Who's Standard?
I’m about to go a little bit feminist on y’all. Please bear with me. I was discussing the frustrating and inefficient nature of corporate
I suppose the best way to go about understanding and addressing the problem is to start with the "enemy". In this case, I would say that the enemy is actually social pressure, societal norms, the media.
Let’s look at the common response people have to their perceived failures. Often people feel guilty for not living up to these norms. Others may even feel like failures because of the implied social judgment that results from this inability (or refusal) to conform. My usual response to these perceived failures is that, "One should never use someone else's criteria to judge one's own success." This means that the world imposes a lot of ideas on us. These ideas, as they gain popularity, begin to be interpreted as fact, as truth. The only real fact though, is that these social norms and pressures are just an opinion. They're public opinion. What is an opinion? A subjective assessment of reality. Not fact, rather preference. You wouldn't tell someone that they're wrong to prefer chocolate ice cream would you? We're beginning to understand that certain social norms are just flat out wrong (the vilification of homosexuality being a glaring example of a past norm that has been identified as wrong, if there is such a thing as right/wrong, but that’s another issue for another day). So when will we realize that these norms are only that? They're not facts. They're not laws. They're just someone's idea of what's right.
I'd like to attempt a reference to Kant’s categorical imperative. The idea is to come up with a universal maxim or law that can be extracted from any single action. Let's say I decide to not pay my taxes. If this is applied as a universal law, then no one will pay taxes, and the ultimate manifestations of those tax dollars will deteriorate (roads, public health, defense, etc.). We can then say that it would be wrong to not pay taxes, because if everyone chose to do this, then we would all consequently suffer.
So now, let's try to come up with a universal maxim for the pressure from social norms. Let's say that we all decided to determine our own measures of success. Then we would all pursue our own destinies in our own ways. No one would be hurt. Most likely, we'd all be much happier. Now, let's say we all decide to adopt the criteria of "society". Everyone would be striving to look and act in ways that are contrary to our biological natures. People would be unhappy and feel like failures. On an economic level, business would suffer because no one would be eating. The restaurant industry would fizzle....you get the idea. So basically, if we were all gorgeous, waify model types, then we'd all be addicted to pills and champagne and have no time for our own pursuits (and contributions). No new research would occur and the improvement of the overall state of the world would come to a stand-still. But hey, we'd all look great and plastic surgeons would be raking it in!
In addition, if we all looked to someone else to determine what the criteria for success are, then no one would have the answer. We'd all be waiting, eagerly, for someone else to say what they thought. But remember, everyone is waiting for someone else to take the first step. The result: complete paralysis. Obviously someone had to come up with their own idea of success. This person was probably from a group that was historically in power and wished to preserve that power. So we've just decided to accept and adopt the very norms that have put us in a subordinate role? This is a mistake.
9 Comments:
But one logical outcome of adopting the categorical imperative so far as homosexuality is concerned would be a breach of the what I imagine is the first imperative of life namely survival of the species.
Would it not?
The rule that we're following is not "everyone must be attracted to their own sex." It's, "Everyone should follow their own pre-disposed biological preferences."
This should cause no problems at all.
Yes I agree your rule version.
I dont want to concede it as a reasonable rule on which to operate though and so I will have to think about it.
I believe that this is the way knowledge is built up we have our particular prejudices and the mission is to try and justify them rationally.
We've talked about prejudices. I agree with the idea of understanding the rational process behind a prejudice in order to make sense of it and behave appropriately. I just don't like the idea of rationalizing a prejudice. Subtle difference, but very important.
I think that knowledge is about justifying our prejudices.
I think even the scientist who conducts an experiment expects it to turn out in a certain way, hopes he will find justification for his own theory , may even be blind to results which point in a different direction. I don’t see prejudice as necessarily bad.
In fact , at the risk of sounding like Gorden Gecko, prejudice is good, it’s a kind of subconscious model with which we negotiate the world. If we want to give our prejudices greater status or recommend them to some other party we can always seek to give them a backing of reason. The way I see is that first there is prejudice and then we find the reason and if the reason backs the prejudice we have knowledge.
Dear Kara,
I have just realised that I should not have agreed your rule version after all. I don’t think you can use that kind of proposition because it is not specific.You say youself about constructing a law with a single action. You would need to immediately start modifying 'Everyone should follow their own...' and then if you got it down as you intend to two sorts of action heterosexual and homosexual you would have to consider each sort in turn. You would have to insert each action separately into the formula and when you did this you would get my original objection being thrown up.
regards
Douglas
Jason - I think you've hit on the most interesting aspect of this issue. The popular opinion does change, dramatically, over time. This means that we're not only adhering to someone else's opinion (should we so choose). We are also constantly adjusting to the whims of another as they shift. Dare I say, this is impossible?
Douglas - I may have been unclear in the universal maxim discussion. What I was trying to get across (and remember, this is Kant's idea, not mine) is that we want to extract the implication and meaning from a single action. The action must be interpreted from its original context in order to make any real sense. In the case of gay vs straight, the rule I extract is not the action itself, but WHY the action is taking place...HOW the person has decided to take this particular action over another. The rule I extract here is that a person should follow his/her own biological instinct. This means that a homosexual person should be homosexual and a heterosexual person should be heterosexual.
But that doesnt work does it?
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." refers to an act not a range of acts. As you say we want to extract the implication and meaning from a single action.
I suspect the application of Kant to this particular problem is probably well covered elsewhere.
But there is only so much philosophy I can take at any one time! So I wont go looking for it just yet.
I see what you're saying. I also see what I'm saying though. I think it's the conflict between two "universal laws" that creates most ethical dilemmas and gray area. Which law to follow at which time?
Call me crazy, but I'd say if you're worrying about universal law, then you can probably trust your own judgement.
Post a Comment
<< Home