Thread by @EveKeneinan

Woke repudiates principles. It must, because the same act has a different moral value depending on the identities of the agent and patient. This is always, necessarily, arbitrary. But arbitrary rules always foster tyranny, which depends on such arbitrary rules.

Woke — and Woke compatible doctrines, like CRT — reject Kant’s universalizability test of moral maxims. Because Woke maxims can’t pass it, no more than other racist or bigoted maxims — their ESSENCE is their exclusion of the demonized outgroup.

Universalizability is one key test of a moral maxim: can we make a particular maxim a universal principle?

The black girls at ASU had the maxim: “We can have removed from the room members of any race or sex we feel unsafe around.”

Can that be universalized?

It would be “Anyone may have members of any race or sex that makes them feel unsafe removed.”

And that would mean that the white boys would have just as much “right” to kicked out the black girls and the black girls to kick out the white boys.

But if everyone has the right to exclude everyone else, there can be no public spaces at all.

So the maxim self-destructs when universalized.

So it isn’t and cannot be a moral principle. It is NOT a moral maxim of action.

So despite their *self-righteousness*, their belief that they had a *moral right* to kick the white boys out of the room, they did not.

Which is what the university ruled.

When people say that is is wrong to act in a racist manner to others, they are usually thinking it means this IN PRINCIPLE.

And they are right.

But the Woke see this as NOT a principle, since they want to be able to be racist to some, and have it forbidden to others.

The Woke do not see “reducing a person P to merely a proxy for his race R” as an intrinsically wrong comportment to another human person.

They still want to know values of P and R before they can decide whether or not they dislike this action.

And to use the obviously example, this is the same KIND of “moral” reasoning engaged in by all racists.

“Person A beat Person B up and stole all his money. What that wrong?”
“I don’t know yet. It depends on their race.”

“Person A beat Person B up and stole all his money. What that wrong?”
“I don’t know yet. It depends on their race.”
“What do you mean?”

“If A is German and B is a Jew, it’s fine.”
“If A is black and B is white, it’s fine.”
“If A is white and B is black, it’s fine.”

ETC.

When I hear “you can’t be racist to white people” or “black people can’t be racist”, I think of this.

Note that the thug states his actions were on “General Principle — just 'cause you white.”

That is only a “general” principle because it generalizes from individuals to all members of one particular race.

It isn’t a UNIVERSAL Principle (which is General Principle often means).

Logically

1 Some members of Race W have mistreated some members of Race B
2 You are a member of Race W
3 I am a member of Race B
4 ∴ I am entitled to revenge on you

NON SEQUITUR

Of course many people know this is a non sequitur.

This is what the “complicity in systems of oppression” is meant to do: to legitimate collective race guilt.

And this is warmed-over Marxist collective class-guilt.