I think everything has to be viewed on a case-by-case basis. I don't think the acceptance of everything is inevitable, desirable or even possible. If there are other cultures which accept things like cannibalism, I would want to examine their world view generally, and consider why they find that acceptable. Chances are the world view which finds cannibalism acceptable would be as unacceptable to me as the practice itself. But then I might be surprised.
Maybe; I simply wonder if the very fact that one culture considers another irrational re: their taboos might not be a tip-off to reexamine things.
For homosexuality in our society, we would have to ask the reasons why it was taboo, and the reasons why it now isn't, in order to establish whether it is likely to lead to the erosion of further taboos. As discussed in this thread...
http://www.barbelith.com/topic/16578
I'll check it out, thanks.
...some people draw a line with everything on their side of it as 'good' and everything on the other side as 'bad'. Seems it is these individuals that are most likely to say that the acceptance of homosexuality is likely to lead to an irreversible increase in permissiveness, paedophilia, cannibalism etc. But that's really just paranoia.
Lead to? No. Be indictative of the possibility of? Absolutely. It isn't paranoid to speculate on culture shifts in light of what we know about the history of such shifts. Of course its absurd to say "if we allow gay marriage today, cannibalism follows tomorrow". Is it so far fetched to say "if one tightly-held belief can change, so can another"?
Equally I think the view that to have any taboos will inevitably lead to the acceptance of all taboos is also paranoid. For one thing, you've given examples of ex-taboos which are now considered absurd. And yet we still have others. So some things will never again be taboo, but taboos generally will always exist.
I'll grant that all taboos do not inevitably follow from all others. I'll grant that taboos are in flux and will, perhaps, always exist in some form. Neither point gets to the heart of my question:
"Is it therefore the case that our own culture's disdain and revulsion for things like paedophilia is irrational?"
If you're looking at taboos as a social construct, perhaps the question of what function they serve in a society would be an interesting one.
Indeed, it would...wonder if that might be fodder for a second thread?
I think your definition of rationality as "the pursuit of consistency" is an excellent one. As for your questions about what essential precepts we could retain and build upon, I would recommend reading every major work in the history of philosophy as a good starting point
Thanks 
As far as the homework goes, I did the reading, as I figure many people here, yourself included, have. No firm answers yet... unless I skimmed that section. I'm trying to elicit some synthesis from the local crew.
But for the example you gave of "prevention of harm", it's rather defensive, a 'what we can get away with' based view. Perhaps the "promotion of good" would be more positive, although perhaps slightly harder to define. However, one of Plato's dialogues has Socrates talking about embracing suffering now to gain greater pleasure later, and too strong an idea of "prevention of harm" might get in the way of the operation of this principle. Also, how do you judge prevention of harm? Was WW2 prevention of harm?
The problem with 'promotion of good' is that taboo as a subject is inherently negative; it tells us what we mustn't. I see the problems with 'prevention of harm'...even stronger and more specific than WW2 is Hiroshima. I think it was unnecessary. Ike shared my opinion. Others are...disinclined to agree.
So very interesting and important questions, although the scope of the thread is maybe a little broad at this point.
True, true...maybe I'll take salient points from here and knock together a new thread....
Paedophilia, then, is a pretty easy example to argue. Sure, historically and in different cultures around the world, consensual sex has involved ten-year-olds, probably without any harm. However, these are children brought up in a culture where they will have had to grow up faster and have already learnt, even by that young age, the ramifications of sexual activity, a culture where sex with ten-year-olds is considered perfectly acceptable, etc etc etc; under the circumstances, there are much less likely to be negative effects on the child. Now, consider what the effect would be if a child with no idea of the significance of sex in the culture in which ze lives is talked into "consensual" sex by an adult whose motives, because of what is considered acceptable in the culture, will inevitably be entirely predatory, self-serving and almost certainly abusive. It starts to seem a little bit more sinister...
Absolutely, but that does admit the possibility, perhaps not in our culture but somewhere, of a "harmless paedophilia", and I sense the current taboo would be galled even at that. If we look and say "No, in that case, its okay" then our belief is immediately more rational...and correspondingly, we have eroded the strength of our broad taboo.
... But then again, now I think about it, is that an aspect of taboo or just basic morality? Taboo, surely, is something which not just brands something immoral, but also as such a "sacred" area that it's untouchable, undiscussable. With that in mind... well, I'd personally argue that yes, we could do with getting rid of any taboos at once. A la everyone's favourite example, Mr. Morris showing up the ridiculousness of the taboo surrounding paedophilia and how it's impossible to talk sensibly about the subject because people inevitably just start screaming and irrationally accusing anyone attempting to engage in discussion of advocating horrendous atrocities. I think it'd be rather nice to be able to discuss any subject safe in the knowledge that it's not going to be plastered all over the front page of the News of the World the next morning as a disgusted shocker story.
Precisely, Mlle Angelique. I don't have a problem with restriction; however, irrational, reflexive retriction makes me nervous and worried. The latter has been too often the catalyst for atrocity.
Intolerance for homosexuality is being phased out into a bigotry, a process which is now nearly complete.
AhahahahaHAHAAAAAA... er, not quite.
Granted, things seem to be in a rough spot, even more so in the States than here in Canada. However, historically, the moment people even start asking the question "is this actually wrong?" tends to be the moment before the state change from taboo. The fact that Alan Turing committed suicide and Elton John didn't; the wave of slow but steady gay marriage movements around the globe; Queer as Folk; these things all tell me that if people are more concerned about Janet Jackson's nipple than KY Jelly jokes on Will and Grace, then the shift is much closer than any of us realize. |
