Social norms should be flushed down the nearest toilet...

[Hagen]

Why are we following social norms anyway?

Should we simply accept externally enforced/recommended standards or behaviour? Or should we have the strength of will and consideration of others to regulate our own standards of behaviour, with no need for any such external influences? Does not the existence of external controls/recommendations say quite clearly that we humans are weak and can not control ourselves?

[caporegime]

yeah, but no. We credit our present state to such "weaknesses"; only the stubborn survive. We're merely on a transitional state toweards more rational "social norms".

[Hagen]

You are right. But what I am emphasizing here paisan is the fact that we need external control and restrictions (read:Police,law and social norms) to regulate our individual personal behaviours is a weakness.

People allowing emotions to guide their actions creates murder, rape, war, hysteria, religion, and many other crimes against humanity. These could be avoided, for the benefit of all, if people simply thought about their actions first, allowing rational thought to guide their actions. This requires control. It's really very simple: less trouble and greater progress if there is control--better yet: Self regulation.

[Ischaramoochie]

isa lang ang sagt dyan...

quoting freakster...

Kant's categorical imperative...

[Hagen]

isa lang ang sagt dyan...

quoting freakster...

Kant's categorical imperative...

But of course that's the easy way out. That's like asking the caporegime here to do the job on you with a garrot.

[freakster2k1]

how is the categorical imperative an easy way out?


the categorical imperative which demands universality and reversability is a discilpline that is not met by many people. it regulates action not by threathning them with external forces, but because the principle works from intenal to external. it seems to me that u either is not familiar with Kant's principle or has dismissed it by merely stating 'its an easy way out.'

booo! to all those that dismisses kant without any strong claim. KAnt is god. hahaha <-- for sure caporegime and ischaramoochie will read Kierkegaard and Hegel to make me shut up. haha

[chaychay]

HOoRay to those who defy it.

[Glock]

Originally posted by freakster2k1
how is the categorical imperative an easy way out?


the categorical imperative which demands universality and reversability is a discilpline that is not met by many people. it regulates action not by threathning them with external forces, but because the principle works from intenal to external. it seems to me that u either is not familiar with Kant's principle or has dismissed it by merely stating 'its an easy way out.'

booo! to all those that dismisses kant without any strong claim. KAnt is god. hahaha <-- for sure caporegime and ischaramoochie will read Kierkegaard and Hegel to make me shut up. haha

I lost the password to my consigliere so I, on his behalf would be stepping out of retirement temporarily and try to explain what he has been meaning to say.

I'm a little bit rusty so feel free to correct me whenever I'm wrong. Wasn't it kant the one who deviated from the conventional christian ideology that man cannot make proper moral choices without being tainted by their own selfish desires? That people became corrupt because they refuse to accept the Categorical imperative?

I can point out several problems with regards to his claims:

1.) Explaining moral regeneration (i.e. an evil man repenting) - if in fact it is true that man is corrupted by holding the Categorical Imperative to no regard, then what is the catalyst that ignites the flame of morality?

Sure, Kant tried to incorporate God into the argument as the prerequisite of human regeneration but I'd rather not dwell on that too much since as someone who's agnostic, I am convinced that I couldn't give an impartial opinion on that matter.

2.) Isn't it true that Kant insists that in order for man to be moral he has to be autonomous? But how much autonomy is man actually allowed to have if he is to adapt the Categorical imperative? Undecided? I'll answer on your behalf...NONE.

Adapting the Categorical imperative implies that we oblige ourselves in some sort of duty-- meaning that if we CAN do something we SHOULD do it for it is our duty-- it's like saying "you should go to mass every sunday! It's your duty!" If there are a priori duties that we are obliged to carry out, then we have to question whether we are truly autonomous or not. If I can't snap back a sharp "I'd rather go drive my car around in circles in the parking lot than Go to mass and endure an hour of Bullisht" then I'm not really free then am I?

Okay so I have dismissed the categorical argument with regards to this topic but I just want you to realize that I am unworthy of your disapproving "booo!" I just want to point out that Kant was a little too inefficient in establishing an intimate relationship between morality and the categorical argument. At least in my taste.

[guwapig]

Methinks the issue of social norms is basically a clash, a tug-of-war, between personal freedom/rights/determination/sensibilites on one hand, and social well-being and lessened interpersonal ambiguities on the other.

On the one hand, we really owe most of our own development to social norms, inasmuch as it has provided us a framework, a set of blocks, for us to grow and be able to maximize our potentials. The notion that we should have an education from kinder to college is a social norm, not an a priori thing, and undeniably we've benefitted from how it has helped us maximize our intellect and provided us with our careers, as well as the good and bad memories, friends, and emotions it has brought us. Another example: going to church, while it may seem pointless to the atheists in many families, has undoubtedly beneficial effects such as the fostering of a sense of community, a strengthening of cultural roots, etc.

On the other hand, as we develop our own principles, opinions, notions and sensibilities owing to the diverse experiences and circumstances we all have had, we will inevitably run in conflict with certain social norms. For example, the dress code in universities pisses off people who staunchly believe in the right to free expression, while it is perceived as very appropriate by the priests/nuns/officials who run the school as well as the moderates and the practicing Christians who believe in the body as sacred. Another example: the red stop light in 3 a.m. Those who believe that the law should be followed no matter what will patiently wait for the light to turn green despite no cars within a mile, while the practical ones just zoom across.

I don't know - most social norms are brought about by the concensus of most, depending on the milleu they're in, while others are brought about by those in power to make it widespread. We can't really do away with social norms, but we can discern which to follow and which not to, and in which situations to do either. It all boils down to that I guess.

[caporegime]

whoa... I was too drunk last night I didn't know I was talkin' to the Consigliere; a "family member".

[caporegime]

Originally posted by Hagen
You are right. But what I am emphasizing here paisan is the fact that we need external control and restrictions (read:Police,law and social norms) to regulate our individual personal behaviours is a weakness.

People allowing emotions to guide their actions creates murder, rape, war, hysteria, religion, and many other crimes against humanity. These could be avoided, for the benefit of all, if people simply thought about their actions first, allowing rational thought to guide their actions. This requires control. It's really very simple: less trouble and greater progress if there is control--better yet: Self regulation.

Yes it is a weakness at this age, and I've been asking the same question: Why can't people think about the consequences of their actions first that they end up doing the "unthinkable"?

Imo, those people are so immersed within themselves that whatever action they may think of doing, it is the logical one (at the "self level") as far as they are concerned.

As implied before, this selfish strategy if we may call it one is most logical when the species (prior to being social beings) was first starting out (competing against other species).

Only when the decision arrived from the "self level" process is matched and compared against that of a global or "group level" thinking (wherein social protocols take effect), that we can be almost sure of a positive (most logical) decision.

I'd guess a lot of people are just not capable of thinking beyond the basic level nor beyond the NOW or they are just being betrayed by their own nature.

It's been discussed just this afternoon in Discovery that man's tendency for crime and violence is most likely genetic, add the probable fact that they're under the jurisdiction of hormonal control of which we have only little conscious influence over.

It's seems almost hopeless that I believe technology is the only solution.

Even religious organizations are exploiting a person's self-centeredness so that peace and cooperation on a group level can be attained. I mean, when was the time you heard them employ a "recruitment catch phrase" that goes along the lines of:

"Join our faith and have the opportunity to pray and ask for your buddies salvation, and he, in turn for yours. Sorry if you have no buddy because the Almighty can't allow for vanity in here; it's a sin to ask to have your own butt saved. You'll go straight to Hell for that."

[freakster2k1]

Reply on point #2 which seems to be the heart of the post.

1. first of all we need to agree what is the categorical imperative. It seems u define it as analogous to a binding contract in which it is stated what can and what one cannot do. It is not that. The categorical imperative can be sum up in a few words: an action is only moral if it is universal and reversible. Thus, to act freely is still ok. Kant never said that we ought to act moral, he only defined what morality is. What is wrong with that?
2. Regarding autonomy, he is arguing that a person need to be independent thinking being in order to be an autonomous. Thus he is a moral agent, and not a moral action. ‘Autonomy’ makes a person a moral agent; however his action if it is universal and reversible then the act is a moral act; if it is not so, that person is acting immoral. I don’t know how you got ‘autonomy’ confused with morality. Kant was using ‘autonomy’ to describe moral agents.
3. The analogous seems to lack one essential that is it lacks the two ‘parts’ of the categorical imperative. The proposition, "you should go to mass every sunday!, lacks these categories. Thus it is not a moral claim, but rather a religious claim. And Kant places religion in the realm of the unknown.
4. We don’t have a priori duties. Give me an example of a priori duties? Given the clarification I made, what can be a priori duties?
5. I wont even explain what duty is for Kant, because it is not part of the discussion, but it has something to do with the origin of rights. (promises)
6. then u ended up with the proposition, ‘I'd rather go drive my car around in circles in the parking lot than Go to mass and endure an hour of Bullisht’ ß what is so immoral about this statement? Kant will say, this claim is an Amoral claim and not a moral claim.

Conclusion:
1. u misunderstood Kant completely. What was done in ur post was take essentially Kantian words and re arrange them to fit a theory.

[Hyperion]

But what I am emphasizing here paisan is the fact that we need external control and restrictions (read:Police,law and social norms) to regulate our individual personal behaviours is a weakness.

Indeed, police, laws, governments, religions, traditions, superstitions etc are all there to control IRRATIONAL beings like us.

When mankind has become truly rational beings, then there will be no need for these walls that limit our potential.

I'd guess a lot of people are just not capable of thinking beyond the basic level nor beyond the NOW or they are just being betrayed by their own nature.

Very true.

It's been discussed just this afternoon in Discovery that man's tendency for crime and violence is most likely genetic, add the probable fact that they're under the jurisdiction of hormonal control of which we have only little conscious influence over.

Life is cruel - animals steal, animals cheat, animals kill, animals take advantage of fellow animals. After all is said and done - as much as we would like to believe that we are above the animals - we are in fact exactly like very slightly more refined versions of the lesser lifeforms in this planet. We have more novel ways of stealing, more ways to kill, more subtle ways of having our way, but it is really all the same.

[caporegime]

Originally posted by Hyperion
Life is cruel - animals steal, animals cheat, animals kill, animals take advantage of fellow animals. After all is said and done - as much as we would like to believe that we are above the animals - we are in fact exactly like very slightly more refined versions of the lesser lifeforms in this planet. We have more novel ways of stealing, more ways to kill, more subtle ways of having our way, but it is really all the same.

"Social Norms" are man's first attempts of establishing social protocols. However, I believe we can blame some of these norms albeit indirectly in the manner it suppresses human nature, like a dam that holds the flow resulting to "pressure" build-up. No wonder violent video games are very popular. (I was going to mention the popularity of strip clubs and the like but I thought I've said enough of this sort already )

[twigz]

"(social) norms are a symptom of man's herd-instinct"

-FN

[Hyperion]

"(social) norms are a symptom of man's herd-instinct"

Yes, because most men actually prefer to conform than to think.

[ZiDaRe]

i hate non-conformists!

[Ischaramoochie]

so you live by the philosophy of hate eh?

[Glock]

Guess what, there are more people in the world who hate your type.

ZiDaRe, I wish you a good night's sleep tonight-- with the fishes.