Dread Skavos said:
TWRule said:
That was precisely my point. What is considered laudable today could be considered perverse tomorrow. Why are actions to be accepted as right just by virtue of majority rule?
Mainly because the majority or ruling body defines what is right, but if the ruling body and majority differ in their opinions then protests or revolts will erupt (unless there is sufficient oppression, and even then...).
I hope you realize that this is a circular argument ("Why should majority rule decide?" "Because it does.") and therefore doesn't serve your argument at all on its own.
If everyone is united, the perversity cannot be negatively impacting any member, either directly or indirectly, so it really just falls down to opinion...I don't condone cannibalism, but from a pragmatic view it can be justified.
Your first statement is also fallacious. Even if it was primarily at an unconscious level at first, it's completely possible for people to suffer from their own absurd/perverse actions (see existential guilt, anguish, etc.). Just about anything can be justified by pragmatism; that should be considered a failing of pragmatism as a guide to right, not an indication that anything and everything should be considered right.
Now think about when you enter a new subset of society, say school or a club, you will try to "fit in"...This is all because you want what society (or a subset) can give and you are willing to bend a bit to get it.
I'm not quite sure where you meant to go with this. We can play along with a society we don't agree with to a limited to extent if we want to? Sure. However, joining a club or going through the motions in a society doesn't necessarily have any effect on my more deeply held ideals, nor does it mean that I won't speak up against it when I feel the time is right, nor does failure to conform make me irredeemable in any meaningful sense.
That's the strange thing about it though: unless you were raised in a different society and emigrated, you are born with no views or beliefs - yours will be fairly close to the societal norm, and closer to the views and beliefs of those who raised you. And for those that don't fit in, the natural human reaction is to avoid interaction that is unpleasant, so they tend to withdraw and be ignored. If their beliefs are strange but harmless, they will just be viewed as weird or deluded, it is only when beliefs conflict that this withdrawl tends to happen.
Well, I'm a living exception to that entire theory, so those exceptions need to be taken into account.
To change fully, almost every child in a generation must be raised with awareness (or lack thereof) of the issue and pass it on to their children, etc.
I disagree, as it's quite possible for one to depart radically for the beliefs they were raised under - but for the masses in total, sure, it takes time; so what does that mean for the radical individual? "Too bad, you were born into the wrong period?" I'm sure I see your point there.
TWRule said:
I used the dog reference because people evolved alongside dogs and it is unclear who tamed who along the way as both sides changed to accommodate the other.
I think it's pretty well clear who tamed who - and that is irrelevant anyway because you just laid it out as a master-pet relationship.
To demonstrate a compromise that is also comprised of tolerance, think of two people who don't know each other meet and try to live together in the same house; there will be expectations and demands from both sides and a resolution will need to be reached that satisfies both of them for friendly interaction to continue. This can be expanded upon until we build up a community.
This I almost agree with, but with the qualification that it's not always a straight compromise; in a genuine relationship, either one side will convert the other to their way of thinking through dialogue, or their dialogue will spawn a new way of seeing that they share. That is not the same as the diplomatic way, where no one really gives up their views, we just each make concessions for the other (the former would be what I call an interpersonal relationship, and the later a social relation).
Society at its basest level is just a group of animals trying to co-exist with each other - interdependancy being the driving force.
Sorry, but I can't accept that. I refuse to model human beings as animals; it does not respect human dignity and doesn't give us much hope for being able to positively transform (and thus redeem) ourselves. In so far as this might be said to be the case with modern society, it should not be.
It all comes down to interdependance.
Agreed, but it does not have to be that kind of interdependence.
Human interaction by definition is social...all participating parties benefit otherwise there would be resistance to do it in the first place.
Human interaction is only "by definition" social if we choose to conceive of it as limited in that fashion. I would distinguish between at least 3 different spheres of human interaction: the social, the interhuman, and the interpersonal. The social would be like you described through the media - just basic communication based on adherence to social roles that doesn't even require someone to be a complete human being to participate in. The interhuman is a more general category of any linguistic interaction between human beings, collectively or otherwise. Finally, the interpersonal is a type of interaction that consists of two fully fledged individual persons, not based on their social roles or any other superficialities but upon genuine addressing of the other person as a complete person - these generally penetrate into more profound territory than just negotiating amiable terms of living together. It's in the sphere of the interpersonal that a real conflict between worldviews could be resolved without either side pressuring or coercing the other into submission to their view. It fuels personal transformation and thus redemption.
