Re: cont...raccaldin36December 23 2009, 08:17:01 UTC
I do agree that ethical stupidity (I wouldn't call it deviance) is fairly self-correcting. A stupid belief will naturally get culled by the influence of people around you. When that stupidity graduates to a moral standard, though, we have a problem.
I disagree that we shouldn't have morals as a society. As individuals, no, we shouldn't. Individuals need to be more flexible and more honest. As a society, though, we ought to take stands, even if it's wrong, and thoroughly challenge new ideas even if it means a bit more inertia, before accepting the new idea as a society.
Having the whole constantly playing catch-up to its parts seems like a good model: the radicals have their chance and their ideas are tested with reasonable safety, but society nevertheless moves. On the other hand, radicals with bad ideas can't break society as easily. They're forced to fight a substantial amount of inertia in order to get traction, and that's a good thing. I mean, it sucks for the radical, but a good idea transcends its progenitor.
Sure, the model could use a bit more substance, but it seems like a good plan.
I disagree that we shouldn't have morals as a society. As individuals, no, we shouldn't. Individuals need to be more flexible and more honest. As a society, though, we ought to take stands, even if it's wrong, and thoroughly challenge new ideas even if it means a bit more inertia, before accepting the new idea as a society.
Having the whole constantly playing catch-up to its parts seems like a good model: the radicals have their chance and their ideas are tested with reasonable safety, but society nevertheless moves. On the other hand, radicals with bad ideas can't break society as easily. They're forced to fight a substantial amount of inertia in order to get traction, and that's a good thing. I mean, it sucks for the radical, but a good idea transcends its progenitor.
Sure, the model could use a bit more substance, but it seems like a good plan.
Reply
Leave a comment