What's lewd for you, isn't lewd for me...
Today's offering of People & Things by Peter Wickham is a classic example of moral relativism (you know, that self-defeating logical fallacy that's all the rage now).
I quote at lenghth, "To the best of my knowledge, public vulgarity of the type Sir John is concerned with is already illegal, however, no one has ever been prosecuted for the simple reason that there is no objective standard or proverbial line, which persons can be said to have crossed. Moreover, the development of such a definition would be an exercise in futility since there are many variations on such activity, which is clearly now the "norm" in society and for the benefit of those who are unconvinced, a norm is determined based on the typical behaviour of the masses within a particular context and in this context, lewd behaviour is the rule and not the exception (emphasis mine)."
The above is a correct true definition of a norm. But this is not the point. Because a behaviour is a norm, does not make it right or moral. If the masses behave crassly, they are still crass people. If the masses do a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
With condemnation being branded as immoral; the writer then promptly goes on to condemn Sir John. WTH? It no longer surprises me that Bajans buy "new furnitures."
I quote at lenghth, "To the best of my knowledge, public vulgarity of the type Sir John is concerned with is already illegal, however, no one has ever been prosecuted for the simple reason that there is no objective standard or proverbial line, which persons can be said to have crossed. Moreover, the development of such a definition would be an exercise in futility since there are many variations on such activity, which is clearly now the "norm" in society and for the benefit of those who are unconvinced, a norm is determined based on the typical behaviour of the masses within a particular context and in this context, lewd behaviour is the rule and not the exception (emphasis mine)."
The above is a correct true definition of a norm. But this is not the point. Because a behaviour is a norm, does not make it right or moral. If the masses behave crassly, they are still crass people. If the masses do a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
With condemnation being branded as immoral; the writer then promptly goes on to condemn Sir John. WTH? It no longer surprises me that Bajans buy "new furnitures."
