There is no good and evil. There are only normal and deviant behaviors. Use incentives to increase "the good" in an environment.
There is no good and evil. There are only normal and deviant behaviors.
The goal in my opinion shouldn't be to label behaviors good or evil but to create environments which provide the right incentives for good behaviors to emerge rather than evil. Remember "good" is just normal and "evil" is just deviant. Behavioral normalization is what most people recognize as promotion of "good behavior".
Some of us have genes which if we are put in certain environments then the behaviors from our behavioral spectrum or palette emerge at different probabilities according to these genes. By luck or fate we are placed in initial environments and if we survive these environments then we might get the chance to choose environments due to understanding of what we are capable of. Young people are often not given much of a chance at life, born into bad environments, with a set of genes which allow for some of the deviant behavior to emerge. The deviant behavior is more likely to emerge in the environments which reward or promote or provoke those kinds of behaviors.
I don't think censoring games or content has much of an impact. It might or might not be true that content desensitizes but I don't think visceral reaction is a substitute for morality or for self control. We can of course debate and discuss that but I will agree that not everyone needs to be in every kind of environment. If a certain environment is not for you because you know it will bring out the worse in you then it's best to do what you can to avoid that environment.
I like where you are going with this one but think additional counterarguements can be explored through the avenues of psychiatry (psychiatric survivors- they have a different opinion on what it means to 'normalize behaviour) and governments, who sometimes seem to want to both normalize behaviour, and change the base line of what normal is.
Just food for thought. I am always a big fan of an arguement that starts in with some scientific thought to push the boundaries of religious interpretations.
In my own personal experience "psychiatry" has been only harmful. This doesn't mean psychiatry does not help the people whom it is helping but I cannot speak about it helping me in a positive way so I don't choose to discuss the topic of psychiatry.
I know psychiatry promotes "behavioral normalization" but it also relies on labels, passes stigmas to people, and creates psychological and financial harm by those stigmas.
Rather than be critical of psychiatry when I know there are people who dedicate their lives to helping people using the tool of psychiatry I prefer to take on a more constructive and respectful tone toward well meaning psychiatrists. Political psychiatry I don't particularly like.
Governments, psychiatrists, these are people who work for society to promote the norms of the society they work for. When you say people want to change the baseline of what normal behavior is then you are talking about radicals, reformists, activists, revolutionaries, avant garde. To change cultural trends is the role of thought leaders and culture jammers. Like with journalism the social risks are extremely high and there may even be direct physical consequences as people don't always appreciate or understand.
I'll leave the "change the culture" articles to people who are focused on that. My posts are mostly about surviving the culture and being resilient. Survive whatever it is and whatever the environment brings. Changing the environment often requires high risks, sacrifices, and warfare, which can decrease the ability to survive by creating a very toxic environment until the conflict ends.
That's exactly what I was getting at.. Maybe normalization isn't the word we want here for the 'good' but something else?
Anyway, food for thought. Great post.
The problem is I have no ability to determine what good or bad is due to it being a subjective opinion. The only way we know something is good is due to the fact that a lot of people like it. That would make good = popular which is problematic. If good is simply "normal" then it's more because everyone does it then the consequences for doing it will not be negative (because everyone does it) while if very few people do something the consequences can be infinitely harsh.
Jay walking is something everyone does so the consequence usually isn't a long prison sentence. Deviant behavior is something people don't often do so it surprises people. This surprise is what creates the harshest reactions from people at least based on what I can see.
From what I can see, most societies like behavior which is (normal) and seek to enforce behavioral normalization. I don't see any morals behind most societies. I could of course be wrong but this is just what I can and and can't see.
morals in society: that's a longer discussion over beers by a fire pit :D
I took an interesting course on it.. It's like fish in water. do they see the water? Do they go 'hmmm, i don't see any water in society?'
One of my all time favourite courses when I was on a coursear blitz a few years back..
https://www.coursera.org/learn/moralities
This is an article about the teacher's work..
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceonreligion/2012/06/does-religion-make-us-moral/
I'm not religious, but I am fascinated with religion, spirituality, morality and human interactions..
Apologies, I do tend to go on and on about it
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
img credz: pixabay.com
Nice, you got an awesome upgoat, thanks to @dana-edwards
BuildTeam wishes everyone a great Christmas and bullish Holidays
Want a boost? Minnowbooster's got your back!
Excellent article @dana-edwards and I'm happy I followed you 😊