Challenging Social Norms

Social norms. Sometimes they can be good, sometimes not so good.  For this discussion I want to break society down into two components which I will call "society" and "government".  The government is suppose to represent the majority views of a society but, as history has taught us, it doesn't always.  This is assuming that a society's majority views are the basis for a government's laws and regulations.  For Christians and for America's particular government, Judaeo-Christian values should be seen as the basis of government, but as this is changing (or has mostly changed) and because these values themselves can be influenced by a society's views, I am going to assume that the majority view as the usual standard. 

There is a deep problem with accepting a society's majority opinion as the basis for a government and its laws and regulations that should be fairly obvious.  Sometimes a majority view, or the moral set of values held by the majority, is simply wrong.  This was the case, to name two examples, with Nazi Germany during WWII and the Africa-American slave industry in the United States (as well as France, Britain and other countries).  These two examples are different only in that one mostly operated from the top down, from the government to society and the other bottom up, from the society to the government.  This is a simplistic view, I admit, and maybe not entirely accurate, but I think it is accurate enough for this discussion.

 Judaeo-Christian values bring its own set of problems to the table is that both of these examples were upheld or justified using the Judeo-Christian Bible, demonstrating that even a supposed outside, non-biased source such as "God said" can be heavily influenced or commandeered by society and the government, mostly (or entirely) because what God said must be interpreted by the vary society and government it is suppose to be the basis for.  This is true of any such source, religious or otherwise.

The fact is, whatever we base our society's values on will result in a messy, sometimes unpredictable and difficult process that will take continual reevaluation by its participants for the duration of its history.  Sometimes outside sources will destroy a society (i.e., a country) or sometimes a societie's own choices in what it values as moral absolutes will result in its eventual downfall.  I'll let true historians and anthropologists battle that one out.  Suffice it to say, what a society values most will have actual, serious and sometimes dire consequences.

This is why it is important for a constant reevaluation. But it is also why it is important for those in a society or its government to initiate change when a moral value or ethic is seen to be "off".  Regardless of how we come to our values, we can all admit there are some that are not subjective nor should be left to the opinions of society or the government.  Values that are inalienable, sometimes called "rights".  A few of those might be: The right to happiness, a right to be free and a right to life. Few people would serious challenge these rights and would consider these good moral values.  The question comes in when we begin to discuss how they are granted.  For example, should a criminal have the right to personal freedom?  What about conscription during a time of war?  Should a murderer be forced to forfeit his right to life?  What about abortion and (again) war?  I can't answer these questions directly, but these are were a society and/or government will need to find answers that it values.  And these questions are where most members of a society find the need to reevaluate and question. 

Just because a whole or majority of a society does or believes something does not make it right, as I've already mentioned.  This goes for the government as well.  Where would our society in America be if no one challenged the correctness of things like slavery and a woman's right to vote?  It was excepted by the majority (both in society and government) that both were right morally and ethically.  But thanks to individuals who challenged these views and helped others to see the need to change them, slavery was abolished and the suffrage movement won the day.  Most people do not realize that at one time conscription during time of war was mandatory for everyone.  That is, conscientious objection was illegal.  If you refused to fight you would go to prison or possibly forfeit your life. But thanks to the efforts of some, mostly religious, groups this changed. 

What this all means is that although a society and its government hold a majority view, regardless of how fast or the reasons why it is held, it must be open to challenge and change.  Some views, such as those we consider inalienable rights, will never change (and for good reasons).  But how we apply those rights and to whom they will and how they will be applied, sometimes must change.  And it is the responsibility of the society and/or the government to do this.  For a society to simply follow the majority view or the government or the government to refuse its responsibilities to do what is right and acquiesces to a mob is a perfect way to doom a society to some of its worst propensities.  Society needs people who will initiate change and a government that will both listen and, when needed, change for the good. 

Such is the case with animal rights.  A majority view, tradition, the government, social mores, morals and ethics have left animals to be consider property, tools and commodities. But is this right?  Is this majority and governmental view right?  This is the battle that is going on right now.  And the next big step for our own society hinges upon the outcome.  My personal view is that animals have just as much right to some, if not all, those things we call inalienable as they can be applied to animals and their capacity (i.e., society may consider the right to vote as inalienable, but an animal cannot vote, so there is no reason to apply this right not animals).  As such I and a minority number of people in our society and those around the world, have reevaluated our society's stance on the matter and have taken it upon ourselves to challenge, in anyway possible, the current majority view.  And as the government is clearly on the side of the majority view, we are also forced to challenge and, as the need arise, stand against our government.   My hope is that just as other big challenges to the pervading views resulted in widespread acceptance of another view, so too the fight for the rights of animals and an understanding of their sentience will also result in widespread change.  The important thing is that we challenge the social norms and, if we think these challenges important, stick to our guns no matter how long the fight drags on.  History has shown us that change, big change, is possible.