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]

It has been proposed that morality is subjective and is established over time as certain behaviors are deemed to be counter productive by consensus.

This is true as long as you keep in sight the fact that the morality that is being established is always subjective and opinionm and never "absolute". Just because something has been deemed to be counter productive by consensus doesn't mean that that consensus was well-thought-out or justified.

If you're thinking that some sort of absolute morality is being "established" than you've already missed the point of subjective morality.

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.

This is a very deep subject and would require much discussion to fully explore. However, very superficially we can say that if "deviants" didn't exist then there would never even be a need for a concept called "morality" in the first place.

So in that sense "deviants" are the reason that a concept of social morality is even required in the first place. I'm not sure I would call that a "social service" of the deviants though. Some deviations may be harmful and justifiably taboo, other deviations may be harmless and should have never been made taboo in the first place. (also some deviations may make more sense in different eras of history for various reasons)

However this subject of "deviants" is far more complex. For example if you have a society that mainly worships God A. But a small portion of the society worships God B. Then those who worship God B can be labeled as the "deviants".

However, if the populations were reversed and those worshiping God B outnumbered those who worship God A, then those who believe in the God A would become the "deviants".

So we really need to be careful concerning who we label as being the "deviants".

The idea that you can point to someone and call them a "deviant" like as if this has some absolute objective meaning is itself a mistake. It's the same kind of mistake that is made in thinking that objective morality can exist in the first place.

In many cases calling people "deviants" is nothing more than a subjective consensus of a mob mentality to begin with.

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?

In many cases they are considered to be brave pioneers. For example, take the Women's Rights moment. That was a rebellion against the norm of male-chauvinism. Therefore it qualifies as 'deviant" behavior from the norm. Yet, today, early pioneers of Women's Right are revered as historical heroins.

The same holds true for many who stood up for Civil Rights. And yes, even those who stand up for Human Rights and the right to love whomever they choose, will be called "deviants" today, only to become the heroes and heroins of tomorrow.

Calling them 'deviants' today is just a derogatory label used to dismiss them as being abnormal during their fight for Human Rights.

But later on in history they will indeed be seen as pioneering heroes and heroins of Human Rights.

~~~~

I think you might already be making the mistake of thinking that you can point to a particular person or group of people and label them as "deviants" simply because they don't agree with the current subjective moral views of the larger population.

I suspect there may be some subconscious belief that the "deviants" are clearly already wrong about something simply because they aren't in agreement with the majority.

But that's really no indication of right or wrong. The majority could ultimately be wrong (i.e. unjustified) in the moral values they have subjectively constructed over the years.

So just because a person is "deviating" from the current popular acceptable behavior doesn't automatically mean that they are wrong. They could actually be right (i.e. justified) in their rebellion of the norm.

Usually, over time history will support those who are justified in their rebellions against the norm. And those particular "deviants" become heroes and heroins of the future.

So all "deviants" are not immoral (i.e. unjustified in their behavior). To the contrary, they could be fighting for justice.

In fact, this shows why we need to understand that morality is indeed a subjective malleable thing. We need to be able to adjust our sense of morality as we become aware of injustices that are being done against people in the name of outdated and unjust taboos held up in the false name of "Objective Morality".

A concept of "Objective Morality" is carved in stone and knows no justice.

Note:

When we say "Objective Morality" we are really talking about "Absolute Morality" or morality that is carved in stone and cannot be changed. And that is not good.

We need to understand that we create our own ideas of morality and we need to reexamine them often to be sure that they are always "just" and not heartlessly carved in stone without further consideration for whether or not they are truly justified.

[Bust Nak]

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?

As with all things subjective, it depends on how closely said antisocial behavior match my perfered vision of the future.

I am not sure progressives believe that current morality is always superior to previous morality, it's just that current morality is superior to previous morality so far, it may well turn out that currect morality will be superior to future morality too; today's progressives might become tomorrow's conservatives.

[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?

As with all things subjective, it depends on how closely said antisocial behavior match my perfered vision of the future.

I am not sure progressives believe that current morality is always superior to previous morality, it's just that current morality is superior to previous morality so far, it may well turn out that currect morality will be superior to future morality too; today's progressives might become tomorrow's conservatives.

However, as long as they have their way, would they not always consider the current morality to be superior to the previous one? It might be better to look at this from the view of the populists than the progressive, because the progressives have a particular morality that we are supposed to be progressing toward.

The populists promote the idea that morality should be derived from the populous. This sounds good on paper, but it makes every minority a deviant. As the popular majority changes, so does deviancy. Now, what is interesting is how the populist view is seen as either the greater good or mob rule depending on whether one agrees with the popular morality or not. Thus, the deviants are just those who hold positions that are not currently popular and those deviants affect popular morality to change it to their preferred vision, as you say. Therefore, deviance, though generally used as a pejorative, is ultimately judged by the success of the deviant in affecting popular morality. Thus, one man's deviant is another's martyr. So, the deviants provide a service in setting the boundaries of current morality. Therefore, in societies where this is understood to be the case, what is to be done with the deviant? Is he to be left to the natural consequences of his actions, restrained for the greater good, or lauded as a national treasure?

[Divine Insight]

However, as long as they have their way, would they not always consider the current morality to be superior to the previous one?

In a rational secular society the current morality becomes the current morality because it can be rationally justified.

Not simply because the loudest mob wins the morality arguments.

So you are basing your conclusions on faulty reasoning.

Also, when a secular society changes what they deem to be moral they realize that it's up to them to weigh all the evidence and try to decide as fairly as possible what it truly justifiable.

You make it sound like morality is being chosen solely based on the desires of the "deviants" (as you call them). Totally independent of what they are standing up for.

The populists promote the idea that morality should be derived from the populous.

Absolutely not true.

That is not the criteria for what should be moral. Morality in a secular society must be justified. So it's not based on what is popular, but rather on what can be justified via rational sound arguments.

Thus, the deviants are just those who hold positions that are not currently popular and those deviants affect popular morality to change it to their preferred vision, as you say.

But that's not anywhere near true. Even in a purely secular society there will still be "deviants" (as you call them) that will ultimately be unjustifiable in their actions. In other words, there will still be "criminals" who conduct themselves in ways that cannot be rationally justified.

All "deviants" (as you call them) cannot justify their deviant behaviors.

But some can. And those who can are basically demonstrating that their "deviant" behavior is indeed justified, and no harmful to anyone. And when they demonstrate this to be truth, in a secular society it is then accepted as being moral.

The problem with a society that uses ancient dogma as their source of morality is that they can't change the rules even when they have been shown to be rules that are unjustifiable.

Therefore, deviance, though generally used as a pejorative, is ultimately judged by the success of the deviant in affecting popular morality.

Not merely "affecting" popular morality, but demonstrating "justification" for the behavior in question that has been wrongfully demeaned by calling it "deviant" behavior.

There's a lot of "deviant" behavior that is actually extremely good. I cared for my mother at home for the last 6 years of hear life. Taking an early retirement just so I could be with her 24/7. I paid for the dearly in retirement finances. My behavior as clearly "deviant" from the norm. Most people would keep their jobs and have their mother put in a home of some sort.

Deviant behavior from the norm can actually be exceedingly moral. Therefore, using the term "deviant" as a pejorative is wrong.

Thus, one man's deviant is another's martyr.

And there you go using the term as if it's a pejorative.

If the deviant is justified in their behavior then they are a "martyr" for all of humanity. Not just for those who actually understand the justification.

So, the deviants provide a service in setting the boundaries of current morality. Therefore, in societies where this is understood to be the case, what is to be done with the deviant? Is he to be left to the natural consequences of his actions, restrained for the greater good, or lauded as a national treasure?

That all depends on whether or not the "deviant" can justify his or her behavior.

If they cannot justify their behavior then they must be restrained for the greater good. Especially if their behavior can be shown to be harmful to others.

If they can justify their behavior then they should be lauded as a martyr for humanity and human rights.

You seem to be totally ignoring the "justification factor" in all of this.

You're just labeling people as "deviants" without any consideration at all to whether or not their behavior is justified.

And I suspect that you even chose to use this term specifically for it's pejorative implications.

Why call them "deviants"? Why not call them "exceptional people". Why not call them "unique", or "special", or "extraordinary".

Calling them deviants already carries with it a pejorative tone. It's almost like you have already judged their behavior to be unacceptable and without justification.

[Bust Nak]

However, as long as they have their way, would they not always consider the current morality to be superior to the previous one?

Sure, I am just saying that wanting to maintain the current morality would make them conservatives of the future.

It might be better to look at this from the view of the populists than the progressive, because the progressives have a particular morality that we are supposed to be progressing toward.

The populists promote the idea that morality should be derived from the populous. This sounds good on paper, but it makes every minority a deviant. As the popular majority changes, so does deviancy. Now, what is interesting is how the populist view is seen as either the greater good or mob rule depending on whether one agrees with the popular morality or not. Thus, the deviants are just those who hold positions that are not currently popular and those deviants affect popular morality to change it to their preferred vision, as you say. Therefore, deviance, though generally used as a pejorative, is ultimately judged by the success of the deviant in affecting popular morality. Thus, one man's deviant is another's martyr.

Sure, I don't disagree.

So, the deviants provide a service in setting the boundaries of current morality. Therefore, in societies where this is understood to be the case, what is to be done with the deviant? Is he to be left to the natural consequences of his actions, restrained for the greater good, or lauded as a national treasure?

That depends if the deviant in question is a visionary or a villain. Which he is, depends on who you ask.

... You make it sound like morality is being chosen solely based on the desires of the "deviants" (as you call them). Totally independent of what they are standing up for.

I am sure bluethread can and will defend himself but:
That is not the impression I am getting from his post. You mentioned woman's right before, it's the norm in the west now because "deviants" faught hard for it.

Absolutely not true.

That is not the criteria for what should be moral. Morality in a secular society must be justified. So it's not based on what is popular, but rather on what can be justified via rational sound arguments.

He said "derived from the populous," that reads to me like for the benefit of the people, as opposed to what is popular.

But that's not anywhere near true.... there will still be "criminals" who conduct themselves in ways that cannot be rationally justified.

All "deviants" (as you call them) cannot justify their deviant behaviors.

But some can.

He is saying the same thing as you here. Those who cannot are "deviants" to be "restrained for the greater good" and those who can are "martyrs" to be "lauded as a national treasure."

Not merely "affecting" popular morality, but demonstrating "justification" for the behavior in question that has been wrongfully demeaned by calling it "deviant" behavior...

In a rational secular society, demonstrating justification means it will affect popular morality, no? I think you might be too quick to disagree, I think you are affiming with his points: Who is and isn't deviant in the pejorative sense, is judged by their success, and you are saying their success should be measured by their rational justification.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

I said nothing of a rationalist society. However, unless rationalism is subject what is acceptable to the general public as rational, it is not a subjective morality, but one that follows rationalist orthodoxy. For example, the irrational would be seen as objectively deviant. In subjective morality, irrational morality is justified by the irrational prospective of the individual or society that holds it.

[bluethread]

He said "derived from the populous," that reads to me like for the benefit of the people, as opposed to what is popular.

Thank you for the defense, but it appears that DI is anticipating an argument I have not made. You seem to understand the issue under consideration. So, let me respond to the interpretation above.


I was not referring to any benefit when I used the phrase "derived from the populous". There are populists that see virtue in a popular morality, even if there is no benefit. They see one man one vote as an objective moral principle. Therefore, for those populists morality is not really subjective, but is dependent on populist orthodoxy. The reason I used that viewpoint is that it is used as a tool by almost every objective morality to justify or vilify other moralities. The crux of my question is whether a society can exist without the justification and/or vilification of deviants. Some apologists for subjective morality seem to imply that a society based on subjective morality can.

[Divine Insight]

I said nothing of a rationalist society. However, unless rationalism is subject what is acceptable to the general public as rational, it is not a subjective morality, but one that follows rationalist orthodoxy.

That's an interesting point. I think most humans would subjectively agree that when it comes to morality rationalism would need to be considered solely on the grounds of whether someone is being harmed or not.

They would then have different subjective opinions on what constitutes "harm" at that point.

There's never going to be an absolute. If humans are involved everything is necessarily going to be subject to the human perspective on life. And that includes their sense of rationality.

[bluethread]

I said nothing of a rationalist society. However, unless rationalism is subject what is acceptable to the general public as rational, it is not a subjective morality, but one that follows rationalist orthodoxy.

That's an interesting point. I think most humans would subjectively agree that when it comes to morality rationalism would need to be considered solely on the grounds of whether someone is being harmed or not.

They would then have different subjective opinions on what constitutes "harm" at that point.

There's never going to be an absolute. If humans are involved everything is necessarily going to be subject to the human perspective on life. And that includes their sense of rationality.

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?