Como que racionalidade e moralidade se relacionam??/How are rationality and morality related?

 Uma pessoa muito racional apresenta um ímpeto e também uma capacidade, ambos plenamente desenvolvidos, de sempre buscar por evidências antes, mas também durante e depois de julgar qualquer tópico que se torne de seu interesse (inclusive julgando a si mesma quanto à sua capacidade de analisar e julgar específico a cada tópico). Em outras palavras, por ser mais sensata e ponderada, tende a pensar e agir de maneira mais justa, se a justiça, em sua prática mais ideal, e não apenas como sinônimo estrutural de poder aplicado, se norteia pela busca imparcial por evidências ou fatos. Pois a partir do que foi comentado acima, parece que se torna evidente que, maior a capacidade racional de uma pessoa, maior a sua capacidade de discernir o que é fato e o que é boato, verdadeiro ou falso, e isso obviamente também se aplica ao campo da moralidade, do que é considerado certo, negociável e errado. Portanto, a racionalidade mostra-se fundamental para a prática da justiça, porém frequentemente negligenciada, desde os processos de julgamento por acusação de crime prescrito no código penal até na elaboração e aplicação de políticas públicas.

A highly rational person has a drive and a capacity, both fully developed, to always seek evidence before, but also during and after judging any topic that becomes of interest to him (including judging himself regarding his ability to analyze and judge specific to each topic). In other words, because he is more sensible and thoughtful, he tends to think and act more fairly, if justice, in its most ideal practice, and not just as a structural synonym for applied power, is guided by the impartial search for evidence or facts. From what was commented above, it seems clear that the greater a person's rational capacity, the greater her ability to discern what is fact and what is rumor, true or false, and this obviously also applies to the field of morality, of what is considered right, negotiable and wrong. Therefore, rationality is fundamental to the practice of justice, but is often neglected, from trial processes for accusations of crimes prescribed in the penal code to the development and implementation of public policies.

A filosofia, idealmente, moraliza a ciência /Philosophy, ideally, moralizes science

 Porque, sem a moralização da filosofia, isto é, sem a construção de uma consciência crítica, diga-se, da única e verdadeira filosofia, que é a sabedoria, a ciência inevitavelmente se torna antiética, se servindo como um meio para fins escusos (como tem acontecido, historicamente), mas mesmo se se expressasse como um mero passatempo de curiosidade, já que acabaria justificando a crueldade como necessária ou inevitável para a investigação científica.

Portanto, a filosofia atuaria como a base teórica e ideológica da ciência, mas também como um complemento necessário de direção ideal.

Pois se a ciência se especializa ou se divide em muitas áreas de investigação e expansão do conhecimento, a filosofia, idealmente, atua como um farol de sanidade máxima que sempre busca pelo julgamento mais sensato e que, em complemento à ciência, é vital para que não se perca do caminho da sabedoria (como tem feito, historicamente). E o pensamento ou julgamento mais sensato de todos é o de sempre apontar para as verdades mais importantes, que são as mais derradeiras, como a finitude e a igualdade essencial da vida e a ausência de um sentido que explique a existência de maneira que satisfaça as expectativas humanas; sempre lembrando à ciência que tudo o que se faz, no final, nada mais é do que "enxugar gelo".

 Because, without the moralization of philosophy, that is, without the construction of a critical consciousness, by the only and true philosophy, which is wisdom, science inevitably becomes unethical, serving as a means for hidden ends ( as has happened, historically), but even if it were expressed as a mere pastime of curiosity, as it would end up justifying cruelty as necessary or inevitable for scientific investigation.

Therefore, philosophy would act as the theoretical and ideological basis of science, but also as a necessary complement of ideal direction.

For if science specializes or is divided into many areas of investigation and expansion of knowledge, philosophy, ideally, acts as a beacon of maximum sanity that always seeks the most sensible judgment and which, in addition to science, is vital for do not lose its way from the path of wisdom (as it has historically done). And the most sensible thought or judgment of all is to always point to the most important truths, which are the most ultimate, such as the finitude and essential equality of life and the absence of a meaning that explains existence in a way that satisfies human expectations; always reminding science that everything we do, in the end, is nothing more than "wiping ice".

My 3 thoughtcrimes about racial miscegenation

 Always good??

According to "left" ideological indoctrination, yes, racial miscegenation is a desirable and morally superior behavior or choice compared to racial endogamy.

But, is it really??

Here, I make a brief list in an attempt to refute myths about this topic that have been widely endorsed by "leftists" and for reasons that can range from naive or ill-informed to malicious or with ulterior motives.

1. Relating to a person of another race or ethnicity is a literal act of anti-racism

Historically speaking, racial miscegenation has only become more common in colonialist, imperialist and/or expansionist contexts, of conquest and subjugation of one people over another, or for pragmatic reasons, for example, when there is a shortage of women of the same race as the colonizers/invaders, as happened in Latin America, the opposite of what the anti-racist ideology supposedly preaches, of harmony between racial and ethnic groups of the human species.

Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that miscegenation, when there is generation of descendants, or even without, is morally superior to its opposite, because, a priori, there is no such superiority, if it is not racist to prefer to have relationships with people of the same race or ethnicity just as it is not xenophobia to prefer to do it with people of the same nationality.

2. Racial mixing is always beneficial to the genetics of a population by generating "hybrid vigor"

If that were true, then Latin Americans would be the most beautiful, healthy and intelligent people in the world. The hybrid vigor thesis seems to work without the need for racial mixing, within the same group, simply by promoting more exogamy, that is, inhibiting marriages between close relatives. From a scenario of large-scale racial mixing, there is no evidence that it improves the genetics or biology of a population. On the contrary, as it can also generate an increase in the heritability of incompatibilities, congenital diseases... in the case of populations that have evolved in isolation for thousands of years... It is still possible that it could have a positive effect, but as long as there is more selection directed towards the desired traits, in other words, a practice of eugenics, which would also work if practiced within the same more racially homogeneous population. Therefore, the idea that racial mixing, in itself, provides hybrid vigor in the next generations of mixed-race, or that racially homogeneous populations need to mix to generate it and avoid a decrease in their genetic diversity, does not hold water.

3. Because "education" and "upbringing" are more important, it is okay to marry a person of another race because your children will be shaped by the education you give them

If that were true, but that's not exactly how it happens, since, first of all, we inherit from our parents combinations of their traits, including personality and intelligence. Therefore, in addition to there being a high probability that your offspring will not inherit much of your physical phenotype, especially if you are Caucasian and your breeding partner is of another race, there is also a high probability that they will inherit little or none of your personality traits and intelligence, and this may seem like a "lesser evil", but the incompatibility of temperament and cognitive level is usually a factor of conflict in human relationships, even more so if it is related to character dysfunctions.

It appears that for many people who have mixed-race children, especially those of white race, there is a silent frustration or unpleasant feeling that they have been "surrogated" or that "their biological children seem adopted" by this perceived trend of hereditary discontinuity of physical and behavioral characteristics.

Conclusion

A priori, having a relationship with a person of another race, whether or not generating mixed-race offspring, is not morally right or wrong and, in practical terms, it can be as harmless as tying your shoes or eating an apple. But, from a deeper analysis, one realizes that it is not that simple, as shown above, even leaving the impression of being more like a risky behavior or choice, and even worse if that choice is based on "well-intentioned" lies (from "Anti-racist Fallacies", for example, which I have already commented on in the text of the same title).