[pdeuchler]

Drawing your argument to its logical conclusion, those that act on such impulses based on their genetics and instincts are less evolved than those who don't.

Sounds like something a plantation owner from the antebellum south would agree with.

Now obviously anti-racism isn't "the real racism", but I think it's kind of funny that many commentators here seem to think that by defining certain sects of people based on cherry picked attributes will somehow prove that we've moved beyond the biological impulses of discrimination.

[rwnspace]

It seems 'evolved' means whatever people want it to mean very early on into these types of discussion. Usually there's a notion floating around of 'more- or less-evolved' that's not very well thought-through. And often this kind of muddying is committed alongside wishful thinking in the first place ('Despite science, I am free will incarnate; it is that which separates man from beast, nobles from savages, wealthy from beggars!').

There are no moral imperatives to be found in genes or epigenetics, only moral factors. Hume's observation about is -> ought is as pressing as ever, despite what Sam Harris might have you think. It's particularly dangerous to believe the former is true, since we make such a habit of expanding and distorting the scope of empirical results to ideological fantasy-land near instantly.

Whether we tightly and uniformly prefer genetically similar friends, whether we conversely happen to like genetically diverse mates, or whether all of these are more generally attendant to environmental factors like diet and disease -- it remains that we can collaboratively use reason to decide on our 'oughts', not just pick the interpretation and scope of 'is' that we prefer at the time. Issues of justice and responsibility seem much more interesting than endlessly turning the wheel of sciencey-tribalism. We struggle enough to figure out how best to treat each other already.