Lord Sauron Reborn
26-07-2007, 17:41
Respectable: “Characterized by proper behaviour or conventional conduct; worthy of respect; "a respectable woman"
Every society has a code of acceptable behaviour; in our grandparents' day conforming to this code bestowed the mantle of respectability. Codes of personal conduct allow society to function within its resource limitations. The old respectability of our grandparents revolved around sexual conduct, moderation in the consumption of alcohol, personal cleanliness and church attendance.
Accepted codes of conduct are a necessary prerequisite for a functional society. Problems occur when economic and technological advances make the old norms of behaviour somewhat redundant. The tension between new social possibilities and outmoded moral codes usually presages a period of moral confusion. The Sixties, when the invention of universal and cheap contraception made the old virtues of chastity, fidelity and monogamy redundant, was the most recent period of moral confusion in the Western world.
When respectability operates at the level of: “This is not respectable behaviour, and respectable behaviour is necessary to the smooth functioning of society.”, all is well. In the last days of a dying moral code there is an inversion of this principle and the analysis becomes: “You may say that this behaviour does nothing to disrupt the smooth running of society, but it is not respectable behaviour and must be inhibited.”
Moral warfare takes place because the older generation has invested its self-esteem in the established moral system and perceives the new system as an attack on its legitimacy and authority. Other people who perceive that the nascent morality is detrimental to their interests tend to support the older generation. Sexual freedom may seem to be indiscriminate in its benefits, but, in fact, in a monogamous and chaste society even ugly, unpleasant and dull people have a guaranteed opportunity of snagging a life partner and thus enjoying the same sexual status as everyone else in monogamous society. In a sexually free society, ugly and dull people may ultimately have more sex, but most of the sex will be taking place between good looking and interesting people. This means that sexual freedom relegates ugly and dull people from a position of sexual parity to a position of sexual inferiority, inclining dull and ugly people to oppose sexual liberation and support the old morality.
Aside from people who are directly negatively affected by moral innovation there is, as Eric Hoffer pointed out, a significant percentage of the population that are natural conformists ("true believers"). These natural conformists cannot function without a script and stage instructions and will oppose anyone who attempts to alter their prescribed role and remove their illusory safe boundaries. There comes a point in moral warfare where the old believers die off and significant numbers conformists begin to learn the new script; once a tipping point is achieved the natural conformists slide en masse into the camp of the new morality and a new orthodoxy is enthroned and reigns supreme.
This phenomenon is most recently obvious in the cult of environmentalism. Are human carbon emissions causing global warming? I don’t have a fucking clue--because despite pop culture unanimity there is a scientific divergence of opinion on this subject and I am not a scientist, thus I am not qualified to judge between contesting scientific hypotheses. Neither is has-been politician Al Gore, and neither are the true believers (mainly B-list celebrities and aging singers) that have lined up behind the cause of global warming.
The people who are bitching about reckless disposal of garbage and over consumption of carbon today are the same natural conformists who fifty years ago would be gossiping about the slatternly behaviour of the woman in the next street. The important thing is that it’s always about someone else being wrong and them being right, and the superior status of being firmly in the camp of moral righteousness all comes at the cost of doing nothing very much.
Every society has a code of acceptable behaviour; in our grandparents' day conforming to this code bestowed the mantle of respectability. Codes of personal conduct allow society to function within its resource limitations. The old respectability of our grandparents revolved around sexual conduct, moderation in the consumption of alcohol, personal cleanliness and church attendance.
Accepted codes of conduct are a necessary prerequisite for a functional society. Problems occur when economic and technological advances make the old norms of behaviour somewhat redundant. The tension between new social possibilities and outmoded moral codes usually presages a period of moral confusion. The Sixties, when the invention of universal and cheap contraception made the old virtues of chastity, fidelity and monogamy redundant, was the most recent period of moral confusion in the Western world.
When respectability operates at the level of: “This is not respectable behaviour, and respectable behaviour is necessary to the smooth functioning of society.”, all is well. In the last days of a dying moral code there is an inversion of this principle and the analysis becomes: “You may say that this behaviour does nothing to disrupt the smooth running of society, but it is not respectable behaviour and must be inhibited.”
Moral warfare takes place because the older generation has invested its self-esteem in the established moral system and perceives the new system as an attack on its legitimacy and authority. Other people who perceive that the nascent morality is detrimental to their interests tend to support the older generation. Sexual freedom may seem to be indiscriminate in its benefits, but, in fact, in a monogamous and chaste society even ugly, unpleasant and dull people have a guaranteed opportunity of snagging a life partner and thus enjoying the same sexual status as everyone else in monogamous society. In a sexually free society, ugly and dull people may ultimately have more sex, but most of the sex will be taking place between good looking and interesting people. This means that sexual freedom relegates ugly and dull people from a position of sexual parity to a position of sexual inferiority, inclining dull and ugly people to oppose sexual liberation and support the old morality.
Aside from people who are directly negatively affected by moral innovation there is, as Eric Hoffer pointed out, a significant percentage of the population that are natural conformists ("true believers"). These natural conformists cannot function without a script and stage instructions and will oppose anyone who attempts to alter their prescribed role and remove their illusory safe boundaries. There comes a point in moral warfare where the old believers die off and significant numbers conformists begin to learn the new script; once a tipping point is achieved the natural conformists slide en masse into the camp of the new morality and a new orthodoxy is enthroned and reigns supreme.
This phenomenon is most recently obvious in the cult of environmentalism. Are human carbon emissions causing global warming? I don’t have a fucking clue--because despite pop culture unanimity there is a scientific divergence of opinion on this subject and I am not a scientist, thus I am not qualified to judge between contesting scientific hypotheses. Neither is has-been politician Al Gore, and neither are the true believers (mainly B-list celebrities and aging singers) that have lined up behind the cause of global warming.
The people who are bitching about reckless disposal of garbage and over consumption of carbon today are the same natural conformists who fifty years ago would be gossiping about the slatternly behaviour of the woman in the next street. The important thing is that it’s always about someone else being wrong and them being right, and the superior status of being firmly in the camp of moral righteousness all comes at the cost of doing nothing very much.