1. What are some of the problems in determining whether race has an intelligible meaning? Does it matter (whether race has an intelligible meaning) for understanding and dealing constructively with what are considered racial discrimination and inequality?
2. The text defines racism as “the beliefs, attitudes and practices of racists.” The problem then is to understand what a racist is. Of the definitions considered in the text (Section 1.3), which do you think is most plausible, and why? If you think none is adequate, why not?
3. If racists could establish that one race is innately superior to others (see Section 1.7), would that suffice to show that the superior race should dominate (or be advantaged over) others? What problems would human rights and a principle of universalizability (Section 1.10) pose for racists in arguing for dominance?
4. If it is acceptable for people to choose their gender (transgenderism), should it also be acceptable for people to choose their race (i.e., “transracialism”)? Why or why not? (On this question, you might find it useful to read a controversial article, “In Defense of Transracialism,” by Rebecca Tuvel
.
