Society creates Deviance

[Creon]

We're not discussing science...we're discussing ethics/political philosophy. The question was:



Your reply was:



This suggests a "cultural relativity" position of ethics. I responded with objections appropriate to the responses.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. My answer was the scientific explanation to the question: which social factors decide whether or not a specific norm is considered reasonable to a society?. And the ones I mentioned are the most important ones, although there are others of course. Then I went on to explain that when we're studying social science we care about what that specific society believes, not what we believe, in response to your comment about the fact that you thought that was "not ok". This is social science, I dont understand how you consider it to have anything to do with ethics.

Edit: Wait I think I got it now.

[SIZE=Default]So if a society believes it, then it's ok for that society?[/size]

Your entire post was to justify that senctence? Then we are obsiously talking on different levels.

 

[Duty]

Duty,

Since you are arguing for "objective" norms, I would love to hear your responses to the sexual norms I posted. What means would you utilize to determine "objective" norms in those cases?

The basic idea is to allow people liberty maximized while protecting the liberties/rights of other parties. It shows a maximal amount of respect for the rights of agents such as adult peoples, children, and animals. Those rights include liberty...and the protection of their liberty from encroaching harms.

Rational agents (non-children, in good mental health, etc) have freedom to choose their sexual adventures however they please, except they can not violate the rights of other agents (whether rational or not)...so rape is still bad as rational agents have the choice of their sexual adventures, and forcing another rational agent into it is wrong on your part.

Non-Rational agents are trickier, and go more by what kind of agent we are talking about...and often case by case. An agent that is unknown to be rational or not (such a child...they can be rational or not, it's hard to tell), then they should have the freedom on the level of rational agents as long as they are exercising those rights with other agents of the same type (agents that are unknown to be rational or not...other children but not animals who are certainly non-rational nor with adults who are certainly rational).

Non-rational agents only have the right to sex with other non-rational agents. Rational agents never have the right to sex with non-rational agents.


This set of rules protects the rights of rational agents to maximize their liberty without encroaching on the rights of rational, non-rational and potentially rational/non-rational agents.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. My answer was the scientific explanation to the question: which social factors decide whether or not a specific norm is considered reasonable to a society?. And the ones I mentioned are the most important ones, although there are others of course. Then I went on to explain that when we're studying social science we care about what that specific society believes, not what we believe, in response to your comment about the fact that you thought that was "not ok". This is social science, I dont understand how you consider it to have anything to do with ethics.

I read Satya's question to be one of ethics/philosophy and not scientific curiousity. Perhaps we should ask him if he was asking us for an ethical account of when norms are legitimate or if he was asking for a sociological point of view.

 

[Creon]

I read Satya's question to be one of ethics/philosophy and not scientific curiousity. Perhaps we should ask him if he was asking us for an ethical account of when norms are legitimate or if he was asking for a sociological point of view.

Then I misinterpreted his question. Forgive me.

 

[Satya]

Non-rational agents only have the right to sex with other non-rational agents. Rational agents never have the right to sex with non-rational agents.

Okay, how do you determine a "Rational" agent from a "Non-Rational" agent? Who gets to decide?

Also, you are arguing from the value of "liberty". What makes this the most reasonable and legitimate value? What about values like tradition and equality? (I swear to god if you quote Ayn Rand I will )

I read Satya's question to be one of ethics/philosophy and not scientific curiousity. Perhaps we should ask him if he was asking us for an ethical account of when norms are legitimate or if he was asking for a sociological point of view.

I actually asked some pretty specific questions that everyone seemed to ignore...

This is briefly the view of sociology on deviance. Do you disagree? Do you believe that deviance is somehow innate? Do you believe there is a deviant "personality" (evil)? Does holding to this sociological view mean seeing values as relative to time and culture?

So a little of both.

 

[Duty]

Okay, how do you determine a "Rational" agent from a "Non-Rational" agent? Who gets to decide?

Also, you are arguing from the value of "liberty". What makes this the most reasonable and legitimate value? What about values like tradition and equality? (I swear to god if you quote Ayn Rand I will )

Because liberty allows the other values within a subculture. If we allow the subcultures liberty, and then individuals liberty to move between them, then individuals can choose their own values: tradition, equality, whatever.

I actually asked some pretty specific questions that everyone seemed to ignore...



So a little of both.

Specifically the question about how to determine legitimate norms.

 

[Creon]

Okay, how do you determine a "Rational" agent from a "Non-Rational" agent? Who gets to decide?

Also, you are arguing from the value of "liberty". What makes this the most reasonable and legitimate value? What about values like tradition and equality? (I swear to god if you quote Ayn Rand I will )



I actually asked some pretty specific questions that everyone seemed to ignore...




So a little of both.

Well, anyway, my beliefs on this matter are heavily influenced by sociology and I consider it to be the only way to approach such matters. I can't speak philoshophicaly or ethicaly on something like that. Let's just say that what satya said is more or less the technique I use when I have to study societies. I never cared whether objective values exist or not, because I had to study different societies that had little or nothing to do with each other. I don't think I can contribute in some other way to this conversation.

 

[Satya]

Because liberty allows the other values within a subculture. If we allow the subcultures liberty, and then individuals liberty to move between them, then individuals can choose their own values: tradition, equality, whatever.

Good argument for liberty. You dodged my rational agent question though.

Specifically the question about how to determine legitimate norms.

That was in reply to FA.

 

[Duty]

Okay, how do you determine a "Rational" agent from a "Non-Rational" agent? Who gets to decide?

A rational agent is one capable of comprehending ethics, morality, or the law.

Sorry, forgot to answer it.

 

[Satya]

Well, anyway, my beliefs on this matter are heavily influenced by sociology and I consider it to be the only way to approach such matters. I can't speak philoshophicaly or ethicaly on something like that. Let's just say that what satya said is more or less the technique I use when I have to study societies. I never cared whether objective values exist or not, because I had to study different societies that had little or nothing to do with each other. I don't think I can contribute in some other way to this conversation.

You contributed nicely, thank you.

 

[TenorKite]

A rational agent is one capable of comprehending ethics, morality, or the law.

There are only rational agents within the context of a culture though.

 

[Satya]

A rational agent is one capable of comprehending ethics, morality, or the law.

Most adults I have met aren't capable of comprehending ethics, morality, or the law. They go by what they have been told to believe either by their religious authorities, the "experts", or the media.

 

[Duty]

There are only rational agents within the context of a culture though.

I don't get what you mean. Please clarify.

Most adults I have met aren't capable of comprehending ethics, morality, or the law. They go by what they have been told to believe either by their religious authorities, the "experts", or the media.

I said capable, and not that they do. Adults are capable of comprehending "don't kill" as a law, and most are capable of comprehending "don't kill, because if everyone did that then we'd all die."

The general rule is the mentally handicapped (handicapped including such conditions as insanity) and children are unknown. Most adults are rational within this framework.

 

[Satya]

I said capable, and not that they do. Adults are capable of comprehending "don't kill" as a law, and most are capable of comprehending "don't kill, because if everyone did that then we'd all die."

You seem to have a rather optimistic perception of people. I would say at most, 20% of the American population is capable of truly "comprehending ethics, morality, or the law."

If someone argues "don't kill because if everyone did that then we'd all die" couldn't they argue "don't be homosexual, because if everyone did that then nobody would reproduce and humanity would come to an end" or if you want a less loaded question, "don't be a Catholic priest because if everyone did that then nobody would reproduce and humanity would come to an end."

 

[TenorKite]

I don't get what you mean. Please clarify.

Rationality in a strictly objective sense is something that is very peculiar to our culture. Enforcing it on other cultures would be a limitation on their freedom. Rationality was one of the excuses used in justifying the extermination of the Native American Indians. "We're rational, they're not." The main driving force, though, was the "property" we needed.

 

[slant]

If you lived in a cave without human contact or books for all of your life you would have absolutely no knowledge of what is right and wrong. You would kill. You might have intercourse with animals. You would do whatever you had to do to survive.

There is no 'evil' personality. If someone kills another human being, should they be punished? I live in the United States of America, so there would be a punishment. I believe 'right' and 'wrong' are a way to control society and the population. Without them there would be no amount of order. I'm not saying that the 'order' we currently have is the absolute only definition of order. In other countries, 'order' may be the dictator that kills anyone who disagrees with him. I can't think of any society in which there isn't some sort of guideline for actions or set of rules, because without them it wouldn't be a society.

I don't disagree with any of the statements, in fact, I would support them. What I think is hardest for people to digest about this is that growing up with morals or values makes it very difficult to live without them. As human beings we have to define some sort of 'right' from 'wrong', just like we define our sexuality, our food preferences and other personal decisions.

The only 'evil' personality I know of is the kind that has adapted a strict code of morals and values that leave no room to adapt. That type of person is hard to interact with because if you disagree with them, even if you have a rational point, they are always the correct ones. I believe that it is dangerous to believe in anything too strongly, whether it be your spiritual/religious faith or even the reassurance of Science. We don't know what we think we know, and it is foolish to be closed-minded about what you think is 'wrong' and 'right'.

 

[poetrygirl]

I do believe there is true evil. But I do agree that not all things that we regard as the "norm" are nessarily even good, (picture the norms of social/racial hate throughout the centuries regared as the norm and fair/good) and not all things regared as "devient" in our society is bad. But I do believe that there is good and evil; but there are somethings in the grey area that are better left to the individual concious and faith. People often overlook that faith and morals are what help maintain societies social cohesion within a society. Although this can reasult in a more restricted society. I believe as "slant" said that a person who grew up alone would not have these things placed upon them would have no sense of them and would behave to survive therefore it is more natural. However-

Are we animals? Humans do not do well acting on complete instinct we have the ability to logicaly do an action with the expectation on how it will effect others. Compassion, morality, faith, logic, this is what seperates man from the beast. Without it- What are we? We are nothing but beast. The fact is is that every society on earth has their own form of social "ok's" and "taboos". Some of them are right some of them are wrong (at least to the standerds of the individual consious or in compartivily to the outside (society) looking into anouther societies norms). But each our essentail for a stable society to operate. Sometimes the revolution becomes the norm, then there is anouther reveolution against that. The principle is that we are always fighting; fighting for justice and a society that suites our concious and our veiws of right and wrong.

I believe that it's ok to maintain absolute faith in whatever you believe in perhaps not in an arrogent refusing to listen; as long as your not causeing harm or infringing on anouther human being ,you should have the right to believe in what you want. I believe; When the prophet came to a pagan city they suggested to maintain the peace that they would worship his God one year and the next he and everyone with him would have to worship their
god(s) the next. The prophet said: "To you your din and to me mine" (din means faith/religion/way of life). I believe we should be able to live side by side living by our own faith and conicous in peace as long as we don't attempt to to infringe on the rights of our neighbors to their way of life. That's when things get sticky; like in the cival rights movement when activist black and white road a bus together and everyone not involved in it had a problem with it. Blah anyways I'm getting really too preachy. Anyways I know not everyone believes the way I do ,but at the same time I should have the right to believe as strongly as I in whatever I do and preach my message as long as it's not infringing on others and I think that's fair enough.

 

[Duty]

Rationality in a strictly objective sense is something that is very peculiar to our culture. Enforcing it on other cultures would be a limitation on their freedom. Rationality was one of the excuses used in justifying the extermination of the Native American Indians. "We're rational, they're not." The main driving force, though, was the "property" we needed.

Rationality how I defined it was pretty cross-cultural though. Plus, the reason for defining it here was to distinguish and protect a set of rights of the rational from those not possessing rationality...not to take property.

 

[Duty]

The only 'evil' personality I know of is the kind that has adapted a strict code of morals and values that leave no room to adapt. That type of person is hard to interact with because if you disagree with them, even if you have a rational point, they are always the correct ones. I believe that it is dangerous to believe in anything too strongly, whether it be your spiritual/religious faith or even the reassurance of Science. We don't know what we think we know, and it is foolish to be closed-minded about what you think is 'wrong' and 'right'.

Seems you're being close minded to close mindedness.

Would that be immoral by your standard?

 

[slant]

Seems you're being close minded to close mindedness.

Would that be immoral by your standard?

That's why I try not to think too much into it.
There is nothing that is immoral.
It's more of a...pet peeve.

 

[the]

Society establishes the norms.

The norms divide people into two groups, the conformers and the deviants.

Society then enforcers the norms by using religious, legal, or medical entities to label deviants as immoral, criminal, or sick.

As such, deviants serve an essential function to society because they play a social role as the "warning examples" and thereby promote social cohesion and stability among the rest of the population because their very existence is seen as proof of the need for the dominant values in society.

If enough deviants of a particular norm exist, then a subculture forms to fight the labels.

In order to do so, they usually must create their own label for themselves in order to establish their own identity separate of the labels that portray them as immoral, criminal, and sick.

Society is eventually forced to confront the subculture and defend the norms it established. Social conflict ensues.

Eventually the subculture will be destroyed by society or society will change the established norms.


This is briefly the view of sociology on deviance. Do you disagree? Do you believe that deviance is somehow innate? Do you believe there is a deviant "personality" (evil)? Does holding to this sociological view mean seeing values as relative to time and culture?

Some things are wrong even if society eventually accepts them.