𓌏▌Arbaménos ⴲ

Sure: The preference to spend time with members of your own race is natural and demonstrated by both survey data and enacted preference in voluntary associations and patterns of relocation. In other species the same behavior is observed, where members of one regional variant congregate with their own kind and dissociate from individuals from other regional variants where their territories overlap. So given that this is a natural preference, if we don't use coercive force to prevent people from associating how they like then a large number of people will racially segregate by choice. Using force to prevent people from forming their friendships, families and communities according to their own free will is morally wrong and so racism should be tolerated, where racism means the tendency to prefer your own race. If force is used to prevent freedom of association and voluntary racial segregation then the underlying preferences won't go away, and a large number of people will have to live in ways that they don't resonate with or desire. You could argue that some moral program justifies imposing lifestyles on millions of people against their will, and I would say that's a very strong claim and that the burden to justify that would rest with the one advocating for the use of coercive force. That's an argument for why racial preferences should be morally permissible. Arguments that they are desirable follow. Society is stronger and more efficient when there's a high degree of trust between citizens. People trust others when they can successfully predict their behavior, and when they regard someone as unpredictable they find it hard to extend trust. Prediction is more effective when there's a deep base of common experience and expectations, meaning you are able to better predict the behavior of someone more similar to yourself. Racial homogeneity, ceterus paribus, facilitates our ability to predict one another's behavior and increases social trust. Survey data also bears this out. A race is a population where certain traits have been selected for and others have been selected against. It is better for us to have some concept of what attributes we want to foster as we develop down the generations than to be ambivalent about what we're becoming. If a population projects ideals clearly and chooses to develop in a particular direction they'll eventually become a distinct race, and that race will be an expression of their values. If we are conscious in how we develop then we have a chance at improving human life, and our descendents might be happier, more intelligent and more compassionate for it. Being indifferent about race means that you are indifferent about all of the traits that differ by race, which means trait selection will be an unconscious process. If our development is unconscious we have no real say in how it turns out and we don't have as good of a chance of improving human life for our descendents.

Racial diversity is actually good and the variety of human experiences available on earth is a beautiful and God given thing. But forcing racial diversity at a local level removes the source of diversity, which is our freedom to go develop our own distinct ways of life.