From Where do (Should) we get our Norms?

[CWL]

Well, tell me!

[MRC_Hans]

Where is the planet X option?

Hans ;)

[CWL]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Where is the planet X option?

Hans ;)

Sorry, I forgot about that one. :D

Perhaps I should have added another option as well: "My friend Norm comes from Kansas", since I suppose that joke is unavoidable in this thread anyway.

[MRC_Hans]

Well, I see it's a serious topic, its just that the sun is shining, the birds are singing, everything is turning green outside exept the sky, which is deep blue, and Franko is gone. I simply can't feel serious to-day :cool: :) :cool:

Hans

[CWL]

I note that someone has voted for the "morality" option. I kindly invite that someone to elaborate on the reasons why.

[CWL]

Please?

[whitefork]

I voted for "practical" because if reason is contradicted by praxis, then reason has to give way. In other words, your conclusions are only as good as your assumptions, and for norms, the assumptions are ultimately practical.

[CWL]

Originally posted by whitefork
I voted for "practical" because if reason is contradicted by praxis, then reason has to give way. In other words, your conclusions are only as good as your assumptions, and for norms, the assumptions are ultimately practical.

I personally voted for the second option as I felt that simply saying "practical" may be dangerously close to "might is right" - i.e. "practical" from whose point of view? However I think you make a good point Whitefunk (as always). In the sense you suggest, Option 2 merely appears to be a more elaborate version of Option 1.

[whitefork]

I go back and forth on this one. On the one side, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Think of all the evil that's been perpetuated on the basis of purely rational norms without regard to practical consequences. I don't dispute the power of reason but when it's disconnected from concrete reality, "results may be unpredictable".

On the other side, you have "let's try this and see what the results are - we don't need to do any analysis before hand". Of course, you may not get a second chance.

In the end, you have to act - even if the action is to do nothing. On that flimsy basis, I vote "practice", but always tempered by reason.

Life isn't a chess board.

[CWL]

That's why I added Option 3 which I am personally quite drawn to (although I stand by my vote). The basic legal principles in a society based on the rule of law, such as proportionality and foreseeability should IMO indeed be axioms (whether in reality based on reason or not) when any laws are passed. Of course, I personally firmly believe that this will ultimately be to the benefit of society and its citizens, which brings us back to being rational and practical...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
.......and Franko is gone. I simply can't feel serious to-day :cool: :) :cool:

Hans

Then I won't spoil it for you....:cool:

[whitefork]

They should be based on certain basic principles (such as proportionality, the rule of law, foreseeability etc.), which principles simply must be accepted as axiomsI'm with you up until the "must be accepted as axioms" part. I think these principles are based on experience.

We've been around this before and my position (which I will not defend to the death - at least not my own death) is that many of the things which we take as axiomatic are practical principles whose origins are as old as our species. I won't extend that to mathematical axioms, although there are pragmatists who do.

To a large degree, the world is comprehensible to us because we built it, and it, in turn has built us. I just extend that to the principles of morality.

So, these principles have become axiomatic because we've become who we are in response to them - a big feedback loop. Maybe that's the best we have. I do not feel that there's any need to ascribe them to a transcendental or supernatural cause (and I'm not accusing you of doing that of course).

[CWL]

Originally posted by whitefork
I'm with you up until the "must be accepted as axioms" part. I think these principles are based on experience.
I agree 100 %. Perhaps I should qualify my "axiom statement" somewhat. What I mean is that these principles are established as such for good reason (as you yourself suggest). One does not need to go over them every time a new law should be passed. They should be accepted as the fundamental principles on which such new law shall be based. What I mean is that these principles should function as axioms in any society based upon the rule of law, not that they are axioms in any mathematical sense. You know me - I certainly do not "ascribe them to a transcendental or supernatural cause".

[whitefork]

I need the old Upchurch "thumbs up" picture here. I think we have concurrence.

[CWL]

Originally posted by whitefork
I need the old Upchurch "thumbs up" picture here. I think we have concurrence.
Indeed I think we do.

I really miss that avatar of his.

[whitefork]

You know, I can't believe I missed this nuance:

They should be based solely on practical groundsThat's a meta-statement and I can't really justify it on practical grounds. :)

I'll have to restate it as a simple declarative.

They are based solely on practical grounds.

Well, you have to start somewhere.

[CWL]

Noted, but still! (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=161369)

[Dancing David]

I voted number two, oh i am such a poop head. I
want to add 'emotional' reasons, and I am not sure about the axiomatic stuff. My morals come from a hodge-podge of things, treat others as you would want to be treated, self integrity, and the idea that everything I do is like a wave or a kudzu vive and will spread.
Why aren't more people answering, must be the weather.

peace
dancing david

[daenku32]

Is this a reference to what we should make our government force on the people, or something that we just personally believe and have NO intention of coersing onto others?

The latter could be anything, but the former should be as far from 'unquestionably source' as possible.

[whitefork]

Is this a reference to what we should make our government force on the people, or something that we just personally believe and have NO intention of coersing onto others?

The latter could be anything, but the former should be as far from 'unquestionably source' as possible.That's interesting. I took the question to be "what's the source of our norms as they exist". You appear to have taken it as "what should the source of our norms be (whether those norms are different than the ones we use today or the same)".

Your reading may well be the one CWL intended.

[CWL]

Originally posted by whitefork
That's interesting. I took the question to be "what's the source of our norms as they exist". You appear to have taken it as "what should the source of our norms be (whether those norms are different than the ones we use today or the same)".

Your reading may well be the one CWL intended.

In fact it is, but I did expect and welcome a discussion on the source of norms as they exist as well.

[Star Of The Sea]

Polls never have the option I would choose!

[x] Option seven: There are no 'norms' and any attempt to impose them artificially is wrong.

Social 'norms' - ie conformity- can lead to great immorality. People should have a personal code of conduct independent of the consensus of the society around them- failure to cultivate such a code leads to evils such as complicity in fascism at one end, all the way to apathy and consumerism at the other. As Pirsig wrote, it is better for an idea to destroy a society than it is for a society to destroy an idea.

However, where should this personal morality, as opposed to 'norms', come from? That's the real question.

regards,

Luke

[CWL]

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea
Polls never have the option I would choose!
Agreed. It is often the options that are lacking that are the basis for the most interesting parts of the debate.

[x] Option seven: There are no 'norms' and any attempt to impose them artificially is wrong.

Interesting.

Social 'norms' - ie conformity- can lead to great immorality. People should have a personal code of conduct independent of the consensus of the society around them- failure to cultivate such a code leads to evils such as complicity in fascism at one end, all the way to apathy and consumerism at the other. As Pirsig wrote, it is better for an idea to destroy a society than it is for a society to destroy an idea.

However, where should this personal morality, as opposed to 'norms', come from? That's the real question.

regards,

Luke

It seems that you are close to the "morality" option. However isn't "morality" just a form of "personal norm"? What is "morality" anyway? I note that you more or less ask this question yourself.

Further, as a lawyer I find it very hard to understand how society could function if there are no formally imposed norms in the form of legislation, etc. Society is rather complex. How would e.g. even the simplest of business transactions or a municipal election function if there were no formal "imposed norms"? My guess is anarchy. Look at the looting in Bagdad for example.

I believe that such formal norms are unavoidable and that the main question that remains is what they should be based upon.

As to society destroying ideas, freedom of speech and expression is IMO one of the basic principles on which a society based on the rule of law must rest - i.e. you are in reality talking about a principle (ultimately based on reason and practical grounds) which must be carefully considered when formal norms are constructed.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea
Polls never have the option I would choose!

Hal has graciously assisted me in adding an "Other, please explain" option, as this appears to be pertinent.

[Star Of The Sea]

Thanks for the new option, I voted..

Originally posted by CWL
It seems that you are close to the "morality" option. However isn't "morality" just a form of "personal norm"? What is "morality" anyway? I note that you more or less ask this question yourself.



I would say 'personal norm' is an oxymoron. As to "what" morality is, this is the big question.... Ken Wilber talks of the 'three cultures' of science, morality and art. I guess you could use a similar definition as to that of pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it(!)




Originally posted by CWL
Further, as a lawyer I find it very hard to understand how society could function if there are no formally imposed norms in the form of legislation, etc. Society is rather complex. How would e.g. even the simplest of business transactions or a municipal election function if there were no formal "imposed norms"? My guess is anarchy. Look at the looting in Bagdad for example.



Well, anarchy doesn't have to be such a bad thing. When people see the word 'anarchy', it often seems to mean chaos, disorder and violence, as we are now seeing in Bagdad. However, the word actually comes from greek, 'an archos', meaning without leader, and anarchism as a political philosophy is a laudible ideal. However as you say "society is rather complex" (I love Scandinavian understatement!) and anarchism has only ever really worked in modern times on a small scale, for example in the anarchist territories and cities in the Spanish Civil War.

Personally, I think you may be right, and society at large, as we know it today, may need certain codes to function. However, this certainly does not mean that they do, or should, apply to everyone in that society. Rather than 'norms', I would favour a 'salad bowl' approach, whereby a society is mature enough to allow total freedom as the default position, up to the point where that freedom infringes on others. This is important to prevent a 'tyranny of the majority'.


Originally posted by CWL
I believe that such formal norms are unavoidable and that the main question that remains is what they should be based upon.

As to society destroying ideas, freedom of speech and expression is IMO one of the basic principles on which a society based on the rule of law must rest - i.e. you are in reality talking about a principle (ultimately based on reason and practical grounds) which must be carefully considered when formal norms are constructed.
[/B]

When it comes to the rule of law, I have sympathy with the ideas of John Rawls, for example. However, I consider this different from 'norms' which to me includes etiquette, fashion, trends, and transient patterns of behaviour which do not need to be respected or paid attention to in the same way laws generally do. The taboo of committing murder, for example, is usually the same in all societies in a way that, for example, the British 'norm' of table manners is not, to give a mild example. Therefore I think a healthy disregard for 'norms' is warranted and ethical behaviour should not be based on consensus or what a society at large dictates. We can all think of examples where a whole society was corrupt and immoral and to conform to the 'norms' of that society would be wrong, like Nazi Germany. That is why I think a personal ethical code is more important than deferring to external agency.

regards,

Luke

[BillyTK]

My two pen'orth is that the question is problematic if it assumes we can simply pick and choose which norms can exist, because norms are a product of society, not of the individual. The individual can be positioned in relation to norms (for or against), and even have some influence on norms (either in their preservation or erosion), but norms are like language, a collective phenomena, not an individual one.

I might have misunderstood the question...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by whitefork
I need the old Upchurch "thumbs up" picture here. I think we have concurrence.
Ask and ye shall receive


edited because I just can't make up my mind with one I like the best.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Ask and ye shall receive

Now if we could only work on evildave to pick up his old avatar...

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Ask and ye shall receive

Allright (referring to your new avatar)! Twice the funk! :cool:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CWL


Allright (referring to your new avatar)! Twice the funk! :cool:
Okay, I think I got it now. Two new thumbs up, one in my new avatar and one in the post. I'm going with the alternative one thumb up as an avatar because that pose is nothing BUT funky (and, perhaps, a little scary).

For those traditionalists, here's Upchurch Classic:

[bjornart]

I'm not voting, because I haven't decided yet. I'd explain but I'm confusing myself just trying to think about it.

Therefore I think our norms should be based on Upchurch's old avatar.

[CWL]

Originally posted by bjornart
I'm not voting, because I haven't decided yet. I'd explain but I'm confusing myself just trying to think about it.

Therefore I think our norms should be based on Upchurch's old avatar.

... or his new one. That one's not bad either. Thumbs up, everyone! :D

[c4ts]

The so called "norms" are the very fetters which bind us to the cave! I'd do something about them, but I'm too busy trying not to back myself directly into the fire of truth...