Star Of The Sea
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 61
Polls never have the option I would choose!
[x] Option seven: There are no 'norms' and any attempt to impose them artificially is wrong.
Social 'norms' - ie conformity- can lead to great immorality. People should have a personal code of conduct independent of the consensus of the society around them- failure to cultivate such a code leads to evils such as complicity in fascism at one end, all the way to apathy and consumerism at the other. As Pirsig wrote, it is better for an idea to destroy a society than it is for a society to destroy an idea.
However, where should this personal morality, as opposed to 'norms', come from? That's the real question.
regards,
Luke
[x] Option seven: There are no 'norms' and any attempt to impose them artificially is wrong.
Social 'norms' - ie conformity- can lead to great immorality. People should have a personal code of conduct independent of the consensus of the society around them- failure to cultivate such a code leads to evils such as complicity in fascism at one end, all the way to apathy and consumerism at the other. As Pirsig wrote, it is better for an idea to destroy a society than it is for a society to destroy an idea.
However, where should this personal morality, as opposed to 'norms', come from? That's the real question.
regards,
Luke
CWL
Funkateer
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,401
Agreed. It is often the options that are lacking that are the basis for the most interesting parts of the debate.Star Of The Sea said:
Interesting.
It seems that you are close to the "morality" option. However isn't "morality" just a form of "personal norm"? What is "morality" anyway? I note that you more or less ask this question yourself.
Further, as a lawyer I find it very hard to understand how society could function if there are no formally imposed norms in the form of legislation, etc. Society is rather complex. How would e.g. even the simplest of business transactions or a municipal election function if there were no formal "imposed norms"? My guess is anarchy. Look at the looting in Bagdad for example.
I believe that such formal norms are unavoidable and that the main question that remains is what they should be based upon.
As to society destroying ideas, freedom of speech and expression is IMO one of the basic principles on which a society based on the rule of law must rest - i.e. you are in reality talking about a principle (ultimately based on reason and practical grounds) which must be carefully considered when formal norms are constructed.
Star Of The Sea
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 61
Thanks for the new option, I voted..
I would say 'personal norm' is an oxymoron. As to "what" morality is, this is the big question.... Ken Wilber talks of the 'three cultures' of science, morality and art. I guess you could use a similar definition as to that of pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it(!)
Well, anarchy doesn't have to be such a bad thing. When people see the word 'anarchy', it often seems to mean chaos, disorder and violence, as we are now seeing in Bagdad. However, the word actually comes from greek, 'an archos', meaning without leader, and anarchism as a political philosophy is a laudible ideal. However as you say "society is rather complex" (I love Scandinavian understatement!) and anarchism has only ever really worked in modern times on a small scale, for example in the anarchist territories and cities in the Spanish Civil War.
Personally, I think you may be right, and society at large, as we know it today, may need certain codes to function. However, this certainly does not mean that they do, or should, apply to everyone in that society. Rather than 'norms', I would favour a 'salad bowl' approach, whereby a society is mature enough to allow total freedom as the default position, up to the point where that freedom infringes on others. This is important to prevent a 'tyranny of the majority'.
When it comes to the rule of law, I have sympathy with the ideas of John Rawls, for example. However, I consider this different from 'norms' which to me includes etiquette, fashion, trends, and transient patterns of behaviour which do not need to be respected or paid attention to in the same way laws generally do. The taboo of committing murder, for example, is usually the same in all societies in a way that, for example, the British 'norm' of table manners is not, to give a mild example. Therefore I think a healthy disregard for 'norms' is warranted and ethical behaviour should not be based on consensus or what a society at large dictates. We can all think of examples where a whole society was corrupt and immoral and to conform to the 'norms' of that society would be wrong, like Nazi Germany. That is why I think a personal ethical code is more important than deferring to external agency.
regards,
Luke
CWL said:
I would say 'personal norm' is an oxymoron. As to "what" morality is, this is the big question.... Ken Wilber talks of the 'three cultures' of science, morality and art. I guess you could use a similar definition as to that of pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it(!)
CWL said:
Well, anarchy doesn't have to be such a bad thing. When people see the word 'anarchy', it often seems to mean chaos, disorder and violence, as we are now seeing in Bagdad. However, the word actually comes from greek, 'an archos', meaning without leader, and anarchism as a political philosophy is a laudible ideal. However as you say "society is rather complex" (I love Scandinavian understatement!) and anarchism has only ever really worked in modern times on a small scale, for example in the anarchist territories and cities in the Spanish Civil War.
Personally, I think you may be right, and society at large, as we know it today, may need certain codes to function. However, this certainly does not mean that they do, or should, apply to everyone in that society. Rather than 'norms', I would favour a 'salad bowl' approach, whereby a society is mature enough to allow total freedom as the default position, up to the point where that freedom infringes on others. This is important to prevent a 'tyranny of the majority'.
CWL said:
When it comes to the rule of law, I have sympathy with the ideas of John Rawls, for example. However, I consider this different from 'norms' which to me includes etiquette, fashion, trends, and transient patterns of behaviour which do not need to be respected or paid attention to in the same way laws generally do. The taboo of committing murder, for example, is usually the same in all societies in a way that, for example, the British 'norm' of table manners is not, to give a mild example. Therefore I think a healthy disregard for 'norms' is warranted and ethical behaviour should not be based on consensus or what a society at large dictates. We can all think of examples where a whole society was corrupt and immoral and to conform to the 'norms' of that society would be wrong, like Nazi Germany. That is why I think a personal ethical code is more important than deferring to external agency.
regards,
Luke
My two pen'orth is that the question is problematic if it assumes we can simply pick and choose which norms can exist, because norms are a product of society, not of the individual. The individual can be positioned in relation to norms (for or against), and even have some influence on norms (either in their preservation or erosion), but norms are like language, a collective phenomena, not an individual one.
I might have misunderstood the question...
I might have misunderstood the question...
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Ask and ye shall receivewhitefork said:
edited because I just can't make up my mind with one I like the best.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Okay, I think I got it now. Two new thumbs up, one in my new avatar and one in the post. I'm going with the alternative one thumb up as an avatar because that pose is nothing BUT funky (and, perhaps, a little scary).CWL said:
Allright (referring to your new avatar)! Twice the funk!
For those traditionalists, here's Upchurch Classic:
