Does the positive side of tribalism/racism outshine the negative side?

[Foxaèr]

Interestingly, tribalism uncorrupted is not racist; it is why so many tribal civilizations are welcoming and entirely too trusting. What destroyed tribalism was outside missionaries promising a better way.

[Greatest I am]

Interestingly, tribalism uncorrupted is not racist; it is why so many tribal civilizations are welcoming and entirely too trusting. What destroyed tribalism was outside missionaries promising a better way.

The analogy of tribalism and racism is quite close if you look at the content of each term.

Your last is correct in that missionary dick wads were pushing their tribe/religion onto other less powerful tribes and using murder as a fear incentive.

Christians and their vile inquisitions. They seem to always be killing those with superior morals and ideologies for their genocidal garbage god.

Regards
DL

[Foxaèr]

The analogy of tribalism and racism is quite close if you look at the content of each term.

You must be referring to the modern issue of us versus them.

[Greatest I am]

The analogy of tribalism and racism is quite close if you look at the content of each term.

You must be referring to the modern issue of us versus them.

Basically, yes. That is what both terms try to create. 

Division against the other as well as uniqueness to our in group.

Regards
DL

[tackattack]

I think the fault in your promise lies in
“tribalism and racism for our own kind and color, we create a hate bias for all other kinds and colors.“

Loving yourself and your “tribe” does not necessarily follow by hating others. I love doughnuts that doesn’t mean I hate eclairs. I think your premise shows just how entrenched in a triabalistic all or nothing, everything is black or white, narrative.

Essentially u r saying that to love yourself u have to hate others. Fear breeds hate not love, at least not the love I know and try to show.

Our instincts guide us. Do you not trust them?

You do not seem to take to the reality that when we create a love bias, we automatically will hate anything or anyone who puts what we love in jeopardy.

If that is not what creates our hate biases, what does?

Try thinking of your children. You love them and may not hate anything, but if put in jeopardy by someone, you will have negative feelings toward that person, even if you do not call that dislike hate.

Regards
DL

I do trust my instincts, but not only my instincts. You are correct I do not believe that having a love bias necessitates hate. Again your tribalism entrenchment leads you to believe that many things which don't jeopardize the object of our love are an encroachment and jeopardize and therefore harmful and must be hated. I would hate it if someone was bullying my kid. I would not hate the kid that was bullying my kid. Our hate is caused by a hardening of the heart, not a softening of it. I'm not saying I don't necessarily hate. I'm just saying that it's not love that causes the hate, nor are the same standards for what you consider worthy of hate my standards.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can an instrumental good outweigh moral bad. Is that the underlying question? If so, then yes. All the time - but that's a descriptive statement.

[Greatest I am]

Our instincts guide us. Do you not trust them?

You do not seem to take to the reality that when we create a love bias, we automatically will hate anything or anyone who puts what we love in jeopardy.

If that is not what creates our hate biases, what does?

Try thinking of your children. You love them and may not hate anything, but if put in jeopardy by someone, you will have negative feelings toward that person, even if you do not call that dislike hate.

Regards
DL

I do trust my instincts, but not only my instincts. You are correct I do not believe that having a love bias necessitates hate. Again your tribalism entrenchment leads you to believe that many things which don't jeopardize the object of our love are an encroachment and jeopardize and therefore harmful and must be hated. I would hate it if someone was bullying my kid. I would not hate the kid that was bullying my kid. Our hate is caused by a hardening of the heart, not a softening of it. I'm not saying I don't necessarily hate. I'm just saying that it's not love that causes the hate, nor are the same standards for what you consider worthy of hate my standards.

No argument on your last. That is a subjective call for each of us.

If love of the good does not create the hate of evil, then where does the hate originate? What causes it?

Do you see us living in a dualistic world? 

I sure do.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

Brains, man. Both love and hate originate there.

[Greatest I am]

Can an instrumental good outweigh moral bad.  Is that the underlying question?  If so, then yes.  All the time - but that's a descriptive statement.

All the time? This I cannot agree with. 

Most of the time, I could have agreed.

I disagree and offer slavery that existed for way too long. It still does but we basically ignore it.

I think we are getting more civilized but have a ways to go till we can say that good wins out all the time.

Regards
DL

---

Brains, man.  Both love and hate originate there.

I agree, but our brains take instructions from our DNA and instincts, and they default to the good, which means that the love bias is created ahead of the hate bias. 

Defaulting to love is the better survival strategy.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

Descriptive moral statements refer to how things are or how things have been, not how they should be or whether they should be. Your disagreement is with the latter, not the former.

Your question assumes that slavery is an instrumental good. That it's good-for something. I'm noting that people commonly find the instrumental good, which is a moral bad, compelling. For most of us...hopefully, slavery isn't the instrumental good being considered - but it doesn't really matter which real or perceived instrumental good is being weighed against it's own moral badness.