Deviancy in subjective morality

[bluethread]

It has been proposed that morality is subjective and is established over time as certain behaviors are deemed to be counter productive by consensus. If that is indeed the case, then don't deviants provide an important public service by helping to define the limits of acceptable behavior and affecting social change. Given that progressives seem to believe that current morality is always superior to previous morality, aren't today's deviants to be respected as brave pioneers for engaging in antisocial behaviors that may very well become the norm tomorrow?

[Divine Insight]

Now you have narrowed it down to rational humanism. What of the rationalist hedonist or the rationalist narcissist. Are these deviants and of so does rational humanism justify or vilify them?

It would seem to me that since we are talking about humanity rational humanism would be the only thing of import for humanity as a whole.

But you do have a point. Humanity itself could potentially evolve in many different directions and therefore there is no guarantee that humanity as a whole would even have the wisdom to do the ultimate beneficial things.

But what's the alternative solution?

Where else would humanity turn for moral values?

Surely not to the ancient Hebrews who claimed to speak on behalf of a jealous God? Most people already realize that the moralities taught in those tales do not represent wisdom or anything that is necessarily beneficial for humanity.

So if humanity doesn't figure out their own moral values, then who's going to figure it out for them?

What do suggest we do? Just toss our hands in the air and give up trying simply because anything we do would necessarily be subjective on our behalf?

[bluethread]

Now you have narrowed it down to rational humanism. What of the rationalist hedonist or the rationalist narcissist. Are these deviants and of so does rational humanism justify or vilify them?

It would seem to me that since we are talking about humanity rational humanism would be the only thing of import for humanity as a whole.

But you do have a point. Humanity itself could potentially evolve in many different directions and therefore there is no guarantee that humanity as a whole would even have the wisdom to do the ultimate beneficial things.

But what's the alternative solution?

Where else would humanity turn for moral values?

Surely not to the ancient Hebrews who claimed to speak on behalf of a jealous God? Most people already realize that the moralities taught in those tales do not represent wisdom or anything that is necessarily beneficial for humanity.

So if humanity doesn't figure out their own moral values, then who's going to figure it out for them?

What do suggest we do? Just toss our hands in the air and give up trying simply because anything we do would necessarily be subjective on our behalf?

I am not proposing anything. I am just trying to understand the nature of subjective morality, whether it is actually practiced and how deviancy is handled.

[Divine Insight]

I am not proposing anything. I am just trying to understand the nature of subjective morality, whether it is actually practiced and how deviancy is handled.

I have no clue how it might be handled.

To begin with our current laws aren't even founded on "morality" in any case. Some of them may be seen as moral laws, but most of them have nothing to do with morality. They are just laws that help to keep society safe.

So we have no example of any legal systems that are based on morality either objective or subjective.

Obviously "deviancy" is handled via a system of consequences which are often (but not always) based on a mentality of punishing the deviant behavior. I personally don't even support that mentality. That mentality no doubt spills over from the mentality that Gods supposedly punish people for "disobedience".

I would say that the only thing we really have an example of to date is a system of laws that originally began as religious superstitions, along with social necessities, and grew to become the mess we have today.

And clearly we have a mess. We don't even seem to understand the whole purpose behind our social legal system. We're still thinking in-part with the mentality of morality and God's that punish people for disobedience, and in-part with a wiser understanding that some laws have nothing to do with morality and just need to be in place for everyone's safety.

I think too, we are also waking up to the fact that punishments as retribution for having broken a law serve no one any good. And I think we are ever-so-slowly moving toward recognizing that demanding restitution and/or positive rehabilitation are far wiser.

In fact, the more we focus on restitution the better. The reason being that when we focus on restitution that brings our attention to precisely what "damage" has been done that needs to be resolved. This very observation right here will help us to see why some things that are currently illegal aren't really causing anyone any harm in the first place.

We need to then question why those behaviors are against the law to begin with.

I think we definitely need to reconsider our entire social legal system.

Worrying about whether it's "subjective" or "objective" is probably a misplaced concern to begin with. And even thinking of it in terms of "morality" is probably misplaced as well.

Thinking that "deviants" need to be "punished" is also something we need to reconsider in depth.

Why are we thinking like that to begin with?

I claim that we are thinking that way to begin with because we got this idea from ancient religions that claim that this is how some supreme deity handles things. But in truth, that mentality was never a wise mentality to begin with.

So we have a lot of rethinking to do. And we're never going to do it if we continue to have religious people trying to push the ancient mentality of their religions onto the legal system.

So let's forget about whether our legal system is objective or subjective, and just think about it openly. Asking instead, what is the wisest course of action we can take. Then we have no choice but to discuss this and arrive at a subjective consensus because that's all we have available to us.

We simply have no other options on the table. Unless we want to revert back to running our lives based on ancient fables of jealous Gods who punish people for every little thing.

[bluethread]

I am not proposing anything. I am just trying to understand the nature of subjective morality, whether it is actually practiced and how deviancy is handled.

I have no clue how it might be handled.

Thank you for your answer.

Does anyone else have a clue in this regard?

[Bust Nak]

Does anyone else have a clue in this regard?

You need to be more specific. You might as well have asked us how should we handle paintings, should they be binned as rubbish or placed in museums? It depends.

As general as your question is, the answer is that deviancy should be handled according to it's merit.

One more thing:

I am not proposing anything. I am just trying to understand the nature of subjective morality, whether it is actually practiced and how deviancy is handled.

Subjective morality is not something one practices, it's not an ideology or a way of life. It's not practiced anymore than one is practicing gravity by staying on the ground.

[Divine Insight]

I am not proposing anything. I am just trying to understand the nature of subjective morality, whether it is actually practiced and how deviancy is handled.

I have no clue how it might be handled.

Thank you for your answer.

Does anyone else have a clue in this regard?

I think you misunderstood my answer.

It not that I have no suggestions to offer of how humanity can be improved. On the contrary I have plenty of suggestions.

When I said I have no clue how it might be handled, what I meant was that I have no clue how humanity might end up handling it. They most certainly aren't going to be putting me in charge. So my solutions won't even be considered.

Besides most people wouldn't like my solutions to the problems of humanity. Our moral values and legal systems are the least of our current problems.

Our major problem is that we are over-populating the world. And no one is willing to discuss any plans on reducing that over time. On the contrary the population will continue to explode until its so far out of control that large masses of people will end up dying from starvation and horrible conditions when our economy-based societies collapse. And they will indeed collapse because they are based entirely on a mentality and dependency of growth, and growth can't continue indefinitely.

In fact, that's a huge problem that needs to be addressed right there. Not morality but the mentality of economies that are entirely designed to function only when there is growth. That has to change. And it's not even necessarily in spite of what most economists have been taught to believe.

The other very related problem is that of pollution, partly associated with global warming and climate change, but also associated with the destruction of natural habitats and a large number of animal species. But this pollution problem is itself related to the overpopulation problem. Less people automatically means less pollution and use energy use.

So here you are worried about how humanity is going to deal with "morality" when that isn't even a major problem right now. That's actually the least of our problems.

Moreover, we already have tons of laws in place. Almost everything you can point to that is actually causing trouble in today's world has to do with people breaking laws that already exists anyway. So making laws doesn't solve much anyway.

You can't force people to behave just by making laws.

In fact, that's another issue right there. What humanity really needs is better ways of raising educated productive children so we don't end up with so many criminally minded people to have to deal with.

Focusing on laws and ways of dealing with deviants it kind of trying to put the horse back in the barn after the door was already left wide open.

Focus on training the horse instead of trying to lasso it after it's gotten loose is what we need to do.

Instead of focusing on how to handle criminals, let's focus on raising wiser children.

These are my solutions, but humanity in general will have none of it.

If I could be like the mythical Jesus and just descend to earth on a cloud where everyone must do as I say lest they be cast into a hellfire furnace, then I too could solve all the world's problems.

But I'm not a mythical dictator. All I can do is make suggestions. And I do that all the time.

But people aren't interested in the real problems. Instead they are obsessed with arguing over concepts like "morality" which doesn't' help anything.

[bluethread]

Subjective morality is not something one practices, it's not an ideology or a way of life. It's not practiced anymore than one is practicing gravity by staying on the ground.

Thank you for directly addressing the question. Ok, subjective morality is an ideology or way of life. If it is a way of life how is it not practiced? It is my understanding that the phrase "way of life" refers to the manner in which one lives. If that is not correct, please explain what you mean when you use the term "way of life". If it is correct, then how does that manner of living differ from other manners of living?

Subjective morality is not something one practices, it's not an ideology or a way of life. It's not practiced anymore than one is practicing gravity by staying on the ground.

Thank you for directly addressing the question. Ok, subjective morality is an ideology or way of life. If it is a way of life how is it not practiced? It is my understanding that the phrase "way of life" refers to the manner in which one lives. If that is not correct, please explain what you mean when you use the term "way of life". If it is correct, then how does that manner of living differ from other manners of living?

[Bust Nak]

Subjective morality is not something one practices, it's not an ideology or a way of life. It's not practiced anymore than one is practicing gravity by staying on the ground.

Thank you for directly addressing the question. Ok, subjective morality is an ideology or way of life. If it is a way of life how is it not practiced? It is my understanding that the phrase "way of life" refers to the manner in which one lives. If that is not correct, please explain what you mean when you use the term "way of life". If it is correct, then how does that manner of living differ from other manners of living?

I think you missed a 'not' from my post. It is not practiced because it is not a way of life.

[bluethread]

Subjective morality is not something one practices, it's not an ideology or a way of life. It's not practiced anymore than one is practicing gravity by staying on the ground.

Thank you for directly addressing the question. Ok, subjective morality is an ideology or way of life. If it is a way of life how is it not practiced? It is my understanding that the phrase "way of life" refers to the manner in which one lives. If that is not correct, please explain what you mean when you use the term "way of life". If it is correct, then how does that manner of living differ from other manners of living?

I think you missed a 'not' from my post. It is not practiced because it is not a way of life.

So, those with a subjective morality have no choice in the matter? They just live according to a moral code that just, is or they just live and pay not attention to any moral code?

[Bust Nak]

So, those with a subjective morality have no choice in the matter?

You need to be more specific with what matter you mean. Again, I point to the analogy with gravity. I have no choice in being affected by gravity, but that is not to say I have no choice in what I do under the effect of gravity.

In the same way I did not choose to feel repulsed by murder, but I am choosing to refrain from murder, I am choosing to punish murderers.

They just live according to a moral code that just, is or they just live and pay not attention to any moral code?

Have you every done things that you considered wrong? Does that mean you don't live according to a moral code? I am much more comfortable in saying we try to live according to our own moral code.

As for the meat of your question, I would say neither, we do try and live according to a moral code, but it isn't one that "just is" but one that is the result of instinct, upbrining and other social conditioning.