I never knew I'm a non-conformist until people started pointing it out to me.
Which led me into thinking that, if I am a non-conformist, why is it that I still support strong values on certain principles and issues like murder, drugs, etc? If I, as a non-conformist, refuse, albeit subconsciously, to adhere to certain norms, why is it that I can't do so absolutely to all other existing norms?
And after sufficient reflection, I have come to the conclusion that, there are different kind of norms i.e. cultural, societal, moral. And of such norms, it is the societal kind that I find less worthy to be followed. I opt for moral norms because morality, though not ultimately constant, is at least, less fluid than societal norms. Apart from that, societal norms are mostly established from a popular vote or that which is approved by the majority; regardless if the banking principle is morally right or wrong.
Some may argue that moral norms are heavily dictated by society but this does not hold truth all the time. In fact, it is the society which bends the said norms.
Moral norms are usually universal truths. And when referring to society, we do not refer to one entity; but rather to the thousand existing groups present in the world. To address society as a single homogeneous concept is counter-intuitive and, essentially, unjust.
Moral norms exist but it gets bended when it is applied to different societies. For example, genital mutilation. The moral norm, and universally accepted rule, is supposedly, no human being should be subject to practices that elicit torture or something that resembles the idea of such, in as much respect is given to the idea of the human life. However, said moral norm gets redefined when applied to societies especially when the concept of culture is added. Cultural norms are a completely different story and I refuse to elaborate more on this primarily because I'm getting hungry and I want to go home now.
Anyway, my realization can be sum up to this: it is necessary that there is a clear line that is able to distinguish such concepts. My feeble contribution is that societal norms can be distinguished to moral norms, in a way that the former is fluid and is susceptible to changes.
I think that such realization isn't much of a help in creating a better world that is principally organized when it comes to concepts and notions. Thus, I strongly suggest that that there should be a clear distinction of what is moral to what is societal. The line that separates these two gets blurred along the way and in my opinion, that is very inconvenient.
Which led me into thinking that, if I am a non-conformist, why is it that I still support strong values on certain principles and issues like murder, drugs, etc? If I, as a non-conformist, refuse, albeit subconsciously, to adhere to certain norms, why is it that I can't do so absolutely to all other existing norms?
And after sufficient reflection, I have come to the conclusion that, there are different kind of norms i.e. cultural, societal, moral. And of such norms, it is the societal kind that I find less worthy to be followed. I opt for moral norms because morality, though not ultimately constant, is at least, less fluid than societal norms. Apart from that, societal norms are mostly established from a popular vote or that which is approved by the majority; regardless if the banking principle is morally right or wrong.
Some may argue that moral norms are heavily dictated by society but this does not hold truth all the time. In fact, it is the society which bends the said norms.
Moral norms are usually universal truths. And when referring to society, we do not refer to one entity; but rather to the thousand existing groups present in the world. To address society as a single homogeneous concept is counter-intuitive and, essentially, unjust.
Moral norms exist but it gets bended when it is applied to different societies. For example, genital mutilation. The moral norm, and universally accepted rule, is supposedly, no human being should be subject to practices that elicit torture or something that resembles the idea of such, in as much respect is given to the idea of the human life. However, said moral norm gets redefined when applied to societies especially when the concept of culture is added. Cultural norms are a completely different story and I refuse to elaborate more on this primarily because I'm getting hungry and I want to go home now.
Anyway, my realization can be sum up to this: it is necessary that there is a clear line that is able to distinguish such concepts. My feeble contribution is that societal norms can be distinguished to moral norms, in a way that the former is fluid and is susceptible to changes.
I think that such realization isn't much of a help in creating a better world that is principally organized when it comes to concepts and notions. Thus, I strongly suggest that that there should be a clear distinction of what is moral to what is societal. The line that separates these two gets blurred along the way and in my opinion, that is very inconvenient.
0 replies:
Post a Comment