I read a really interesting article by Paul Graham entitled “What you can’t say”. It explores the nature of human moral taboos. It’s a thought-provoking piece that provides a few easy guidelines for wrappping one’s head around “moral fashions”.
Some gems:
- “To launch a taboo, a group has to be poised halfway between weakness and power. A confident group doesn’t need taboos to protect it.” I think about the Religious Right, and the recent proclamations against homosexuality by various religious denominations, contrasted against the Liberal Left and, among other things, the phenomenon of Political Correctness.
- “Most struggles, whatever they’re really about, will be cast as struggles between competing ideas … It’s easier to get people to fight for an idea. And whichever side wins, their ideas will also be considered to have triumphed, as if God wanted to signal his agreement by selecting that side as the victor … We often like to think of World War II as a triumph of freedom over totalitarianism. We conveniently forget that the Soviet Union was also one of the winners.”
- “So if you want to figure out what we can’t say, look at the machinery of fashion and try to predict what it would make unsayable. What groups are powerful but nervous, and what ideas would they like to suppress? What ideas were tarnished by association when they ended up on the losing side of a recent struggle? If a self-consciously cool person wanted to differentiate himself from preceding fashions (e.g. from his parents), which of their ideas would he tend to reject? What are conventional-minded people afraid of saying?”
- On the question of why raise questions about forbidden subjects in society: “To do good work you need a brain that can go anywhere. And you especially need a brain that’s in the habit of going where it’s not supposed to.”
- “Training yourself to think unthinkable thoughts has advantages beyond the thoughts themselves. It’s like stretching. When you stretch before running, you put your body into positions much more extreme than any it will assume during the run. If you can think things so outside the box that they’d make people’s hair stand on end, you’ll have no trouble with the small trips outside the box that people call innovative.”
- “When Milton was going to visit Italy in the 1630s, Sir Henry Wootton, who had been ambassador to Venice, told him his motto should be “i pensieri stretti & il viso sciolto.” Closed thoughts and an open face. Smile at everyone, and don’t tell them what you’re thinking. This was wise advice.”
- “The people you can say heretical things to without getting jumped on are also the most interesting to know.”
- “Another way to counterattack is with metaphor. Arthur Miller undermined the House Un-American Activities Committee by writing a play, “The Crucible,” about the Salem witch trials. He never referred directly to the committee and so gave them no way to reply. What could HUAC do, defend the Salem witch trials? And yet Miller’s metaphor stuck so well that to this day the activities of the committee are often described as a “witch-hunt.” … Best of all, probably, is humor. Zealots, whatever their cause, invariably lack a sense of humor.”
- “…when people are bad at open-mindedness they don’t know it. In fact they tend to think the opposite. Remember, it’s the nature of fashion to be invisible. It wouldn’t work otherwise. Fashion doesn’t seem like fashion to someone in the grip of it. It just seems like the right thing to do. It’s only by looking from a distance that we see oscillations in people’s idea of the right thing to do, and can identify them as fashions.”
- “When you hear such labels being used, ask why.” (Particularly “-ist” labels: conformist, racist, communist, etc.)
- “When a child gets angry because he’s tired, he doesn’t know what’s happening. An adult can distance himself enough from the situation to say “never mind, I’m just tired.” I don’t see why one couldn’t, by a similar process, learn to recognize and discount the effects of moral fashions … Everyone encourages you to grow up to the point where you can discount your own bad moods. Few encourage you to continue to the point where you can discount society’s bad moods.”
I find it interesting that, it seems, many comedians get most of their source material from “forbidden topics”. I am trying to think about topics that make my friends very uncomfortable; the list is uncomfortably long. Many of them, you can dance around the core issue and be just on the verge of comfortability, yet if you drive to the heart of the question, it makes people very uncomfortable.
- Hate Speech: what makes something “hate speech”? It seems to me that, generally, it’s whatever someone finds offensive.
- Web Filtering: Kids see breasts from their first waking moments. Reproduction is part of human existence, and much more acceptable for children to understand in other societies than in ours.
- Age of Consent: What makes an 18-year-old different from a 16-year-old, really? Why the arbitrary line? An 18-year-old can marry an 85-year-old, yet a 17-year-old can’t? I’m not saying it’s desirable; I’m just saying that arbitrary line seems weird.
- Abortion: “Pro-choice” “Pro-life” “Anti-Choice” “Anti-life”… it all seems so loaded with labels. The difference in positions always boils down to moral fashion.
- Absence of Deity: Sure, I can say I’m agnostic around my friends and they handle it. If I imply, directly or indirectly, that deity simply doesn’t exist, people get really upset. I think they are too uncomfortable with the ramifications… because if deity doesn’t actually exist, then they are delusional. Nobody likes that message. Conversely, if deity does exist, that means I’m delusional 🙂 I’m OK with being wrong though.
- Divisiveness: In my opinion, it’s just fine to be “divisive”. Show people the truth and make them suddenly realize they’re on different bandwagons, or on the same bandwagon for dramatically different reasons. Draw some artificial distinctions, then tear them down. Thinking hard and talking hard about why you’re doing (or not doing) something is just good sense, not an attempt to falter some “national will”.
There are too many things to list, I think. Too many ideas, particularly in today’s repressive climate, that can get you in trouble. If someone said they supported the motives of the terrorists (oops, there’s a label!) who flew planes into the Pentagon, the two towers, and that New Jersey field… that one little statement could haunt them the rest of their lives.
Very interesting article. It makes ya think.
Interesting
That topic has been on my mind and I found that article insightful. I’m not sure if I’ve sorted it all out for myself though. A large part of me is still of the belief that sometimes it really is just better to keep ones mouth shut just to keep the peace. It’s a strange place we live in though, where having a beer is considered a drinking problem and buying a coffee pot could split up a marriage. I’m not sure, sometimes, that the risk is worth the reward. I try to pick my battles with the establishment for sanity’s sake.
Strange place to live, indeed
Wow.. sometimes I forget the differences in locales.. if Utah is the place where a coffee pot can split up a marriage.. what does it say about DC, with a Starbucks at every corner (literally 8 off the top of my head within a 10 mile radius) and I know every drink by heart.. and I work in a place that coffee is ALWAYS fresh.. A Hospital.
A beer is a drinking problem too.. again, what a difference 2/3 of a country can make. I wonder what your local status quo would say to my local status quo.
Hate speech: Generaly conside
Hate speech: Generaly considered to be speech with the intention or effecto f perpetuating hateful opinions and/or stirring up anger against a group in society, usually a race or religion.. it is taboo because there are real ramifications for innocent parties not incolved in the speaking, but whoe lives can be negatively affected by the ideas and prejudices created in said environment.
Web filtering: well, really its been shown that early exposure to sexual materials (at least in this culture) can have a negative psychological effect on the psychosocial and socio-sexual attitudes of a child. Specifically, teenage boys have a strong emotional and physical reaction to erotic imagery and this can lead to an objectifying of women – where a woman is seen as a source of stimulation erotically instead of as a person with whom it is necessaryo to interact on a social level.
Pro life and Pro Choice: Has little to do with moral fashion, but centers around two questions.. “When does life begin?” and “Who reaps the right of protection and freedom between an intelligent woman with a will of her own and a right to control her own body, or a child with no means of defense or expression, and a right to not be killed, but with the significant lack of experience, intelligence, or perspective with which to form a will to live or not.” Moral fashion can dictate where you stand on these issues, but ultimately, the importance of the question is so heated because of the intensity of the ramifications upon resolution of the issue. Namely, its ruined lives and government control vs. dead babies, and neither answer is a good one.
Diety: To me (and other Deity believers), the idea that God does not exist is difficult, because so much of our lives are predicated upon the idea that he does.. We believe that God exists whether or not we believe he does. Therefore, to us, it is not so much a matter of believing – it is simply a fact. To my friend Steve, the idea that God does not exist is as unlikely as the idea that Galilleo or Goerge Washington or The Moon does not exist. To him, this is just fact.. (I cit him because it is much the same for me, although I am more of a searcher.. and part of my quest in life will be to reach that kind of understanding..)
Divisiveness: here I agree mostly.. I support intelligent debate, I support heated arguments about important subjects. It is why i got hooked on Barnson.org in the first place. Its nice to argue over the things that matter.. like language, War, God, and sometimes, Movie Theatre etiquette. It stretches the muscle of the mind, and gives perspective, wisdom and improved logic skills. Thats why I like it here.
Moral fashion
Hate Speech: I still maintain the idea of “hate speech” and “hate crimes” are a moral fashion. One man’s freedom of speech is another man’s hate speech; both should be allowed in a civil society. Note that there is a point at which it becomes speech inciting action. Hear the difference:
Speech inciting to riot, or to commit atrocities, was already covered as non-protected speech by court decision. I maintain that the idea of Hate Speech is just a fad, a fashion, and an idea doomed to distinction within a decade, only to be resurrected from time to time by antagonistic Luddites waiting in the wings to resurrect past demons. Like someone calling someone else a “Communist” as an insult today.
As far as hate crimes (sorry to muddy the subject a bit), murder is still murder, regardless of motivation.
Web Filtering (note I don’t necessarily agree with my opinion I’m about to state, but I’m playing with the idea, like a baby plays with a Rubik’s Cube, not quite understanding it but liking to make the shiny square toy bounce around): To me, the question is why the difference? Until puberty, children naturally show very little interest in sex or sexual materials. If they do, it’s often indicative of abuse. For instance, in a foster-parenting class my spouse and I attended, they mentioned that if a pre-pubescent child has any association in their mind of the mouth with genitalia, that’s almost 100% accurate showing that the child has been involved in an abusive situation with an adult. The real question seems to center around what adults consider appropriate for viewing by children, and that’s a subject entirely up to debate. But few people want to debate it. Show your kid a slasher flick, and you’ll deal with nightmares for weeks. Thus my kids don’t watch slasher flicks. Show your kid a porno flick, you’ll deal with obsession with sexual subjects for weeks. I really don’t have a point here, but my overall sense is that web filtering is simultaneously a service and a disservice to children.
Abortion: For many years, it was moral fashion to ban abortion in most states. It is now moral fashion (imposed by the courts) that abortion is an allowed procedure. And yet, the fashion is still changing today, as people debate about “partial-birth” abortions, and come to an understanding at a level where opposing parties are uncomfortable with what is and is not allowed, yet it’s tolerable enough to them that they do not riot over it.
Deity: From where I sit, it’s fashionable to believe in deity in the U.S. since 9/11. Look at our rates of belief versus, for instance, Europe. Look at the tremendous lengths our president goes to to show that he’s devout. At the same time, there’s this fashionable counter-culture of “atheism and rational thought” (note: do not imply a corollary of “theism and irrational thought” here) going on as well. The opinions of masses of people seem to sway immensely by the tides of time, like kelp. Ten years ago, it was less fashionable (popular) to be publicly religious. Yet at the same time, ten years ago, “atheist” == “bad person”, where today it doesn’t seem to. These definitions and perceptions are changing. What someone believes in their heart has little to do with it. In my heart, I think ties are stupid. Yet I wear them to interviews because it’s necessary to do so. I’m chasing a very persistent fashion outwardly, yet inwardly it is repulsive to me. I wonder how many atheists/theists are in the same boat? Do some say they believe because they fear repercussions, while in their hearts they don’t? By the same token, do believers keep their mouths shut to prevent persecution in the workplace by an often religion-antagonistic litigious society? I’d say the answer to both questions is “yes”.
As always, I need to make it clear that I do not think that God doesn’t exist; I simply doubt that there are any supernatural things for me to disbelieve. The distinction is subtle to most theists, but it is the difference between a religion-antagonistic pose and a religion-neutral pose.
Divisiveness: Sweet. Choosing one’s battles is important, though. If you stir up a bowl of crap, you still have crap afterwards. If you stir up some vegetables, broth, meat, and spices, you may have a fragrant stew.
I think in many cases, we’re not disagreeing. We’re agreeing with passion. Or we may be agreeing, but with slightly different perspectives on what the state of “agreement” is 😉
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Pro Life – Pro Choice
Pro Life – Pro Choice: Can’t I be both? I believe that every woman on earth has the God-given right to choose to carry a child in her womb or not. I also believe that her choice is not made AFTER conception. Listen up Gloria Steinem… there are inherent risks to certain activities. If you choose to participate in some activities the risks are also chosen. For example, if you decide to ski, you might break your neck and it’s not the resort’s fault you’re a quadrapalegic. On those same lines, if you engage in sexual activity, you risk pregnancy. This is also, by the way, a risk men take too. How’s that for equality? I know there are situations where a woman does not choose activities which lead to her pregnancy, and those situations are tragic. Honestly, very tragic. Just like when my friend Ryan Ausman was killed by a drunk driver sitting at a stop light in rush hour traffic leaving a bride of 6 months and an un-born child. He should be able to choose not to die but sometimes we are victims of other peoples’ agency. That’s part of the mortal experience. Tragic but part of life.
I am also pro-morning-after-pill (which doesn’t terminate a pregnancy, it prevents it just like the pill contrary to popular extremism) because even the most well-meaning of folks make mistakes.
Diety… If there’s a God, and I believe there is, I have to believe that he’s wise enough to know what the human experience is all about. I believe he’s a big enough man to take a few jabs from non-believers and still understand that sometimes we are confused and scared and angry and happy, etc… you know, like a good dad. (I hear)
Pro life vs. Pro Choice
Well, the issue at hand is the matter of restricting choice. There are many dangerous activities.. smoking for instance.. but, if someone gets cancer from smoking, they have the right to cut it out and undergo chemo. If someone crashes on skis, they have a right to medical help.
I fully empathize with the pro choice philosophy – it is a bad thing to do, to tell a woman she must undergo the physical transformation of pregnancy, the pains of childbirth, and either the responsibility of motherhood or the heartbreak of adoption. It is infinitely better to “stop a pregnancy” when it is something to which she has little emotional attachment and when she has not had to go through the pregnancy.. especially (and we must take biblical truth out of this, because not everybody believes) when you don’t see that thing as being “alive” yet.
I also fully empathize with the pro-life ideology. If you believe that a pregnancy is being terminated at any point after the baby is “alive”, then what an abortion is.. is nothing short of deliberately killing a baby. It is, to many, no different than that man in georgia who killed his 10 month old. For those who see it as a little less extreme, it is still choosing to permanently end a human life to avoid one year of discomfort and emotional distress. But, that view is predicated on the belief that it is a human life you are ending.
So, to be pro life and pro choice concurrently is close to impossible. Pro-choicers don’t believe it is alive, and can’t abide the idea that pro-lifers would try to force American women to adhere to their views, and lose their freedoms. Of course, pro-lifers are outraged that pro-choicers would force their views on what they see as “babies”, and commit what they see as “murder” based on those beliefs.
It is no wonder this debate can get so heated.
Abortion
My opinion on this subject is that even if the baby is not alive at conception, the potential for life is there. If you do not interrupt the pregnancy, then the baby will be born, and basically everyone considers killing a born baby murder. Therefore, to interrupt a pregnancy by abortion is the equivalent of murder, or something that really has no term as of yet- killing them before they are alive.
But what is the difference, really?
The only difference is that people are usually more squeamish about “murder” than they are about “abortion” because the person has been born and is already here when they are murdered. They are in this world, and people can see and know and grow close to them. To say, then, that it is worse to kill a born human than a fetus is like to say that the only reason a human life has any value is because of the people they meet that like them.
If no one is upset over thier death, its not murder, is kinda what it’s saying.
That’s just my opinion on the subject.
EDIT by matthew: Line breaks, formatting added.
not impossible at all
>>>So, to be pro life and pro choice concurrently is close to impossible.
Hardly. I believe that a woman has the right to choose her actions. I believe that if her actions lead to pregnancy the baby has the right to life. Pro-Choice & Pro-Life.
Pro-Choicers are generally actually anti-consequence.
Just my $.02 but it’s my point of view.