|
Bob, Carol, Eric and Fiona are racists. Alice and Dan are not. Alice is avoiding the self harm of discomfort and lonliness. A refusal to assimilate, sure, but as much as refusing to go square dancing and wear cowboy boots. Dan is being charitable and productive in his actions without inflicting actual injury or damages. Advocacy for those less fortunate requires operating within the constraints of a role, and he is targeting the path of least harm. Advocacy means choosing sides, although Dan gets a hall pass, since his actions are ethically defensible. These are minor transgressions in each case. Bob, Carol and Eric are willfully causing harm for personal gain, and favoring paths of least resistance, without exploring (perhaps as a conceit of these framed parables) alternatives. Fiona, meanwhile, is openly racist. It says so in the text, so no mystery there. Her racism serves as a form of ethical de-escalation of circumstances that Alice and Dan might unwittingly bring about (and the others actively strive for), as "normal" ambient social behavior. While unsavory in sentiment, Fiona's actions might serve as a means to prevent open violence with a curious form of social lubrication, by bearing the burden of being socially despicable, while refereeing the outcomes of unpolicable realities, with her racist counterparts on the other side of the prison yard (if you will), in a somewhat organized manner. |
If Mayor Bob gets personal gain from terminating bus routes (as you claim), then being racist isn't the problem. Strip away the racial descriptions in his situation and what you have left is still a rational decision.
Carol considers a country's values and beliefs, not those of a race. She does not consider who a person is; she considers what a person thinks and wants. You conflate nationality with race.