Stepping out of theological context for this post. I think the idea of social morality is refined into "pro-social" and "anti-social" behavior. Laws are created to establish pro-social behavior. What pro-social behavior is changes on account of majority consent. Whatever allows for greater mutually beneficial social bonds will be endorsed. Communication technology has very great affect over this, since it affects the scope of influence of power. Communication is central to establishing consent of pro-social behavior among groups. The greater the communication power, the larger the scope of change is possible. Of course many aspects of social context act as inertial forces fighting against these changes. The smaller and more relevant the changes are, the less force will act against them. Given time and power great social changes may occur in this way. The idea of "relative morality" is essentially a reflection of this principle on a smaller scale. Most normal humans will seek to establish social bonds to improve their chance of survival. Thus, their motivation is pro-social and, if socialized properly, will result in pro-social behavior. These behaviors change with the social definitions of pro-social behavior, but the motivation is the same. Improving chances of survival can be labeled synonymous with finding individual peace. Improper socialization or other unusual issues may cause either a reversal of motivation (anti-survival) or a means of achieving survival via anti-social means. This then creates the seeming paradox of morality, where the individual is trying to find inner peace (attempts to be pro-social) but is acting in an anti-social way. The disparity of understanding between different groups concerning the definition of 'pro-social' creates a similar issue, i.e. how members of one family interact with each other may be detestable to members of a different family. This is a social issue of pro-social against anti-social, and is often used as an argument against a single universal system of morals.
The process of individual socialization and the process of group consent communication is the connection between the first and second part. Both will cause change for the purpose of greater success in social interaction, stronger mutually beneficial social bonds. Failure will create confusion and dissent.
The process of individual socialization and the process of group consent communication is the connection between the first and second part. Both will cause change for the purpose of greater success in social interaction, stronger mutually beneficial social bonds. Failure will create confusion and dissent.
No comments:
Post a Comment