Drabble is correct to argue that people tend to ignore truth in order to follow societal standards. In today's world it is often difficult to adjust to one type of lifestyle or another. The constant bombardments of outside opinions hamper our ability to choose and be comfortable with a certain way of living. Therefore, blind conformity is actually a molding of what is said to be normal in society instead of using differences to enhance humans. The malicious acts committed by Malcolm X reflect the idea that people ignore truth to conform to society.
Ethical relativism is supported due to the narrowing view of ethnocentrism, which is causing great “prejudice tantamount to racism and sexism” (Pojman, 25). Society is moving away from their ethnocentric view of the world, which allows for a more diverse cultural of right and wrong. Moral positions are based on what their society sees as ideal norms. The first of two theses is cultural relativism, “what is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to society”(Pojman, 26), meaning that there is no universal morals, which are accepted by all societies. In some cultures it might be morally acceptable to value slavery, genocide, or female circumcision.
Similarly, direct action by a person who has no special authority is not properly called punishment, and is more likely to be revenge or an act of hostility.” http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/5144_Banks_II_Proof_Chapter_5.pdf When using a theoretical approach to the question of why we punish criminals, the same source raises the issues of: • They deserve to be punished. • Punishment will stop them from committing further crimes. • Punishment tells the victim that society disapproves of the harm that he or she has suffered. • Punishment discourages others from doing the same thing. • Punishment protects society from dangerous or dishonest people.
The authors attempt to educate the reader on victims pertaining to diasporas and refugee seekers, although does not give to much background information on the topic and the problems these individuals face. This review seeks to summarize and critique the quality of the author’s article. The main issue these immigrants face is many forms of discrimination. Due to these individuals being from outside the citizen’s respective community and having different characteristics, they are often alienated from the rest of society. Alienation is an emotional factor that could have extreme negative effects, on top of alienation the government does not protect them with the same human rights given to citizens of the nation.
Another limitation of deviation from social norms is that it lacks time validity. This is because social norms change over time; behaviour that was once seen as abnormal may be acceptable and vice versa. For example, drink driving was once considered acceptable but is now seen as socially unacceptable whereas homosexuality has changed the other way. Until 1980 homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder but is considered acceptable today. This is a weakness because it means abnormality cannot be judged across eras.
Norms that are widely observed and have great moral significance are called mores. Laws are created to keep people from breaking mores that hurt others such as theft, murder, and rape. Some American mores include taboos such as Incest, which causes birth defects, and premarital sex that spreads disease. Someone who does not follow a societys mores will be considered insane, twisted, or evil. Americans are becoming more liberal regaurding sexuality.
Persistently irresponsible, they are impulsive violators of what are considered social norms. They disregard the feelings of others, while feeling no guilt or remorse for actions they have done (Cavadino, 1998). Because psychopathy and sociopathy are often confused, it is important to differentiate between the two types of personality disorders. What makes a sociopath separate from the psychopath is “sociopathy is not a formal psychiatric condition. It refers to patterns of attitudes that are considered to be antisocial and criminal by society at large, but are seen as normal or necessary by the subculture or social environment in which they developed” (Babiak & Hare, 2007, p. 26).
But defenders of the social contract idea seem to think that present government depends on a contract among the people. Hume doesn’t explicitly do this, but we can distinguish two different ways of understanding this idea: i) as a nonnormative thesis of political sociology, and ii) as a normative thesis of political philosophy. According to i), just as it is a fact of political sociology that people tend to get very angry whenever they believe that their rights have been violated, it is also a fact that people believe (rightly or wrongly) that the duty to obey government derives from consent. Hume’s reply is that this is not a fact at all; it is demonstrably false. “…We find everywhere princes who claim their subjects as their property and assert their independent right of sovereignty, from conquest or succession.
Another weakness is the consequences, in some situations when consequences are too severe that many think it is better to break a rule than allow awful thing to happen. The theory is too rigid, sometimes the consequences can change the rightness or a wrongness of an action, but in this theory the person is judged on the action which can be unfair. It’s inflexible as you should be able to break a rule if the individual’s circumstances warrant it. There is no consideration to human emotion, there are situation where individuals break rules because of emotions, for example if a person is scared they may lie to protect themselves which in Kant’s eyes this would be morally wrong. The theory is a priori, some claim we out our duty a priori but it is also argued we need to refer to experience to work out what is right.
People just don’t do that. The individual may look at me funny and give an uncomfortable response, or they may think I had some kind of imbalance and want to get out of the situation as soon as possible. Either way, his or her reaction is the sanction for my folkway violation. These norms differ among societies and they are formulated based on the beliefs and values of that society. In America, for example, the production and consumption of marijuana is illegal and enforced by sanctions where in Holland it isn’t a norm violation that is governed by lawful means.