I have a hard time accepting that our wars in the Middle East are all inherently unjust and primarily based on racism. Certainly, race may be a factor in the public's acceptance of these wars, but I don't think it is the primary factor or the guiding motivation. In Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, we have overthrown leaders that brutally oppressed women and used chemical weapons against their own people. Qaddafi stole tens of billions of dollars from the Libyan people, enabled terrorist attacks overseas, and was prepared to commit a massacre to stay in power. Perhaps the fact that these leaders were darker skinned played a role in the acceptance, at least initially, of these wars, but I think these qualify as pretty legitimate reasons for overthrowing these regimes. As to whether they made the world a better place, I think the Zhou Enlai quote of "too soon to tell" is quite appropriate. I think simplifying these matters into race is a narrow oversimplification that is no better than the "econodwarf".

I think a bit too much emphasis is being placed on how to persuade others to "the truth" and not enough subjecting ourselves to the same analysis. Assuming others are suffering from cognitive dissonance when they disagree can sometimes be a form of cognitive dissonance itself. Our views on morality are fundamentally shaped by the same social forces that create those views we are in opposition to. While there are simple facts that are hidden by cognitive dissonance, e.g. there is still slavery in America, it is more difficult to say that a person's ideas and morality are a product of cognitive dissonance and not analyze your own the same way. I found this article by Leff, "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law", particularly interesting. The basic premise is that all morality requires assumptions and, in the absence of God, who is to say which principles are superior. I found the end of the article particularly fascinating:

"All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we have. Given what we know about ourselves and each other, this is an extraordinarily unappetizing prospect; looking around the world, it appears that if all men are brothers, the ruling model is Cain and Abel. Neither reason, nor love, nor even terror, seems to have worked to make us "good", and worse than that, there is no reason why anything should. Only if ethics were something unspeakable by us, could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs.

Nevertheless: Napalming babies is bad. Starving the poor is wicked. Buying and selling each other is depraved. Those who stood up to and died resisting Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and Pol Pot-and General Custer too-have earned salvation. Those who acquiesced deserve to be damned. There is in the world such a thing as evil. [All together now:] Sez who? God help us."

-- DanielKetani - 22 Mar 2012