other “qualities” cannot be eliminated without any loss in reality. At best we are left with an abstract object (one that is not particularized) that seems to be a universal, a result that undermines nominalism. At worst, there are no qualities whatsoever to any particular object.

In any of these cases, it seems nominalism cannot sustain in reality the thing or its qualities. But if that is the case, then it seems CRT’s core contentions cannot be sustained either, such as: there are real people who really are being oppressed by the white majority; racism is real, and there are real, systemic injustices; justice, dignity, and equality are good, whereas racism is wrong.

Indeed, even just taking nominalism literally as nameism, then all the qualities of CRT are just names (words) Crits have given to express their interpretations of actions in reality. But, based on nominalism, their interpretations are particular to them. If so, why should others accept their interpretations as the “gospel” truth? Literally, their meanings cannot be before others’ minds, for there are not even any interpretations – they too can be reduced away, just as we saw above.

There’s another reason why people literally cannot have these interpretations before their minds. It seems that ability presupposes what nominalism denies – that humans are not simple; instead, they are complex beings who can have different qualities present in them. Indeed, if not, how could someone be the same person throughout a reasoning process, who comes to change his or her mind from a more traditional view to that of CRT? Beforehand, on nominalism, that person could be characterized as that-traditionalist-person, but afterwards as a that-Crit-person. Yet, they are not identical, and so the person before that process occurred cannot be the same person as the one when it concluded.

Conclusion

So, applying nominalism to CRT, morals like justice, human dignity and equality, and racism’s wrongness are just what they are in name only, and names are particulars. Thus, we are not even talking about the same thing when two different groups discuss matters of justice. There is no essence to any of these morals, and so they (and people too) become nothing but the constructs of particular groups. It is no wonder, then, that with CRT’s strong influence in societal discourse, we are seeing more and more assertions of power to get what people want. After all, what else is left to turn to, if there are no essential, universal qualities (including meanings) that define what something is?

Ironically, though, while CRT advertises itself as the means by which people can be set free (liberated) from their oppression, actually it can do nothing of the sort. Based on its antiessentialism and nominalism, it leads us to think we can define reality, when in fact those two positions would undermine reality, including ourselves and our moral worth.  

More Problems from Critical Race Theory’s Antiessentialism

Introduction

In previous posts, I have assessed CRT from a couple main standpoints. First, CRT’s rejection of essences leaves core moral principles, like justice and equality, as nothing but our constructs. We get to define them as we see fit. So, these core morals also end up being just the results of hegemonic power, the very thing Crits decry. Second, CRT bases the value of humans on their self-conceptualizations (their “true selves”), but this basis cannot preserve our dignity and equality. It substitutes our constructs for intrinsic value. And, if people construct their value, others can deconstruct it and take it away.

While these problems are serious, they are not the only ones due to CRT’s antiessentialism. Here I will look at two more. In the next blog, I will raise a third issue stemming from what kind of thing morals (& humans) are according to CRT. These problems undermine even CRT’s good ethical claims.

The Problem for Autonomy

A major point of appeal of CRT is that humans should be free to define their “true selves” by their own self-conceptualizations. To do this, they must throw off the categories of the majority’s ideology.

Now, surely we have abilities to form our identities (i.e., our self-concepts), and we do this all the time. People may understand themselves (their “sense of identity”) primarily in terms of various self-chosen concepts and categories, whether those be job-, race-, gender-, class-, religion-, or other-related. Christians do this, too, in that they are to see themselves first and foremost as disciples of Jesus, versus under some other aspect that could take priority (e.g., one’s achievements, wealth, etc.)

But, CRT posits that we are nothing but material beings, without an essential nature, which would be the soul. As such, we would seem to be completely subject to the laws of physical state-state causation. In short, it seems we would be exhaustively determined in our choices and actions, such that we would not have any freedom of the will, which is presupposed by, and necessary for, our being autonomous.

However, perhaps a compatibilist view about freedom of the will could be used to help preserve our freedom, all the while we are beings that are subjects of state-state causation. How? Compatibilism asserts that freedom is consistent with being determined. In terms of ability, compatibilism claims that at any given time, a person can do only one thing, which depends upon the state that person happens to be in. In terms of control, of a previous chain of states produces one’s choices and actions. Last, in terms of reason, does not originate anything, like new thoughts or inquiries; it is passive.

In short, compatibilism is consistent with a view of a materialist view of humans. They are just bundles of properties that pass on what they receive from prior states. Thus, at the very least, it is very hard to see how there is any room for a self to originate any kinds of thought or desires, much less freely define one’s true self. If these things are so, then it seems CRT cannot adequately ground its own appeals to our autonomy, which is one of its major “selling points.”

The Problem for Justice

The second issue I will explore in this blog is an implication for justice. Not only is justice up to us, I also think it is impossible to achieve on CRT. Here I will explore one aspect of this issue.

Why would justice be impossible to achieve on CRT? For justice to be done for someone, it presupposes that that person can be identified by us and, even more importantly, is the very one who was treated unjustly before. Then, legally, society can bring remedies to correct that injustice.

But, it seems impossible for there to be any continuity of a given self through time and change on CRT. This issue involves what is called personal identity: what is it that makes a given person the same one through time and change? This is different from CRT’s frequent appeal to one’s sense of identity, which is our way of defining and conceiving of ourselves. Since CRT rejects essences, they cannot be the basis for one’s personal identity. Instead, CRT seems left with appealing to possible solutions that can fit with materialism. What might those include?

I will focus on two main possibilities. The first is that the sameness of person is grounded in sameness of memories. If a person P2 has the memories of someone (P1) who was treated unjustly in the past, then P2 is the same person as P1.

Now, since the law of identity requires that for two things to be identical (there is really only one thing, not two), all their properties must be in common. Now, is this true in the case of P1 and P2? Even if P2 has the same memories of that injustice as P1, P2 & P1 have different temporal properties. Suppose, for example, that P2 is now 45 years old, whereas P1 was treated unjustly (say, for being discriminated against by the practice of redlining in real estate) at age 30. Also, P2 has earned a master degree, whereas P1 had only a bachelor’s degree. Moreover, P2 has been divorced and also does not have his appendix, while P1 was married and had his appendix.

Clearly, then, there are things true of P2 that are not true of P1. Following the law of identity, they are not the same person. Moreover, on a materialist view, it seems that persons are just bundles of material properties, including their memories. There is no underlying essence that would make them the same person, despite differences of temporal or other kinds of properties and parts.

The second option for personal identity on a materialist view is sameness of story. If the story of P2 is identical to the story of P1, then they are the same person. But this too cannot be the case; surely P2 has more details in his story than that of P1, even if the rest of P2’s story matches completely that of P1’s. Again, the law of identity forces us to conclude that they are not the same person.

Is it possible then for a person who was treated unjustly in the past to have that injustice remedied? It seems it would not on CRT, for it lacks a basis for the sameness of persons through time and change. Literally, there is no continuity of persons on CRT’s materialism, and so there is no possibility for justice to be meted out to people.

Of course, many will object to this, perhaps by appealing to our common sense understanding that surely P1 & P2 are the same person. Again, they might do this by appealing to memories, or perhaps to a set of sufficient commonalities of body parts to justify the claim that they are the same person. But all this does is establish for others how we may know that P1 & P2 are the same person. Our knowledge does not make P1 & P2 the same person; rather, that knowledge depends upon their being the same person. And that issue is the one that materialists seem unable to provide.

In the next blog, I will turn to issues posed by their nominalism (i.e., everything is particular and is what it is in name only) for morals and humans.

Assessing Critical Race Theory on Human Nature and Morals

Introduction

Previously, I mentioned several key morals that Crits rightly recognize as good and right, such as justice is good, humans should be treated with dignity and equality, and racism is wrong. These are important strengths of CRT.

The Nature of Humans and Morals

Yet, CRT also presupposes that there are no essences. Instead, we are material beings in a material world. So, despite Crits’ evident presupposition that humans should be treated as intrinsically valuable, there is nothing that exists intrinsically, or essentially, to being human that defines the kind of thing we are, or how we should live. That is, there is no grounding for their presupposition. Also, on CRT, moral principles and qualities do not have an essence that defines them. Instead, morals end up being our constructs. So, for instance, justice does not have an essence to it that we need to discover and with which we align ourselves. Rather, justice is nothing but a matter of our interpretation.

Now, if justice (as well as other morals) had an essence, then there could be an identical quality that literally is in common to all instances of just people and actions. But, since there is no such essence on CRT, there is no such thing as justice per se, one quality for which we all should strive to achieve and embody. There are no morals that are true for all people in all times and places and exist apart from our constructs. Instead, morals are particulars, which shows CRT’s dependence on nominalism.

  • Let’s contrast this stance with a biblical one about humans, morals, and their natures. Biblically, humans are made in God’s image, which defines us as the kind of thing we are in contrast to any other created thing (cf. Gen 1:21 & 26). So, to be an image bearer is to be human; it is our essential nature. Moreover, the particular essence of an individual human is that human’s soul.[1] Moreover, Scripture presupposes that all humans bear God’s image, such that it is one set of qualities that can be in many instances. That is, it is a universal.
  • Since we are made in God’s image, there are moral qualities and principles that are normative for us. Scripture informs us that we are to become like Christ (e.g., Rom 8:29; Eph 5:1-2; Gal 5:22-23), which includes being like Him morally. These qualities are those of Jesus which also are appropriate for us as image bearers. And, each such moral quality is a one-in-many, i.e., a universal. Moreover, there is an essence to them that defines them as what they are; e.g., justice is not identical to love, even though they are to be partners in action. Finally, they are objectively real; they are valid and exist, whether or not any of us believes them to be so. So, they are not our products.

Some Initial Implications

First, if there are no essences to these key morals, then justice, equality, dignity, and even oppression are up to people to define as they see best. Of course, how one group defines them may vary from another, for these are just a group’s particular constructs. But, this will perpetuate inevitably the very thing Crits decry – the hegemony of the powerful. Indeed, it seems on CRT that morals can only be power moves.

Second, since humans and the rest of reality is just made of matter, it seems CRT faces the well-known problems that afflict other views that accept that same kind of ontology. For instance, physicalist views face the problem that in a physical world, it seems humans’ character and actions can be exhausted descriptively. Yet, morality is about normativity – how we ought to live and treat others. In other words, such views, including CRT, face the problem of how we can derive the moral ought from what is the case physically.

Now, some, such as Christine Korsgaard, have tried to address this problem by claiming we can impose our moral concepts onto matter.[2] Drawing upon Kant and John Rawls, she thinks we can will that our moral maxims (plans of action) be universalized for all people. Nonetheless, the end result is that we construct these morals, which still are particulars ontologically (though we will that they apply to all). They do not have essential natures, and so they are subject to our conceptualizations, with the same problem I just considered above.

The Next Steps

There are many more implications of CRT’s ontology for humans and morals, and I will continue this discussion in the next blog. I will look at what I think is a crucial issue: the lack of our intrinsic value and how that leads to many (futile) attempts today to secure our moral worth.

[1] Here, I will not investigate some Christians’ claims that we are basically physical beings without a soul. I have done so elsewhere, such as in my chapter, “Physicalism and Sanctification,” in Christian Physicalism, eds. Joshua Farris and Keith Loftin (Lexington Books, 2018). That essay addresses the prospects of becoming like Christ on a physicalist anthropology.

[2] See her The Sources of Normativity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996). See also my discussion of her views in my In Search of Moral Knowledge (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014).

Critical Race Theory: Some Key Strengths

Introduction

Previously, I have been giving background information about critical race theory (CRT), and last time I explored some of the main ethical principles that Crits (critical race theorists) embrace, such as we should treat humans with dignity, justice, and respect. Moreover, oppressing humans is wrong, and we should liberate the oppressed from their oppression. I also argued that Crits seem to presuppose that humans are intrinsically valuable. Now, I will begin to assess CRT, starting with some of its key contributions.

Strength # 1: The Validity of Several Core Morals

A great strength of CRT is its recognition of several core morals that we simply know are valid, and yet there have been too many times and cases where these principles have been violated. But, our clear recognition as a society that such violations have happened (and still happen) helps to underscore the validity of these morals. It is not the case that people need to see reasons why humans should be treated justly; rather, they simply know that is true and therefore should call for justice to happen in cases of injustice.

There is a corollary to this important observation. Crits argue that race is basically a social construct. As Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo argue, “the differences we see with our eyes, such as hair texture and eye color or shape, are superficial and emerged over time as humans adapted to geography.”[1] Thus, such traits are morally irrelevant. Instead, we all share in a common humanity, and peoples of all races should be treated uprightly.

Strength # 2: Its Descriptive Usefulness and Accuracy

A second and highly significant strength of CRT is its focus on systems and institutions and how they can perpetuate racism. That is, CRT provides a tool for researchers to investigate and see if there are examples of institutional racism. Of course, this usefulness would not exist if there are indeed no cases of systemic racism. Yet, Crits have worked hard to try to show that there are (many) examples.

Here are a few cases. Historically there are the examples of slavery, the Dred Scott decision, and Jim Crow laws. There also is the case of the U. S. Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Loan Program. Though it was created to help working-class people buy a home at lower interest rates, it discriminated against black applicants who wanted to buy in predominately white neighborhoods. In turn, this course of action helped foster “white flight” from inner cities.[2]

So, by even bringing systemic racism to our awareness, CRT can help us see if such discrimination is at work in given situations so we can address it.

Strength # 3: Its Important Focus upon Particulars that Affect Peoples’ Lives

CRT also calls us to examine the impacts of our ethics and policies upon actual lives, to see if we are mistreating anyone. This attention to particular lives is important, for an ethic that is so preoccupied with universal prescriptions that are divorced from how people actually live is distorted. For instance, the colorblind model can influence people to not notice the specific ways blacks and other minorities experience and suffer from racism, for that model encourages us treat all people in a generalized way.

Moreover, CRT emphasizes the need to listen to the stories of people of color, for they have their own experiences and perspectives. In so doing, whites can begin to notice how their perspectives are shaped by their own “situating factors.” Indeed, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic make an important observation that “whites do not see themselves as having a race but as being, simply, people. They do not believe that they think and reason from a white viewpoint but from a universally valid one – ‘the truth’ – what everyone knows.”[3]

Strength # 4: A Corrective to an Overemphasis by Some Christians on Living Mainly for the Afterlife

A final contribution, specifically for Christians, is that CRT helps by calling attention to the need to do justice in this life, which is a crucial component of biblical ethics.[4] Yet, various people have argued that many evangelicals so emphasize the importance of getting peoples’ souls into heaven that they also do not see the need to address current evils from oppression.[5] As Dallas Willard has noted, many live as though they basically need to “manage sin” while awaiting Christ’s return or their death so they go to heaven.[6] So, this emphasis of CRT is helpful for Christians to fulfill their biblical, ethical obligations to do justice (Mic 6:8).

The Next Move

Now that I have surveyed some strengths of CRT, I will turn to begin some assessment of its key positions.

[1] Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo, Is Everyone Really Equal? 2nd ed., in Multicultural Education Series, ed. James A. Banks (New York: Teachers College Press, 2017), 121.

[2] George Yancey, Beyond Racial Gridlock: Embracing Mutual Responsibility (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 91. See also Sensoy and DiAngelo, Is Everyone Really Equal? 151.

[3] Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (New York: New York University Press, 2017), 91-92.

[4] E.g., see Lev 25:35, Is 58:4-10, and Ps 112:4-5, 9 regarding the voluntary, compassionate redistribution of resources for those who could not support themselves; Ps 58, for the punishment of evildoers on the earth; and 1 Kings 18:20-40; 2 Kings 17:8, as well as 2 Chron 33:1-13, for God’s punishment on Israel and Judah for not living uprightly in this life.

[5] For a discussion of the views of former leaders of the emerging church, see my Authentically Emergent: In Search of a Truly Progressive Christianity (Eugene: Cascade, 2018), chs. 1 and 3.

[6] See his The Divine Conspiracy (New York: Harper, 1999), ch. 2. He thinks gospels of “sin management” characterize both liberal and conservative Christians.

Critical Race Theory & Its Ethical Stances

Introduction

In the previous entry, I surveyed some of the key tenets of critical race theory (CRT), including its appeal to hegemony, the concept of “domination by the ruling class and unconscious acceptance of that state of affairs by the subordinate group.”[1] I also sketched some key philosophical principles of CRT, including its rejection of essences and thus universals, which would be one thing (a truth, or a property) that can have many instances. Instead, they seem to embrace materialism, as well as the view that everything is particular, or nominal, being what it is in name only. Finally, Crits think we have been so shaped by our “situatedness” that no one knows how things really are, apart from our interpretive standpoints. Now, let’s turn to explore some key ethical positions of CRT.

Major Ethical Claims

As we already have seen, CRT holds that the oppression of humans is wrong. Moreover, CRT identifies this oppression with that of the majority group over the minority ones. Therefore, the oppressed groups must be liberated from their oppression.

Now, interestingly, Crits seem to argue for this view as though it simply is wrong as a matter of principle. For instance, they do not argue for this view on the basis of utilitarianism. If they did, it seems that principle could turn out to be false if there are cases where the net result of the good and bad consequences of some action by the majority actually benefits the greatest number of people. If so, then it could be obligatory for the majority to oppress the minorities.

Nor do they argue for it on the basis of ethical egoism, that one should act on the basis of one’s self-interest. If that were their basis, it would be difficult to argue that whites should give up their privilege and power if it is not in their self-interest. Also, they clearly do not appeal to natural law, for that would strongly imply essences which would constrain our ethical precepts.

So, it seems Crits appeal to oppression of humans (especially as a minority group) as wrong, period, which seems to be a deontological principle, one that simply is right in itself. They seem to reason similarly with many other key ethical claims, such as that all humans should be treated as equals and with dignity, respect, and justice. Moreover, they also seem to reason in the same way with their claim that humans should be free to define their “true selves” according to their own conceptualizations, and not that of the majority’s ideology. That is, it seems Crits presuppose that humans are intrinsically valuable.

Why should that be the case? One answer given in the history of ethics has been that humans have an essential nature that defines them as being intrinsically valuable. A key source for that view is Christianity, on which humans are made in God’s image. As such, they are not to be mistreated, which would violate their essential moral worth. Another source has been Kant, who argued that humans are members of the kingdom of ends, and they should never be treated merely as a means to an end.

For CRT, since humans do not have an essence and are material beings, it seems some other basis is needed for its ethics. What might that be? Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic suggest that biological differences, such as hair texture and skin color, are superficial and not morally significant. Instead, there are morally relevant, higher-order traits common across races, such as “personality, intelligence, and moral behavior.”[2] Ibram Kendi, an antiracist whose views nonetheless draw extensively from CRT, agrees when he appeals to our “common humanity.”[3]

All these traits seem to fit within a materialist view of humans. Now, there are various ways naturalists who are materialists try to ground ethics. For example, Michael Ruse has argued that ethics is just a biological adaptation, and evolution has foisted upon us the illusion that morals are objectively real and independent of us.[4] James Rachels argued that what makes us valuable is not some essential nature we have. Nor is it our mere biological existence. Rather, it is our biographical life, the story that we tell about ourselves that gives our lives meaning and purpose.[5]

Yet both of these views do not fit with CRT’s evident deontological treatment of moral principles. Perhaps a more fitting option would be Christine Korsgaard’s Kantian view, on which we, while just matter, impose our moral concepts onto matter, willing them to be universalized to all humans.[6] Or, perhaps Erik Wielenberg’s Platonism about morals, yet within an overall materialist framework, might be an option for CRT. For him, it is a brute fact that moral virtues and principles exist as non-physical entities, though humans still are material beings. In his view, morals supervene upon physical facts.[7]

The Next Step

In my next blog, I will begin to assess CRT with a view toward ethics, starting with several of its strengths.

[1] Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (New York: New York University Press, 2017), 175.

[2] Ibid., 9.

[3] Ibram X. Kendi, How to be an Antiracist (New York: One World, 2019), 54, 198.

[4] Michael Ruse, “Evolution and Ethics: The Sociobiological Approach,” in Ethical Theory: Classic and Contemporary Readings (4th ed.; ed. Louis Pojman; Belmont: Wadsworth, 2002).

[5] James Rachels, The End of Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986). See his discussion of Dax Cowart’s case.

[6] See her The Sources of Normativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 4-5.

[7] Erik Wielenberg, Robust Ethics: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Godless Normative Realism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).

Ethics and Critical Race Theory – General and Philosophical Positions

Introduction

In previous posts, I discussed the role of suspicion in critical race theory (CRT), and there I included the influences of Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud. I also touched on the CRT analysis that power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy. Moreover, critical legal studies helped reinforce the view that law is mainly about power, not morals. Michel Foucault argued that the dominant group’s power is transmitted and normalized through institutions, and radical feminism contributed how power relates to the construction of social roles, which results in largely unnoticed patterns of domination.

Now, I will explore some more key positions of CRT, starting with some general ones. Then I will look at some key philosophical views, including what is real, and how we know things. In the next blog entry, I will look at several key ethical stances of CRT.

Additional, General Tenets of CRT

First, racism is common, and it is not limited to individuals. It also is systemic, which is the focus of CRT. Second, there is racial disparity: there are differences in outcomes (such as for health and economic considerations) based on race. Third is interest convergence: only if the material interests of the majority group align with those of minoritized groups will the majority group cooperate with minorities.

Fourth, races are social constructions which are not fixed, for they are not rooted in biology. Instead, we all share in a common humanity. Roles and expectations are constructs. Fifth is intersectionality. That is, we all have many sources for our “identities” (or, our self-conceptualizations), and these can overlap in many ways to oppress people (e.g., a poor, black poor lesbian).  Sixth, hegemony is “domination by the ruling class and unconscious acceptance of that state of affairs by the subordinate group.”[1]

To help understand CRT better, let’s also look at some of the key philosophical positions of Crits.

Some Key Philosophical Positions

In addition to these key shaping influences, CRT also draws from the broader stream of thought of critical theory (CT). Like we have seen with CRT, critical theorists embraced the view that oppressed groups need to be liberated from their domination by the oppressor group. Moreover, like Marx, key critical theorists, such as Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse were materialists and thus they rejected essential natures. So did Nietzsche.

If essences were real, they would have many implications. Why? Essences would define something as what kind of thing it is.[2] Foe example, for Aristotle, the essence of being a human is due its having a human soul, and not some other “principle of life.” However, Adorno rejected the idea that reality is objectively real with essential natures, for that leads us “to establish a single order, a single mode of representing and relating to reality.”[3] For him, on such a view, people would tend to fit into the definitions from the majority’s ideology. Yet, such a view was just a construct that undergirded the dominant group’s hegemony. Thus, peoples’ freedom to define their “true” selves would be undermined, leaving them oppressed.[4]

Likewise, Horkheimer believed that humans are nothing but material beings embedded holistically in nature.[5] Further, Marcuse believed reality is socially conditioned. Our “essence” is not some ontological reality. It is just a term for our human potential to achieve the ideals present in culture, which involves overcoming oppression:

Materialist theory thus transcends the given state of fact and moves toward a different potentiality, proceeding from immediate appearance to the essence that appears in it. But here appearance and essence become members of a real antithesis arising from the particular historical structure of the social process of life.[6]

So, what are some implications for their views if there are no essences? First, since there is no essence, such as the soul, to define and ground one’s personal identity (i.e., what makes someone the same person through time and change), it seems our “identity” is something that is definable by us. This can lead to a great sense of unrestricted freedom to not be bound by any of the dominant group’s ideological categories. Instead, people are free to define their “true selves.”

Second, it seems there are no universal qualities, not just for what it means to be authentically human, but also for moral principles and virtues. For example, suppose justice has an essence. Then it seems there would be an identical quality present in each instance of justice, and justice would be a universal quality. Yet, if there are no essences, then each instance would be particular, or nominal: we would call them all instances of justice, yet that is just due to the word we use for them.

Third, if essences are real, they would exist objectively and transcend our own conceptualizations. Yet, on CT and CRT, we are so shaped by our situating factors that all that we know is from a particular, historically situated standpoint. We cannot transcend those limitations and achieve a gaze directly into how reality is, apart from our “situatedness.” That is a strongly nominalist view. Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo, who seem strongly influenced by CRT, claim that knowledge is not “outside of human interests, perspectives, and values”; instead, it “reflects the social hierarchies of a given society.”[7]

The Next Step

In the next entry, I will explore the various moral positions of CRT.

[1] Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (New York: New York University Press, 2017), 175.

[2] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 218.

[3] Andrew Fagan, “Theodor Adorno,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://www.iep.utm.edu/adorno/, accessed July 11, 2019.

[4] While I was a graduate student in the University of Southern California’s School of Religion, several fellow students were ex-Catholics who were angry that the Church’s hierarchy defined what is “natural,” especially sexually, for them by appealing to natural law and essential natures.

[5] See Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory (Repr.; New York, NY: Continuum, 1982), 24. In an effort to unify science and philosophy, Horkheimer endorses materialism.

[6] Herbert Marcuse, “Concept of Essence,” in Negations: Essays in Critical Theory (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), 67.

[7] Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo, Is Everyone Really Equal? in Multicultural Education Series (2nd ed.; ed. James A. Banks; New York: Teachers College Press, 2017), 31. Though DiAngelo might be better classified as an “antiracist,” I include her here because she has embraced much of CRT.