In today’s world, there are many controversial topics that are currently being discussed and debated. One of these topics is the topic of race. There are many different views on race however, in this essay the two views that will be discussed and debated are social constructivism and eliminativism. The debate is over which one should the average person believe over the other. In my opinion, I believe that social constructivism proves a more plausible argument than eliminativism does. This is because the argument from the social constructivist’s point of view provides a stronger reasoning than the argument from the eliminativist’s point of view. In this paper I will first define what social constructivism is, then the argument for social …show more content…
The eliminativist argues that races do not exist, while the social constructivist argue that race is a social kind. The eliminativist may argue that the social constructivist’s view is not credible because of the fact they believe races are a social kind. This is because the eliminativist may argue that if the social constructivist believes that races are a social kind then they must believe in something as absurd as the existence of witches. This is because the eliminativist may try to argue that witches are a social kind. However, after a deeper look at this argument one can see that this is false. In order for a social construction to be plausible, the basis on which the social construction is formed must be true. For example, the morphological differences between races are a basis for the argument that races are a social kind. The basis for the existence of witches however says that women would make deals with the devil and then gain supernatural powers. We know that this idea is absurd which makes this basis false and thus the idea that witches are a social kind is now proven false. This takes down a big argument that the eliminativist has against the social